0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Which specific scientists (names please) are discussing the common sense logic presented in my threads on this subject?
the most pressing immediate existential threat currently facing humanity, nuclear weapons?
Should We Fire All The Scientists?
I'm aware that we should try to mitigate the risks of a future disaster, but telling us that scientists are useless because we might all die in the future is pretty inane.
Have a look at: https://www.cser.ac.uk/team/I heard one of their staff interviewed recently - he seemed pretty balanced about a range of risks, covering a wide range of short and long-term probabilities.
I applaud moves to reduce stocks of nuclear weapons - the degree of overkill is extraordinary.
But I think the problem here is the politicians, not the scientists they direct.
The current US president has taken steps in that direction, as is apparent in his choice of the heads of several (previously) science-based government agencies. Did you vote for him, Tanny?
Have a look at: https://www.cser.ac.uk/team/
Here is that interview with a representative from the Center for Study of Existential Risk - it was on the Naked Scientists podcast from 24th August 2017.
"Huw - Well, what we need are scientific and technological whistleblowers. The kind of people who are thinking in a slightly abnormal way; they see something that other people don’t see. We need to make it possible for them to put up their hand and get listened to in those sorts of circumstances."
Connie - Slowing down science sounds like 1) very hard to do, it kind of feels like a runaway train at times and 2) like something that people aren’t going to want to do. Is there really an appetite for this and a response within the community?
But I think the same can be said for the broader societal context that if scientists want to continue to experience the support of the public then they have to not just produce results that are reliable and not fraudulent, which is of course true, but they also have to think about their relationship between science and society, and the implications of their work for the broader society.
Whatever we do about existential risk, I can’t emphasize enough how unlikely most of these scenarios and mass panic over minute possibilities does not seem helpful.
Otherwise, outside their field of expertise they (scientists) are no different from you.
Well, slow down, back up, and do the logic. I'll plead guilty to being inane if that assists this process.1) The knowledge explosion is generating more and more knowledge at a faster and faster rate.2) More and more knowledge equals more and more power.3) More and more power leads to a growing number of powers capable of crashing civilization. 4) Every power of that scale will have to be managed successfully every day forever, because a single failure a single time with a single such power makes our other successes irrelevant.5) Few of our cultural leaders are taking any of this seriously. As evidence, we recently had a presidential campaign where the immediate existential threat from nuclear weapons was barely mentioned. SUMMARY: Given the above, a continuation of the current course can be reasonably proposed to be leading towards civilization collapse. If that is true, what is the point of the research being done today?If you prefer, think of this in graph form. Plot the ever accelerating growth of human power against the incremental (if that) growth of human maturity. Watch as the lines diverge over time.
I'm well aware of what your argument is, but it does not necessarily follow that a single mistake will kill all of humanity.
That depends strongly upon how many nuclear warheads are exchanged and their respective yields.
It also does not follow that knowledge gains in all areas of science will result in existential threats.
Should we stop studying flowers because someone somewhere might figure out how to make a genocide weapon with them?
More powers of that scale are emerging at ever faster rates, each of which will have to be successfully managed every day forever.
We should stop studying flowers because that's a dumb thing to be focused on while one has a loaded gun pointed at one's head.
Forever? No. Just long enough for us to establish independent colonies on other planets and satellites.
No conceivable nuclear disaster on Earth will be big enough to reach out to even our Moon, much less other planets. If we can survive that long, we will be much harder to kill as a species.
And thus we have reverted back to the, "don't do anything fun or interesting because we might die tomorrow" argument...
How does having a colony on Mars solve the problem of civilization collapse on Earth, far and away the best place for humans to live?
Also, if we migrate off the planet, we will simply bring all these same challenges with us where ever we go.
As already reported a number of times, I'm not discussing species extinction, but civilization collapse.
Nobody made any such argument. Apparently you're not able to grasp the case which is being made, so you're resorting to arguing against assertions of your own invention. If you're a twenty something, ok, fair enough, I couldn't have gotten any of this at that age either. Lots of smart people of all ages don't get this, because they are relying on authorities who also don't get it. This conversation might be compared to going to the doctor for a routine physical and finding out that we have a serious form of cancer. The natural first reaction for any of us is likely to be, "this can't be right, there must be some mistake". Or it might be compared to the person who shouts "Fire!!" in a crowded theater, thus spoiling the movie for everyone. The value of that shouting depends entirely on whether there really is a fire.
It wouldn't, but it would preserve the knowledge and technology that we've accumulated over time and thus not make all of our scientific progress in vain. The scientists on Mars, Venus, Europa, etc. could keep chugging along regardless of what happens to civilizations on Earth.
The chance of a nuclear holocaust happening on all of our Solar System colonies simultaneously would be practically zero.
Civilizations have collapsed many times in the past and no doubt will continue to do so in the future.
If we have colonies elsewhere in the Solar System, that nullifies your argument that a nuclear disaster on Earth will make all of our knowledge gains be in vain.
You are arguing that we should stop studying flowers because there is a threat of civilization collapse, yes? So what are you saying, exactly? That we should stop any and all activities that don't have anything to do with stopping a theoretical nuclear holocaust?