If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Einherjar86]

That is in no way a logical or rational statement. Physiology is as vulnerable to particular conditions as technological enhancements are to others. It's a matter of contingency, nothing more. And if, as you say, consciousness gives us an edge, we can at the very least try to predict those contingencies - one of them being that consciousness itself might be a significant evolutionary hindrance.

Casting all the dice in favor of a more "natural" existence is shortsighted and ultimately unrealistic. Change happens, and that might involve the emergence of new environmental factors that "basic physiological functioning" can't handle. We have to deal with such developments technologically.

 

[Dak]

That is in no way a logical or rational statement. Physiology is as vulnerable to particular conditions as technological enhancements are to others. It's a matter of contingency, nothing more. And if, as you say, consciousness gives us an edge, we can at the very least try to predict those contingencies - one of them being that consciousness itself might be a significant evolutionary hindrance.

Casting all the dice in favor of a more "natural" existence is shortsighted and ultimately unrealistic. Change happens, and that might involve the emergence of new environmental factors that "basic physiological functioning" can't handle. We have to deal with such developments technologically.

I think you're grossly underestimating the fragility of the multilayered, interconnected levels of complexity in modern techbology/existence, with each level at a minimum adding points of critical failure of not multiplying them. You take for granted both the presence and the advance of technology, assumptions that are ever present in the SciFi you like. I do not make those assumptions and I recognize how precarious our infrastructure/knowledge/etc is. Physiology is vulnerable to some things and can be aided by technology, but technology is vulnerable to a wide range of things, because if for no other reason it's vulnerable indirectly to our vulnerabilities (at least until it becomes independent and then a threat) in addition to respective inherent vulnerabilities.

Almost all of the "new environmental" issues that are dangerous to our biology also are dangerous to our technology and the tenuous web of things that supports it.

I'm not saying we need to all live like the Amish(or "cast all the dice in that direction"), I am saying the Amish are probably some of the least vulnerable humans in the world.

 

[Einherjar86]

I think you're grossly underestimating the fragility of the multilayered, interconnected levels of complexity in modern techbology/existence, with each level at a minimum adding points of critical failure of not multiplying them. You take for granted both the presence and the advance of technology, assumptions that are ever present in the SciFi you like. I do not make those assumptions and I recognize how precarious our infrastructure/knowledge/etc is. Physiology is vulnerable to some things and can be aided by technology, but technology is vulnerable to a wide range of things, because if for no other reason it's vulnerable indirectly to our vulnerabilities (at least until it becomes independent and then a threat) in addition to respective inherent vulnerabilities.

Almost all of the "new environmental" issues that are dangerous to our biology also are dangerous to our technology and the tenuous web of things that supports it.

I'm not saying we need to all live like the Amish(or "cast all the dice in that direction"), I am saying the Amish are probably some of the least vulnerable humans in the world.

Okay, we're both making assumptions; but there's no reason why mine regarding technology is somehow less arbitrary than yours regarding physiology. You say that physiology is vulnerable to fewer things than technology is. That is an unsupportable statement. You're just reiterating the same belief over and over, and it's really nothing more than belief.

I also find it amusing that the Amish are somehow less vulnerable than computer engineers in Silicon Valley.

 

[Dak]

I also find it amusing that the Amish are somehow less vulnerable than computer engineers in Silicon Valley.

I know why you find it amusing, and I see it as being due to assumptions which overlook a host of problems. There is nothing that I can think of that threatens the Amish that doesn't also threaten a computer engineer, in general terms. There are quite a few things that threaten the computer engineer that do not threaten the Amish. If you can think of some counters I'm all ears.

You say that physiology is vulnerable to fewer things than technology is. That is an unsupportable statement.

Currently technology also has a dependency on our collective physiology (and more actually, a dependency on the physiology of some more than others). Threats to physiology also threaten technology. Technology has it's own various threats in addition. I don't understand where the lack of support is. Do I need to explain the human element in the provision of resource extraction, direction, transport, and utilization in every case? I think that's unreasonable.

