0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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.
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.
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.
Let's talk about this again in 200 years, if we're still here to do the talking.
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?
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.
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
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.
All you're met it with is a futuristic pipe dream.
My argument is basically, I'm not a Luddite, they are, to a significant and troubling degree.
If they're going to keep blindly pounding on the outdated "more is better" paradigm
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.
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.
1. replace superstition with knowledge and enquiry
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.
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?
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.
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 even today it is largely scientists who are still selling the notion that the knowledge explosion should continue without pause, at ever faster rates.
there's a pretty good chance we are racing towards the end of science.
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.
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.
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.
Recent events suggest otherwise.
Agreed.
Quote from: alancalverd on 06/11/2017 22:23:45nukes 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?
Quote 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.Quote 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?
QuoteIf 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.
QuoteWhatever 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. QuoteRecent events suggest otherwise. Sigh... My point was that scientists have credibility. You disagree, seemingly by automatic pilot. You are persuading me to your position.Quote there's a pretty good chance we are racing towards the end of science. QuoteAgreed.Why?
Are you familiar with the Cuban Missile Crisis? T