[Kryptid]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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?

[Tanny (OP)]

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?

[yor_on]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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/

[Bored chemist]

If they're going to keep blindly pounding on the outdated "more is better" paradigm

That's economists, not scientists.

[Tanny (OP)]

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.

[alancalverd]

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.

[Tanny (OP)]

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. 

[Tanny (OP)]

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.

[alancalverd]

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.

[Tanny (OP)]

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?

[alancalverd]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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?

[alancalverd]

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.