Naked Science Forum
General Discussion & Feedback => Just Chat! => Topic started by: Tanny on 02/11/2017 13:35:58
-
Is there any point to scientific research? Should we fire all the scientists?
For today, the value of the work being done by scientists all over the world depends upon a single thing, that we avoid nuclear war. Over the longer run, the value of research depends upon us successfully managing all other powers the scale of nukes every day forever.
If we fail at managing the vast powers we already have created, and will continue to create, then most or all of what is learned by today's research will likely be swept away in a crash of civilization, and thus has no value. As example, if a safe is going to fall on my head tomorrow then what I learn today has no value because I won't be here to put what has been learned to constructive use.
Thus, the value of today's scientific research depends entirely on the question of whether we can manage the civilization threatening powers generated by science.
This forum serves as a good example of the brilliant blindness of the scientific community. Observe how all of you are endlessly engaged in discussion of technical details with little to no interest in where this process is leading, or whether the process has any value. The conversations are intelligent, but blind. And it's not just members here, it's the whole scientific community.
If I were to propose the existence of a god, you would reasonably ask for proof. In that same spirit, I am challenging the "science clergy" to provide proof that their discoveries have value, that is, won't be swept away in a coming crash of civilization. I respectfully decline to accept that value on faith. And I am questioning why we should pay people who can't demonstrate the value of their work in a convincing manner, and typically won't even try.
Here's what I mean by "science clergy". Watch how few if any scientists here or elsewhere will meet this request for proof head on in a serious thoughtful manner. Observe how, if they engage at all, they will offer an "above it all" defense, and attempt to sweep the challenge aside with a lazy wave of the hand and a few cliches. That is, look closely at how they hope we will accept the value of their work on faith, just as they do.
Scientists are not bad people, that's not the problem. The problem is that, like all the rest of us, their intelligence goes so far and then it ends. The problem is that the reductionist nature of science means that most scientists are people with a natural talent for burrowing deep in to a narrow topic, which seems to make them uniquely unqualified to analyze the big picture bottom line.
If the bottom line is that what is being learned by today's research is going to be swept away in a coming crash, and may even cause that crash, then....
Why are we paying for that information?
-
All , is a very precise word. Why on Earth would we sack/fire all the scientists?
There are many scientists who work in areas that are needed such as medicines and energy efficiency. Not all science is dogma.
You are correct though if we have a nuclear war or an ending war as I considerate it, there is little point. However if we all thought on them lines, we might as well fire/sack everyone from every job there is, their jobs also being pointless.
-
There are many scientists who work in areas that are needed such as medicines and energy efficiency.
I would agree that it's easier to make the case for research that can be put to immediate constructive use. The longer the time frame being considered the more challenging it becomes. As example, what's the justification for spending billions on Higgs Boson research?
You are correct though if we have a nuclear war or an ending war as I considerate it, there is little point. However if we all thought on them lines, we might as well fire/sack everyone from every job there is, their jobs also being pointless.
Shouldn't we all be thinking along these lines, given that the collapse of civilization is a very real possibility that could happen literally at any moment? Wars have been a consistent pattern in human history since at least the invention of agriculture. Why should we assume that pattern has ended?
The problem I think is that we are making the mistake of assuming the future will be like the past. You know, we assume we will continue to have wars, and continue to recover from them. Intellectually we know this may not be true, but emotionally we cling to this outdated notion because it provides hope, it tells us what we want to hear.
At least most scientific research is based on this outdated idea, that we will be able to fix whatever we break, thus civilization will continue and the research done today will be preserved, passed on, built upon etc.
I'm proposing that scientists are uniquely unqualified to consider the inconvenient new reality being created by the knowledge explosion, because to do so is to put their careers in jeopardy. But in spite of this glaring built-in weakness, scientists still have a LOT of cultural authority, and we tend to look to them for answers to such questions.
Perhaps instead of firing the scientists we should just fire their cultural authority? For example, perhaps we should view them like we would highly trained car mechanics, and not expect credible commentary from them regarding the knowledge explosion as a whole?
-
As example, what's the justification for spending billions on Higgs Boson research?
I was just saying something similar to my friend about LIGO , unless there is some goal at the end . To me money would be best invested into an escape plan, for we are prisoners on this rock and don't even realise it. We await our death sentences from our life imprisonment or our self destructive nature. A nuclear deterrent should not b against each other, it should be aimed at the sky just in case.
Our goal suppose to be survival but corporate intervention rules the world.
Perhaps instead of firing the scientists we should just fire their cultural authority?
I do not think you understand, the government is ''science'' and the poor old scientists have little say. How do you fire the government without a civil war?
I'm proposing that scientists are uniquely unqualified to consider the inconvenient new reality being created by the knowledge explosion, because to do so is to put their careers in jeopardy.
A good point, but the stereo typical scientist is needed and can learn the new. For example I am not a scientist but have some revolutionary ideas that are hard to consider because they are so advanced and ahead of the times.
I would need to work side by side a typical scientist so we can learn each other.
So I do not feel their jobs are in jeopardy they are still a part of the same team, our team.
-
For example I am not a scientist but have some revolutionary ideas that are hard to consider because they are so advanced and ahead of the times.
It's people like you who are leading us to the end times!!! :-)
So I do not feel their jobs are in jeopardy they are still a part of the same team, our team.
I agree, their jobs are not in jeopardy. But should they be? Should we just keep on blindly funding a knowledge explosion without knowing where it is taking us?
-
It's people like you who are leading us to the end times!!! :-)
Well not really, because I am very different to the normal crowd. I can dissociate myself from all the drama . I believe we can make a force field that Nuclear missiles will bounce off. I am the sort of person that wants to end wars and have one united world.
I agree, their jobs are not in jeopardy. But should they be? Should we just keep on blindly funding a knowledge explosion without knowing where it is taking us?
It depends what we are funding, if in ways it helps humanity then yes it is well worth the funding. However if it is blind science then of course why bother to begin with?
Funding dead ends is a bad long term investment but it can have short term success.
-
Obviously, we should fire all the artists for the same reason: if we all die in a nuclear war, what's the point of art.
And, of course, the same is true of medicine- pretty pointless if we are all dead.
Teachers- not a valid career really is it?- after all, the kids they teach will die anyway.