At the point where technology can operate independently of humanity it becomes a threat generally (not saying human can't be a threat to humans, but there's a difference), as is everything that operates independently (obviously at different levels depending on the thing).

 

[Einherjar86]

I know why you find it amusing, and I see it as being due to assumptions which overlook a host of problems. There is nothing that I can think of that threatens the Amish that doesn't also threaten a computer engineer, in general terms. There are quite a few things that threaten the computer engineer that do not threaten the Amish. If you can think of some counters I'm all ears.

Drought threatens the Amish. It doesn't threaten the computer engineer who eats Soylent.

Currently technology also has a dependency on our collective physiology (and more actually, a dependency on the physiology of some more than others). Threats to physiology also threaten technology. Technology has it's own various threats in addition. I don't understand where the lack of support is. Do I need to explain the human element in the provision of resource extraction, direction, transport, and utilization in every case? I think that's unreasonable.

Technology is an evolutionary adaptation, not a new species. If humans die out, sure - the computers stop working. That isn't the point. Computers taking over is a pop culture fantasy. I'm talking about how technology mediates humanity's relationship to the world, how it functions as a kind of adaptation.

Technology has no concern over its own survival - not in the way that animals and humans do. Saying that technology's survival is contingent on humanity's survival is akin to saying that the survival of human vocal cords is contingent on humanity's survival. The adaptation itself doesn't care.

 

[CiG]

More and more I'm seeing people say these kinds of things about higher education, yet certain people still deny that it's going on.

 

[Einherjar86]

More and more I'm seeing people say these kinds of things about higher education, yet certain people still deny that it's going on.

I'm really sorry, I read the comments section. I can't stand these people (i.e. those posting comments).

This is the gulf emerging in the West, but I honestly can't decide if it's better to try and teach people why a toilet can be art, or to say fuck it and here's to the new culture war.

 

[Dak]

Drought threatens the Amish. It doesn't threaten the computer engineer who eats Soylent.

The Amish don't have food reserves to provide in the case of localized drought? They don't make money to provide them the option to buy food from other areas in an extended localized drought situation?

Technology is an evolutionary adaptation, not a new species. If humans die out, sure - the computers stop working. That isn't the point. Computers taking over is a pop culture fantasy. I'm talking about how technology mediates humanity's relationship to the world, how it functions as a kind of adaptation.

Technology has no concern over its own survival - not in the way that animals and humans do. Saying that technology's survival is contingent on humanity's survival is akin to saying that the survival of human vocal cords is contingent on humanity's survival. The adaptation itself doesn't care.

So you believe AI won't occur?

That is rather tangential though. Our modern standard of living and our ability to advance technological breakthroughs depend on some very fragile systems, which depend on currently depleting energy and cultural resources. Furthermore, a variety of cosmic, tectonic, etc. "black swan" events threaten these processes beyond human issues of political instability/nuclear war/etc. The increasingly siloed/specialized nature of knowledge, the digitizing of records, etc. all lend themselves to the possibility of a single catastrophic event, even regionally localized in the right place, erasing the last 100+ or more years of advancement. To wit, knowing how to turn on and basically operate a smartphone has absolutely no connection with the ability to devise the hardware, assemble/produce the hardware or resources, or create the infrastructure necessary to support that and the separate technology and knowledge for writing the code etc.

 

[Einherjar86]

The Amish don't have food reserves to provide in the case of localized drought? They don't make money to provide them the option to buy food from other areas in an extended localized drought situation?

Not if it means a destruction of their way of life - hence, the end of Amish-ness. But as I've already said, survival can mean change.

So you believe AI won't occur?

I believe it can. I prefer not to deal in absolutes.

That is rather tangential though.

And this is probably the end of this conversation.

 

[CiG]

I'm really sorry, I read the comments section. I can't stand these people (i.e. those posting comments).

This is the gulf emerging in the West, but I honestly can't decide if it's better to try and teach people why a toilet can be art, or to say fuck it and here's to the new culture war.