In fact it's perfectly obvious that, if we are all going to die then there's not much point doing anything.
Do you see how this idea isn't getting anything done?
-
I would rather fire all of the pseudo-scientists who post seemingly nonsensical obviously false 'science' ideas. Ideally into space.
-
I'm proposing that scientists are uniquely unqualified to consider the inconvenient new reality being created by the knowledge explosion
How do you test that assertion against several similar claims?:
- I'm proposing that politicians are uniquely unqualified to consider the inconvenient new reality being created by the knowledge explosion
- I'm proposing that clergy are uniquely unqualified to consider the inconvenient new reality being created by the knowledge explosion
- I'm proposing that the public are uniquely unqualified to consider the inconvenient new reality being created by the knowledge explosion
- I'm proposing that Biddelonians are uniquely unqualified to consider the inconvenient new reality being created by the knowledge explosion
- I'm proposing that many people with a university degrees are uniquely unqualified to consider the inconvenient new reality being created by the knowledge explosion
The fact is that these are all unreasonably broad generalizations which are provably false in particular cases.
What we can say is that the culture of science (and those who practice it), starting from the beginnings of Agriculture have tackled larger and larger projects, at higher and higher cost, which have had a larger and larger impact on the planet. To the point where humanity is now consuming resources far faster than they can be replenished.
In the long term, this is ultimately unsustainable unless we really cut back on our energy and raw materials budget, or discover an energy source like nuclear fusion. Controlled fusion is a massive challenge, which is absorbing large amounts of scientific effort (see one critique here (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71403.0)), and is based on research at the LHC and its ancestors.
In the shorter term, a number of widespread disasters (including human-induced ones like wars) could also result in a severe population crash.
The money spent on the LHC, LIGO or ITER is large, but almost nothing compared to how much we spend on motor vehicles, cosmetics, armies or soft drinks/soda.
I suggest that with a human population now over 7 billion, it is mostly continual advances in responsible use of science and technology that is holding off the human crash (the animal, plant, fish and insect crash is already underway).
It is irresponsible use of science and technology that could bring the human crash earlier - witness egocentric and narcissistic politicians launching nuclear rants at each other from opposite sides of the globe.
-
Obviously, we should fire all the artists for the same reason: if we all die in a nuclear war, what's the point of art. And, of course, the same is true of medicine- pretty pointless if we are all dead. Teachers- not a valid career really is it?- after all, the kids they teach will die anyway
Artists, doctors and teachers will not be providing the means by which civilization will be crashed. Artists, doctors and teachers all provide immediate value which doesn't depend upon the future.
If scientists wish to keep their jobs, they will have to display more compelling reasoning than this.
-
Evan, thanks for engaging, much appreciated. Please forgive (and maybe scold) if I become over enthusiastic, obviously I have an incurable obsession with this topic which sometimes leads to impatience, and other undesirable by-products.
How do you test that assertion against several similar claims?:
You skipped over WHY I claimed that scientists are uniquely unqualified to see the big picture of the knowledge explosion which they are leading. Again, the reductionist nature of science requires people whose natural talents lie in being specialists in narrow topic areas.
It doesn't automatically follow that those who are expert at developing knowledge (detail people) are also expert at understanding where the knowledge explosion is taking humanity (big picture question). Being an expert specialist on technical details does not automatically qualify one to see the big picture, and may in fact be a liability. On top of that, scientists probably have an understandable financial bias in favor of the knowledge explosion status quo continuing, which may blur their vision further.
Should we accept the authority of scientists when they are speaking to their narrow specialized field? Yes. They've done that homework, and we in the public have not.
Should we accept the authority of scientists when they speak to the knowledge explosion as a whole, where it is taking us etc? Maybe we should, IF they can explain how we will successfully manage every existential scale power every day forever. That's the bottom line that any credible commentator must address, because if the knowledge explosion status quo continues unedited that will be the deciding question.
Here's what would reassure me. Clean up the messes we've already made before continuing to make new ones. So for instance, the vast majority of research funding might be directed at the nuclear threat, and global warming threat. If we fixed those two problems, ok, that would be evidence that we can proceed with some confidence. But of course, this proposal will be rejected out of hand.
What we can say is that the culture of science (and those who practice it), starting from the beginnings of Agriculture have tackled larger and larger projects, at higher and higher cost, which have had a larger and larger impact on the planet. To the point where humanity is now consuming resources far faster than they can be replenished.
I would grant that this problem could conceivably be solved by science. However, we should squarely face the fact that we may not even make it to this problem. It's probably a race between the two.
In the long term, this is ultimately unsustainable unless we really cut back on our energy and raw materials budget, or discover an energy source like nuclear fusion.
The development of a totally free completely clean unlimited energy source would result in the economy taking off like a rocket, causing us to burn through other resources at an ever faster pace. Nuclear fusion would be an amazing TECHNICAL accomplishment, but it's effect would be mostly to simply move the problem from one box to another.
Do you see how you've intelligently addressed the detail, while missing the larger picture? It's not just you, it's the scientific community generally, and the larger culture too.
I suggest that with a human population now over 7 billion, it is mostly continual advances in responsible use of science and technology that is holding off the human crash (the animal, plant, fish and insect crash is already underway).
It was the well intentioned intelligent responsible use of science and technology which has caused the animal, plant, fish and insect crash. You know, we didn't do this on purpose, we thought we were making advances.
It is irresponsible use of science and technology that could bring the human crash earlier - witness egocentric and narcissistic politicians launching nuclear rants at each other from opposite sides of the globe.
Again, respectfully, you're missing the larger picture. Egocentric and narcissistic politicians didn't have the ability to crash modern civilization until the knowledge explosion gave them that power. We are developing more powers of this enormous scale as fast as we can, and egocentric and narcissistic politicians will still be here when those ever larger powers arrive.
The logic math here is ruthlessly simple, which is why I get frustrated when intelligent people like scientists don't get it. If we keep going in the current direction, it's only a matter of time until some collection of insane people use the ever growing powers to bring the house down. No one can say exactly who, when, or how, but we can say with great confidence that it will happen sooner or later if we stay on the current course.
As example, say we left a loaded gun on a table in an elementary school. No one can predict when tragedy will strike, but we know that sooner or later it will. Thus, we don't leave guns lying around schools. We don't give kids powers that they can not reliably manage.
But we are determined to give the adults who were only recently children as much power as we possibly can as fast as we possibly can.
-
Should we fire the funders of science instead?
Imagine a giant asteroid was discovered on a collision course with Earth. Imagine that the funders of science argued that we have to stick with the status quo, and that we can't radically shift funding priorities to address this existential threat. Imagine that no one was really even talking about shifting our funding priorities, that life went on pretty much as always, and most of us were entirely content with that arrangement.
1) Would you consider that insane?
2) How is it really any different than our approach to nuclear weapons?
-
Should we fire the funders of science instead?
Then all the scientists would be sacked anyway because there would be no funding.
-
if a safe is going to fall on my head tomorrow then what I learn today has no value because I won't be here to put what has been learned to constructive use.
Well if you had learned about the problems of safe/fhead meetings you would not waist your time. I would start a scientific investigation into why safes fall on your head. Publish a paper on safe/head relations, and produce a comprehensive countermeasure to stop safe/head collisions including not to walk under ladders, and look up when around tall buildings.
It is true though that science does seem to be leading itself and us into destruction. Money makes the world do around, money employs scientists to make more money at the expense of everything else. If there was no money there would be no scientists, and scientists are only there becquse money wants them to be.
-
This is about like arguing that you shouldn't buy groceries because you might die in a car crash on the way home from the supermarket and therefore won't be able to use them.
-
This is about like arguing that you shouldn't buy groceries because you might die in a car crash on the way home from the supermarket and therefore won't be able to use them.
Exactly. I dont see how this is a new theory either. More a a Gove/Trump type rant against 'experts'.
-
scientists are only there because money wants them to be.
Agreed. Scientists are doing the job we hired them to do, and they're doing it well. Thus, the title of this thread is reasonably debunked.
The problem is probably better described as follows...
We used to have a kind of blind belief in whatever the religious clergy said. We wanted to believe that somebody had the answers, and so we turned to those offering answers.
Somewhere along the way many people lost faith in the religious clergy, and so we went looking for another trusted authority to believe in. Scientists were doing a good job of providing the goodies we want, so we shifted our need for authority to them. Scientists are human like the rest of us, so they willingly accepted the role of being the new cultural authorities.
This system of authority works so long as it is limited to technical matters, the arena in which scientists have expertise. So, for instance, if we want to know if climate change is real and caused by humans, it is scientists we should ask because that's who is expert in such matters.
The problem arises when we look to scientists for answers to questions that scientists aren't that qualified to address. As example, after discussing this for years, I'm convinced that the science community really has no idea where the knowledge explosion is leading us, and more telling, they typically don't care. Scientists are doing the job we hired them to do, developing knowledge, and big picture topics like where the knowledge explosion is going are largely seen to be off topic. As example, such conversations make up a tiny fragment of this forum, they're almost invisible.
Scientists are like engine room mechanics doing a good job of keeping the knowledge explosion ship moving through the water at ever accelerating speeds. That's what we asked them to do, and they are doing it.
But nobody is steering the ship. All of us, including the scientists in the ship's engine room, are just plowing blindly forward through the water to whatever fate awaits us. Sooner or later we're going to crash in to something and sink, and it's probably unreasonable to blame the guys in the engine room for that.
-
I dont see how this is a new theory either.
Which branch of science is making a serious disciplined study of where the knowledge explosion is leading us?
Which specific scientists (names please) are discussing the common sense logic presented in my threads on this subject? As example, which specific scientist is attempting to answer this question....
How will we successfully manage every single one of the existential scale technologies (capable of crashing civilization) which will emerge from the knowledge explosion (at ever faster rates) every single day, forever?
Again, if we can't answer that question, there is no future for science. It's an extremely relevant question for the scientific community to be asking. Who specifically is asking it?
Which specific scientist is turning to their colleagues and publicly saying, "Hang on guys, we'd better slow down until we figure out where we're going"?
Which specific scientist is calling on us to redirect most scientific research to decisively address the most pressing immediate existential threat currently facing humanity, nuclear weapons? Which specific scientist is making the point that unless we solve that problem, and solve it soon, there's probably no point in continuing any scientific research? Who is saying this? What is their name?
The problem is this.
I am articulating the common sense bottom line logic which no scientist will be able to defeat. But I have no social authority, no credibility, no elevated status. And THAT is what human beings listen to, not logic.
These two things are related. It's because I have no status that I have nothing to lose, and am thus liberated to follow the logic trail where ever it goes, however inconvenient that may be. Few scientists are in that position. Most have children to feed, mortgages to pay, they can't afford to put their careers at risk by wandering too far outside of the sanctioned group consensus.
Those who can see can not influence, and those that could influence can not afford to see.
-
This is about like arguing that you shouldn't buy groceries because you might die in a car crash on the way home from the supermarket and therefore won't be able to use them.
The thread may be better described going over the heads of some readers. Many readers here are probably a third my age. It's not reasonable for us to expect everyone at every level of experience to be able to fully follow every conversation. The anonymous nature of the Net tends to create the impression that everyone participating is about the same, a compelling illusion.
-
The thread may be better described going over the heads of some readers. Many readers here are probably a third my age. It's not reasonable for us to expect everyone at every level of experience to be able to fully follow every conversation. The anonymous nature of the Net tends to create the impression that everyone participating is about the same, a compelling illusion.
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.
-
Which specific scientists (names please) are discussing the common sense logic presented in my threads on this subject?
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.
the most pressing immediate existential threat currently facing humanity, nuclear weapons?
I applaud moves to reduce stocks of nuclear weapons - the degree of overkill is extraordinary.
Some previous politicians have also seen that maintenance of this arsenal is hemorrhaging their economies over the long duration, and could kill them at a moments notice. This is a responsible application of existing technology, IMHO.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_START
However, the current US president seems opposed to nuclear weapons reductions, and instead expanding and modernising the nuclear arsenal. This is an irresponsible redirection of scientific resources, IMHO.
See: https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2017-03/news/trump-questions-us-nuclear-policies
As for North Korea, they are only imitating what the USA did about 80 years ago - only its much easier now, because everyone knows it is possible, and even, to a large extent, how to do it.
Nuclear weapons are not an effective protection against a rare existential threat (asteroids/comets), but they have become a real existential threat in themselves.
But I think the problem here is the politicians, not the scientists they direct.
Should We Fire All The Scientists?
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?
-
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.
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.
-
Evan, thanks for the links, I will investigate. Happy to learn more, and even happier to be wrong about all this.
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.
As far as you know, do they think it through to the bottom line question, which I propose to be...
How will we successfully manage every single one of the existential scale technologies (capable of crashing civilization) which will emerge from the knowledge explosion (at ever faster rates) every single day, forever?
I agree that many people are talking about the dangers that may emerge from this or that technology. That's good obviously, but I'm still looking for those who are focused on the danger presented by the knowledge explosion itself. That is, I am seeking scientists, and others, who are challenging our "more is better" relationship with knowledge, which I propose to be increasingly simplistic, outdated and dangerous. I'm not seeking agreement, nor do I expect to find it (been discussing this for years) anyone on the topic in any form is welcome.
I applaud moves to reduce stocks of nuclear weapons - the degree of overkill is extraordinary.
We've already reduced the stockpiles dramatically, but that doesn't really matter as there are plenty left to finish us off. One effect of reducing the stockpiles has been to put us to sleep, to induce the illusion that everything is under control.
But I think the problem here is the politicians, not the scientists they direct.
Respectfully, with apologies for being so annoying, this illustrates that you still don't get it, which makes you completely normal, even among the elites.
Knowledge empowers everybody.
As example, at the moment only governments have access to nukes, but that's not going to last. Nuclear weapons are not that hard to make, the only limiting factor is access to fissile material, and that's leaking out beyond government control, especially in Russia.
As example, genetic engineering is rapidly becoming easier and easier, cheaper and cheaper. It's only a matter of time before I'll be able to do it my garage.
As example, high school students can use today's primitive AI to hack in to government servers.
I would agree that it's inappropriate to demonize scientists for doing what we hire them to do, and thus the title of this thread is reasonably defined as trolling. The problem is better defined as being our entire culture failing to adapt to the revolutionary new environment being created by the knowledge explosion.
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?
How dare you accuse me of being a brain dead moron. :-) No, I did not vote for the Moron-In-Chief, I voted for Bernie. And then, I had to vote for Hillary. Let's hope we get some better choices the next time.
You're perhaps asking me this out an assumption that challenging the "more is better" knowledge explosion makes one a backward looking Luddite etc. But I'm looking forward, and challenging us to raise our game to adapt to the demanding new reality the knowledge explosion is rapidly creating. Those who want to stick with status quo paradigms of the past are the real Luddites.
-
Have a look at: https://www.cser.ac.uk/team/
Beginning to investigate this link, looks VERY relevant to this discussion. Many thanks for enhancing the thread with this link, more is welcome as your time permits.
So my next question is, how do we get some of those folks in to this thread?
I see a contact form, but know from experience my lack of academic credentials will prevent me from getting in the door. It would be far more effective for those of you who do have credentials to make the outreach, especially those of you who own and/or operate this forum.
I see they have a Facebook page, but Facebook has been deliberately designed to discourage in depth conversations, and that is what is needed. Forums are perfect, especially a science forum like this one designed to connect scientists and the public. Why shouldn't this forum be where the most intelligent online discussions of this topic are taking place? How do we make that happen?
-
Sorry for all the posts. Here's a specific constructive proposal which might help focus the conversation.
In the 1940s we had the massive Manhattan Project which spent billions bringing the brightest minds together for a crash program to develop nuclear weapons. Why don't we do the same thing today, in reverse?
Sure, that seems impossible. So did the original Manhattan Project, and they got it done anyway.
-
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.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/interviews/existential-risk-and-maverick-science
-
Here's the definition of "community" from the CSER site (emphasis mine).
https://www.cser.ac.uk/about-us/
"We foster a reflective, interdisciplinary, global community of academics, technologists and policymakers examining individual aspects of existential risk and coming together to integrate their insights."
What's missing from their "community" are the people who fund academics, technologists and policymakers, ie. the public. This seems to be a common problem on academic and scientist sites, the focus seems to typically be, 1) ignore the public, or 2) talk down to the public (they talk, we listen). The problem here is that nothing substantial can be accomplished without buy in from the broad population.
My first impression is that the Naked Scientist team might be in a good position to help close the gap between the CSER researchers and the general public. Your link suggests this process has already begun, and I cast my one little vote that it continue.
In an attempt to help further focus the marriage, I would repeat my assertion that there is little point to a discussion of science details unless the CSER project succeeds. The CSER project is not just one of very many science topics. It's basically the only one that matters, given that all else depends upon it.
-
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.
Reading this now, and see reference to "low probability/high impact events".
I would argue that if we look at the big picture of the knowledge explosion as a whole, instead of just particular technological scenarios, what we're really looking at is a high probability high impact event.
Each emerging technology is reasonably labeled a low probability threat in itself, but when we add them all up, and include the accelerating nature of their emergence, the odds would seem to change substantially.
What we should be focusing on is our "more is better" relationship with knowledge. This paradigm has worked in the past only because the knowledge available was quite limited, and thus did not exceed human management capacity, at least not fatally. The paradigm begins to fall apart as more knowledge is added at ever faster rates simply because there are hard limits to human maturity.
I'm not religious, but must admit to some fascination that this fundamental dynamic of the human condition was arguably predicted some 3,000 years ago in the story of Adam and Eve and the apple of knowledge.
-
More from the article linked above (emphasis mine)...
"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."
The article seems to do a very good job of highlighting the challenges faced by academics and scientists who are thinking outside the sanctioned group consensus. Thumbs up for that.
But the speakers seem not quite ready to make the logical leap that perhaps what is needed is for academics and scientists to pay more attention to those who aren't trapped inside these career pressures.
1) Are academics and scientists very well educated and intelligent? Yes. Thus it's logical to look to them for leadership, but....
2) Are academics and scientists also largely trapped inside careers that are likely to punish whistleblowers? Yes again. Thus it's equally logical to not look to them for leadership.
Being smart isn't enough. One also has to be free to follow the logic and evidence where ever it leads, however inconvenient that may be to the established power centers, ie. those paying one's salary.
-
From the article...
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?
After discussing this regularly online for ten years, a kind of casual sloppy market research, I would answer no. In the vast majority of cases when I've started threads about our "more is better" relationship with knowledge, it winds up being me against the entire forum. Most readers either have no idea what I'm talking about, or are instinctively and often passionately resistant. The reaction here on this forum is tame compared to the norm.
Is slowing down science hard to do? Yes, clearly that is true. For now. But revolutionary situations offer the opportunity for revolutionary change. As example, sooner or later somebody is going to set off a nuke in some major city and then, maybe, just maybe, the door will open to new thinking about the currently unthinkable.
-
From the article (emphasis mine)...
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.
Yes!
Solution: Stop talking TO us, and start talking WITH us. Think of the public as your employers, instead of as your students.
-
The article concludes...
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.
As noted above, here's the usual mistake of confusing the details with the bottom line. There is a low risk presented by each particular emerging technology, which is elevated to a HIGH risk when they are added altogether, and presented at ever faster rates.
It's kind of baffling how anyone can call the risk unlikely when the first existential scale technology, nuclear weapons, stands locked and loaded today ready to crash civilization within an hour at the press of a button.
If you want some more Halloween horror, remind yourself who has their finger on that button.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fassets.nydailynews.com%2Fpolopoly_fs%2F1.2712678.1468578209%21%2Fimg%2FhttpImage%2Fimage.jpg_gen%2Fderivatives%2Farticle_750%2Fgop-2016-trump.jpg&hash=c59797c86012a43c789fccd8a07da6c9)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2017%2F06%2F24%2F20%2F418D8B5400000578-0-image-a-26_1498331470522.jpg&hash=6dfbb1147e26177e42b1f3c9fa44fed8)
PS: Are those great photos or what? ;D
-
The problem doesn't lay in becoming a scientist Tanny.
It's being failable. Scientists are the same as you and me, they have their dreams and their needs. They can be turned, just as we can. But they have a instrument called peer review that try to keep them honest. They also have repeatable experiments on their side, and restrictions called 'physical laws' defining them. That doesn't state that a scientists research is moral, or for the good of Earth. But it at least put some restrain on them. Otherwise, outside their field of expertise they are no different from you.
Now, does that mean that scientists are any better than us. Not really, but they have a way of keeping themselves honest in what they say at least. It doesn't protect us from hurting ourselves though, through flawed research.
-
I agree with your post yor_on, and thanks for posting.
Otherwise, outside their field of expertise they (scientists) are no different from you.
Ok, so perhaps one purpose of this thread could be to more clearly specify what the field of expertise of the science community is. As a point of reference, we might refer to the article evan_au has linked us to:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/interviews/existential-risk-and-maverick-science
Are the scientists in that specific discussion operating on a different plane than the general public? Clearly they are more articulate than many people, but are they more insightful? Is the subject of the knowledge explosion as a whole included in their field of expertise? Or are scientists basically just human beings like the rest of us when contemplating questions of that scale? What are the boundaries of the cultural authority of the scientific community?
My argument is that when it comes to the details of this or that technology, scientists working in those specific fields should be recognized as authorities on those subjects.
On the other hand, when it comes to the knowledge explosion as a whole, granting them authority status may not be appropriate. It may instead represent we in the public being lazy and unwilling to think these things through for ourselves. We used to have that relationship with the religious clergy. We often couldn't be bothered to investigate the largest questions ourselves, so we waited for someone else to hand us the answers. It was easier to have faith in authority than to think.
The peer review and other checks and balances you speak of are a good thing, agreed. When it comes to some levels of this conversation, I am attempting to expand our definition of "peer". I think the academic community could benefit by more closely partnering with those outside of their ivory tower who don't have to worry about being made to look ridiculous.
If that's true, then we might put it in to action by trying to engage the CSER team in this thread and others like it here on this forum. Who here feels they would make a good ambassador?
-
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?
-
I'm well aware of what your argument is, but it does not necessarily follow that a single mistake will kill all of humanity.
I agree that human extinction is not very likely, even in a global nuclear war. In my comments I'm referring to the collapse of civilization. You know, some survive, but wish they were dead.
That depends strongly upon how many nuclear warheads are exchanged and their respective yields.
I'm not sure if this is true, but I heard recently that even a limited nuclear exchange between say, India and Pakistan, would result in enough nuclear winter phenomena to cause widespread crop failures, leading to widespread starvation and social chaos, leading to who knows what after that.
But anyway, we could solve the nuclear weapons issue completely, and would still face the same basic challenge, just not as urgently. More powers of that scale are emerging at ever faster rates, each of which will have to be successfully managed every day forever.
It also does not follow that knowledge gains in all areas of science will result in existential threats.
Agreed. Most of what will emerge from the knowledge explosion will be positive, and most of the threatening technologies will be successfully managed. Here's what you're missing...
That's no longer good enough.
When it comes to powers that can crash civilization, we will need to successfully manage every such power every day forever, because a single failure with a single existential scale power a single time will erase the ability to recover and learn from the mistake.
That's what is revolutionary about the new reality being created by the knowledge explosion. In the past we could make mistakes, fix the problem, clean up the mess and continue. What nuclear weapons are trying to teach us is that we are entering an era when that age old formula can no longer be counted on. One mistake one time with an existential scale power, game over.
It's not necessarily weapons that are the threat. As example, we launched the industrial revolution with the best of intentions. We just didn't see at the time that it might lead to the climate spiraling out of control.
Should we stop studying flowers because someone somewhere might figure out how to make a genocide weapon with them?
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.
-
More powers of that scale are emerging at ever faster rates, each of which will have to be successfully managed every day forever.
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.
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.
And thus we have reverted back to the, "don't do anything fun or interesting because we might die tomorrow" argument...
-
Forever? No. Just long enough for us to establish independent colonies on other planets and satellites.
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.
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.
As already reported a number of times, I'm not discussing species extinction, but civilization collapse.
And thus we have reverted back to the, "don't do anything fun or interesting because we might die tomorrow" argument...
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.
-
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?
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.
Also, if we migrate off the planet, we will simply bring all these same challenges with us where ever we go.
The chance of a nuclear holocaust happening on all of our Solar System colonies simultaneously would be practically zero.
As already reported a number of times, I'm not discussing species extinction, but civilization collapse.
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.
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.
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?
-
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.
Ok, fair enough, your intellectual point is taken, especially if you will agree in return that such colonies are a wildly unrealistic prospect at this time. You seem to be assuming that we will make it to the colony stage, sustainable (ie. including children) human outposts in very hostile environments fully independent of Earth. In even the best case scenario, that's not going to happen for quite a while.
Rather than bet on such a long shot, and surrender to the prospect of humans surrendering the best planet they are likely to ever have, wouldn't it be a bit more rational to face the challenge presented here and now by the knowledge explosion and conquer it?
I'm not arguing that we can't adapt to the new reality being creating by the knowledge explosion. I'm arguing that we currently show little serious interest in doing so.
The chance of a nuclear holocaust happening on all of our Solar System colonies simultaneously would be practically zero.
For about the tenth time, nuclear weapons are only the first existential scale technology to emerge. They do a great job of illustrating the far larger threat presented by the knowledge explosion, an endless parade of existential scale technologies.
Civilizations have collapsed many times in the past and no doubt will continue to do so in the future.
That will only happen if civilizations that collapse are in a position to recover. In the past that's always been true, because there was no way to crash all the civilizations at once.
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.
Let's talk about this again in 200 years, if we're still here to do the talking.
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?
Look, this is simple. Unusual perhaps, but still simple.
If I was walking around with a loaded gun in my mouth all day everyday, but preferred to talk about flowers, might you consider me insane?
-
Ok, fair enough, your intellectual point is taken, especially if you will agree in return that such colonies are a wildly unrealistic prospect at this time. You seem to be assuming that we will make it to the colony stage, sustainable (ie. including children) human outposts in very hostile environments fully independent of Earth. In even the best case scenario, that's not going to happen for quite a while.
Rather than bet on such a long shot, and surrender to the prospect of humans surrendering the best planet they are likely to ever have, wouldn't it be a bit more rational to face the challenge presented here and now by the knowledge explosion and conquer it?
I'm not arguing that we can't adapt to the new reality being creating by the knowledge explosion. I'm arguing that we currently show little serious interest in doing so.
Wanting something to be done about it to keep us from killing ourselves off before we become a multi-planet species is a good thing, but telling us that we should solve the problem by "firing the scientists" and keep us from learning anything new about science is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
For about the tenth time, nuclear weapons are only the first existential scale technology to emerge. They do a great job of illustrating the far larger threat presented by the knowledge explosion, an endless parade of existential scale technologies.
My same argument holds for other existential threats as well, because you're not going to wipe all planets out at once with a virus, gray goo or whatever else you imagine short of false vacuum decay or the like (if nature hasn't done that already, then we probably never will either).
That will only happen if civilizations that collapse are in a position to recover. In the past that's always been true, because there was no way to crash all the civilizations at once.
With the aid of civilizations that are still stable and advanced on other planets, they certainly would be able to recover. If not by reestablishing devastated civilizations, then by replacing them with colonists from other planets instead.
Let's talk about this again in 200 years, if we're still here to do the talking.
200 years isn't forever, so if we make it that far then we should be good.
If I was walking around with a loaded gun in my mouth all day everyday, but preferred to talk about flowers, might you consider me insane?
Maybe, but that's not an apt analogy to existential threats. If you think it is, then I presume that you are using every waking moment of your life trying to prevent civilization collapse and none of it listening to music, hanging out with friends, eating snacks, reading books or anything else that isn't strictly necessary for survival. If it's stupid to study flowers due to the threat of civilization collapse, then it's equally stupid to partake in any frivolous activities.
-
Albeit in a different thread I asked you why you think the scientists should be trying to solve an essentially political problem.
Are you able to answer the question in this thread?
-
Wanting something to be done about it to keep us from killing ourselves off before we become a multi-planet species is a good thing, but telling us that we should solve the problem by "firing the scientists" and keep us from learning anything new about science is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I plead guilty to a certain degree of rhetorical excess, but it did succeed at engaging you as planned. You can call me Dr. Troll if you want. :)
Actually, I'm arguing for learning something new, how to adapt to the revolutionary new situation created by the knowledge explosion. If scientists are willing to take on that challenge in earnest, they should keep their jobs. If they're going to keep blindly pounding on the outdated "more is better" paradigm without much concern as to where it's leading, maybe not.
My argument is basically, I'm not a Luddite, they are, to a significant and troubling degree.
With the aid of civilizations that are still stable and advanced on other planets, they certainly would be able to recover. If not by reestablishing devastated civilizations, then by replacing them with colonists from other planets instead
.
Again, your point is logically correct, but reveals a lack of seriousness about what is facing us now. It also reveals a deep lack of confidence in our ability to manage our own destiny on the best planet we are likely to ever have. Your solution is to run, mine is stay and fight and solve the problem. I think we can probably do that, but only if we try to.
Maybe, but that's not an apt analogy to existential threats. If you think it is, then I presume that you are using every waking moment of your life trying to prevent civilization collapse and none of it listening to music, hanging out with friends, eating snacks, reading books or anything else that isn't strictly necessary for survival. If it's stupid to study flowers due to the threat of civilization collapse, then it's equally stupid to partake in any frivolous activities.
Ok, again a technically correct point, but still a logic failure. I've outlined a very real threat that exists right now. All you're met it with is a futuristic pipe dream.
It's good that you are challenging me, or anything from anybody, but to be serious the challenge should be focused on solving the problem. For example, ok, so we shouldn't fire all the scientists, good point. But what then? Let the knowledge explosion continue without limit and hope for the best? That's what the cultural and scientific group consensus is currently. Is that good enough?
-
I think they do Tanny. They do partake outside their professions, unless something bothers them to the point where they have to concentrate on one problem solely, in which case they might become preoccupied :) And no, ivorytowers might exist, but most of the guys becoming scientists today have access to the WWW which contains an awful lot of different things. Some might hide though, from the 'moral questions' about their research, for the same reasons that you and me might do it, getting ones paycheck, doing something that one find interesting etc etc.
Moral and ethics are difficult things, where I would put ethics as the more important thing to consider.
-
All you're met it with is a futuristic pipe dream.
That's spectacularly ironic from the person who posted this
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71751.0
My argument is basically, I'm not a Luddite, they are, to a significant and troubling degree.
https://xkcd.com/285/
-
If they're going to keep blindly pounding on the outdated "more is better" paradigm
That's economists, not scientists.
-
Bored Chemist, thank you for finding me personally more interesting than the most pressing existential threat facing mankind. I'm flattered by the fact that you simply can't rip your eyes away from my posts, and will let you be president of my fan club if that's what you're asking.
-
Let's drop the meaningless journalese "existential". The risks to homo sapiens boil down, as with all extinct species, to its success in exploiting its ecological niche to the point of exhaustion.
Does it matter? No. It is of no consequence to any other species. There are very few parasites or predators that are solely dependent on humans for food and have a life cycle significantly longer than the human they live on.
The knowledge explosion happened about 100 years ago. We now have rapid access to a vast amount of information but very little more understanding, and the result has been, in the short term at least, an increase in life expectancy for practically everyone, and quicker deliveries of groceries for some. The longterm effect, unless we do something fairly radical, is merely to accelerate the exhaustion of our niche.
The solution, assuming that the desideratum is longterm sustainability of peaceful and harmonious living, does not rely on increased scientific understanding or even significant engineering. We need to
1. replace superstition with knowledge and enquiry
2. replace factional and national governments with a world soviet
3. limit the population at any point to whatever can be indefinitely sustained at that point.
The three requirements are intimately interdependent.
-
Let's drop the meaningless journalese "existential".
Ok, I agree my use of that term lacks precision, though making that clear seems more of a pointless gotcha than a real contribution to the conversation. Nonetheless, it's true that I'm referring in my comments to the collapse of civilization, and not species extinction, which I agree is not likely except in the most extreme circumstances, such as a giant asteroid or gama ray burst etc.
The risks to homo sapiens boil down, as with all extinct species, to its success in exploiting its ecological niche to the point of exhaustion.
That's one of the risks. A real risk for sure, but not the most pressing one. Discussion of AI, genetic engineering, ecological collapse, over population and all other futuristic concerns depends entirely on us surviving the currently most pressing and immediate threat, nuclear weapons.
While I appreciate that you are attempting to intelligently expand the conversation, it doesn't seem fully logical to me to shift our focus away from the hair trigger loaded gun in our mouth right now, on to other concerns which are less pressing. If we don't get the loaded gun out of our mouth, the chances of us making it to these other problems is not great.
To see this clearly, take it out of the abstract. I just walked in to your office and sat down across from you. I have a loaded gun in my mouth. Are you going to respond with a discussion of climate change and the potential threat presented by the emergence of AI etc? Would that be a rational response to the situation? Or would the only rational discussion, at least from the point of view of the person whose mouth is full of gun, be the gun?
The knowledge explosion happened about 100 years ago. We now have rapid access to a vast amount of information but very little more understanding, and the result has been, in the short term at least, an increase in life expectancy for practically everyone, and quicker deliveries of groceries for some. The longterm effect, unless we do something fairly radical, is merely to accelerate the exhaustion of our niche.
I have some hope that the knowledge explosion may be able to solve this problem. As example, we can afford longer lives and higher expectations if we had far fewer humans. That is, at least in part, a problem which can be approached with purely technical solutions, that which scientists are good at.
But such hopeful developments take time, and we need to keep civilization up and running in the meantime given that is the essential element upon which all else depends.
The solution, assuming that the desideratum is longterm sustainability of peaceful and harmonious living, does not rely on increased scientific understanding or even significant engineering.
What's missing from this equation is an understanding that, in our culture, it is the scientific community which has the cultural authority necessary for effective leadership. The religious clergy used to play this role, but they've been largely de-throned, and so now the public looks largely to scientists for answers.
Whatever solution any of us might wish to offer, that solution will have to sold, and selling requires credibility. Religion has lost it, politicians have lost it, you're up next, like it or not.
And it's fair and just that scientists should take on this leadership role, because it is scientists who have led the knowledge explosion. And even today it is largely scientists who are still selling the notion that the knowledge explosion should continue without pause, at ever faster rates.
This is not to say that such challenges are all the scientists fault, as the entire culture willingly walked this path together. It is instead to say that scientists are best positioned to lead a change of direction.
Thus, any scientist who truly supports the continuation of science will see that science must adapt to the new environment it has created. It's no longer enough to simply fuel the knowledge explosion, it is now required that scientists learn how to manage and control that explosion.
And if scientists don't accept this role, there's a pretty good chance we are racing towards the end of science.
-
1. replace superstition with knowledge and enquiry
This is essentially what I've been attempting in my rant fest across multiple threads.
Both the science community and the larger culture it springs from have wandered in to a kind of blind faith relationship with our "more is better" relationship with knowledge. This is very understandable, but like all blind faith, also very dangerous.
I'm attempting to undermine the blind faith nature of this "more is better" relationship through a process of rational inquiry and by referencing widely agreed upon proven facts which reveal it's limitations.
A key obstacle such an inquiry faces in scientific secular culture is that it is typically assumed that concepts like superstition and blind faith refer to somebody else, and not to us.
What's not fully understood is that the deeply human needs which caused people to once have blind faith in the assertions of the religious clergy has not been removed from secular culture. That very human need for authority and someone to believe in has just been aimed at new target, what I somewhat jokingly call the "science clergy".
Most thoughtful people now understand that we are racing forward in to ever more dangerous waters, at an accelerating pace. But we keep racing. That's blind faith at work. All inconvenient evidence and analysis is swept aside because what matters most above all is defending the holy group consensus status quo.
It happens on Catholic forums.
It happens on science forums.
Different colored flags being waved.
Same process.
-
Discussion of AI, genetic engineering, ecological collapse, over population and all other futuristic concerns depends entirely on us surviving the currently most pressing and immediate threat, nuclear weapons.
Whilst President Scumbag might want you to believe that, nukes have been around since 1945 and AFAIK they have not been used by the USA, Russia,China, India, Pakistan, UK, France, Israel, Iran, South Africa (?) or North Korea since then. Nor has any of those states made any territorial or other demands backed by the threat of a nuclear strike.
To see this clearly, take it out of the abstract. I just walked in to your office and sat down across from you. I have a loaded gun in my mouth. Are you going to respond with a discussion of climate change and the potential threat presented by the emergence of AI etc? Would that be a rational response to the situation? Or would the only rational discussion, at least from the point of view of the person whose mouth is full of gun, be the gun?
Been there, done that. Not a problem. We talked about all sorts of things of mutual interest - mostly animals as it turned out - until he sobered up. Happy to discuss climate change or to find out why you think AI is a threat. A friend had a different experience: employee demanded all sorts of special treatment, friend said no, employee shot himself, friend called the cleaners and the police. Suicide may be rational or irrational but it isn't my problem either way.
As example, we can afford longer lives and higher expectations if we had far fewer humans. That is, at least in part, a problem which can be approached with purely technical solutions, that which scientists are good at.
But such hopeful developments take time, and we need to keep civilization up and running in the meantime given that is the essential element upon which all else depends.
I disagree. The solution is to start now and make fewer babies. The technology of contraception is well developed and very cheap. It's a political problem only. Interestingly, I understand that at least one US state has partially implemented my solution, to pay women for not being pregnant.
What's missing from this equation is an understanding that, in our culture, it is the scientific community which has the cultural authority necessary for effective leadership. The religious clergy used to play this role, but they've been largely de-throned, and so now the public looks largely to scientists for answers.
If only. I deal with scientists in many sectors and I find them as self-serving and dishonest as almost everyone else, though less essentially dishonest than priests, because our product can at least be tested.
Whatever solution any of us might wish to offer, that solution will have to sold, and selling requires credibility. Religion has lost it, politicians have lost it, you're up next, like it or not.
Recent events suggest otherwise. Donald Trump sold nothing but hot air, with no charisma or credibility. What selling requires is a customer who wants to buy, and the art is to create that desire.
And even today it is largely scientists who are still selling the notion that the knowledge explosion should continue without pause, at ever faster rates.
Can't name one, right now. But as I said earlier, we have an explosion of data, not knowledge.
there's a pretty good chance we are racing towards the end of science.
Agreed.
-
nukes have been around since 1945 and AFAIK they have not been used by the USA, Russia,China, India, Pakistan, UK, France, Israel, Iran, South Africa (?) or North Korea since then. Nor has any of those states made any territorial or other demands backed by the threat of a nuclear strike.
Are you familiar with the Cuban Missile Crisis? That's how fast your cozy little scenario can turn around. I respectfully urge you to watch a documentary film entitled Countdown To Zero. It will cure you of paragraphs like the above. If you want help finding it online I'll search with you.
But such hopeful developments take time, and we need to keep civilization up and running in the meantime given that is the essential element upon which all else depends.
I disagree. The solution is to start now and make fewer babies.
The technology of contraception is well developed and very cheap.
Are you aware that the technology of contraception depends upon civilization being up and running?
If only. I deal with scientists in many sectors and I find them as self-serving and dishonest as almost everyone else, though less essentially dishonest than priests, because our product can at least be tested.
I wasn't commenting upon the human weaknesses of scientists, but upon the public's relationship with scientists. Example, most people believe climate change is real because scientists say so.
Whatever solution any of us might wish to offer, that solution will have to sold, and selling requires credibility. Religion has lost it, politicians have lost it, you're up next, like it or not.
Recent events suggest otherwise.
Sigh... My point was that scientists have credibility. You disagree, seemingly by automatic pilot. You are persuading me to your position.
there's a pretty good chance we are racing towards the end of science.
Agreed.
Why?
-
nukes have been around since 1945 and AFAIK they have not been used by the USA, Russia,China, India, Pakistan, UK, France, Israel, Iran, South Africa (?) or North Korea since then. Nor has any of those states made any territorial or other demands backed by the threat of a nuclear strike.
Are you familiar with the Cuban Missile Crisis?
Indeed.Lived through it. Like I said, no territorial claims were made by either side.
But such hopeful developments take time, and we need to keep civilization up and running in the meantime given that is the essential element upon which all else depends.
I disagree. The solution is to start now and make fewer babies.
The technology of contraception is well developed and very cheap.
Are you aware that the technology of contraception depends upon civilization being up and running?
which is why we need to start now. Though condom technology is pre-Roman and simply not having sex goes back a very long way. However if civilisation collapses, we will quickly revert to Victorian levels of perinatal mortality and the problem will cure itself.
If only. I deal with scientists in many sectors and I find them as self-serving and dishonest as almost everyone else, though less essentially dishonest than priests, because our product can at least be tested.
I wasn't commenting upon the human weaknesses of scientists, but upon the public's relationship with scientists. Example, most people believe climate change is real because scientists say so.
No, they believe it because they have experienced it. Some dishonest scientists make a living from telling government that it's all due to human intervention, but since personal consumption of fossil fuels increases every year, it's clear that nobody believes them.
Whatever solution any of us might wish to offer, that solution will have to sold, and selling requires credibility. Religion has lost it, politicians have lost it, you're up next, like it or not.
Recent events suggest otherwise.
Sigh... My point was that scientists have credibility. You disagree, seemingly by automatic pilot. You are persuading me to your position.
there's a pretty good chance we are racing towards the end of science.
Agreed.
Why?
Because so-called civilised societies insist on teaching religious tolerance in schools - even to the extent of funding religious schools from taxes - and allowing superstition to influence the law. At least that is the position in the UK, Europe and Canada. It's different in the USA where you can't teach religion in a state-funded school, but lunatics of any persuasion can buy assault weapons.
-
Are you familiar with the Cuban Missile Crisis? T
Yes,
One of the more interesting points is that we didn't all die.
Have you heard of this guy's story?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov
It's remarkable how good we are at not wiping ourselves out.
We already put rather a lot of effort into it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Arms_Limitation_Talks
Thus far, it seems to have worked.
Did you notice that the people involved in saving the world were not generally scientists?
-
Petrov's decision process was very interesting. IIRC he was initially concerned that the system was reporting 100% certainty of an aggressive missile launch at a very early stage where such certainty was unrealistic. It was a real "skin of the teeth" triumph of professional judgement, to be taken to heart by all who live by numbers.
Not a scientist? He was a graduate of the military school of electronics, which certainly puts him in the category of engineer. However I will grant that those responsible for saving the world from fascism were led by historians who happened to be interested in science. But the eradication of smallpox seems to have been led by scientists who persuaded politicians to fund the project.