There are only a handful of comments, one of them was this "I took sociology and the first project was essentially why the terrorists aren't so bad" and if true, that's pretty damn bad. How could you possibly have an issue?

Which one specifically made you react?

 

[Dak]

Not if it means a destruction of their way of life - hence, the end of Amish-ness. But as I've already said, survival can mean change.

I think you should read more about the Amish. They have, broadly, much better health outcomes than the rest of Americans. They do collect/make and spend money on modern technology in very purposeful, limited fashion, to include modern medical care etc. Conversely, if we could imagine some sort of (admittedly extreme case, but then people consider the Amish extreme) computer engineer who will only consume Soylent for some combination of weird principles, and for similar principles he only walks everywhere, all it would take for some sort of JIT delivery issue in his local area and he would be in trouble. Maybe Soylent is the subject of a hostile takeover/liquidation (loljokematerial) and now he loses his only principled food source. Maybe Soylent just fails to make a profit and shutters. Even in this simple example the CE's way of life is much more vulnerable. Conversely, for the Amish to be at risk, you would need pretty much the entire system to go down concurrently with an extended localized drought - a situation in which no one is doing well. Maybe Bill Gates and people of that ilk can fly to an island where they can force some slaves to harvest mangos? Not a great argument for technology.

 

[Einherjar86]

There are only a handful of comments, one of them was this "I took sociology and the first project was essentially why the terrorists aren't so bad" and if true, that's pretty damn bad. How could you possibly have an issue?

Which one specifically made you react?

Specifically, the one about Duchamp's "The Fountain." (i.e. a toilet being a work of art). But they're all ridiculous. I also don't take the poster's word for it who described their sociology lesson as being why terrorists aren't so bad. That's a perception, and clearly a failure to absorb the lesson.

I think you should read more about the Amish. They have, broadly, much better health outcomes than the rest of Americans. They do collect/make and spend money on modern technology in very purposeful, limited fashion, to include modern medical care etc. Conversely, if we could imagine some sort of (admittedly extreme case, but then people consider the Amish extreme) computer engineer who will only consume Soylent for some combination of weird principles, and for similar principles he only walks everywhere, all it would take for some sort of JIT delivery issue in his local area and he would be in trouble. Maybe Soylent is the subject of a hostile takeover/liquidation (loljokematerial) and now he loses his only principled food source. Maybe Soylent just fails to make a profit and shutters. Even in this simple example the CE's way of life is much more vulnerable. Conversely, for the Amish to be at risk, you would need pretty much the entire system to go down concurrently with an extended localized drought.

The fact that the Amish do embrace modern medicine, even in limited fashion, renders this entire conversation pointless. Basically that's my point.

You brought up the Amish by saying "I'm not saying we should all be Amish"; but in fact, the Amish do embrace scientific developments. So I have no qualms.

 

[Dak]

The fact that the Amish do embrace modern medicine, even in limited fashion, renders this entire conversation pointless. Basically that's my point.

You brought up the Amish by saying "I'm not saying we should all be Amish"; but in fact, the Amish do embrace scientific developments. So I have no qualms.

I think you and I have different views on what "embrace" means. I found this article very good:

https://qz.com/695101/the-amish-und...-of-modern-medicine-that-most-americans-dont/

Health psychology is very focused on these sorts of issues so it's very relevant to my interests.

 

[CiG]

Specifically, the one about Duchamp's "The Fountain." (i.e. a toilet being a work of art). But they're all ridiculous. I also don't take the poster's word for it who described their sociology lesson as being why terrorists aren't so bad. That's a perception, and clearly a failure to absorb the lesson.

Sure, they must be lying or just too stupid to understand the subtleties of relativist lessons.

I don't think I have much of any issue with any of the comments, sure The Fountain part I do disagree with because I don't think you can really value art objectively, but the rest of his comment about how actress and fireman are sexist terms and that being ridiculous is not so unreasonable.

You can't just ignore that videos and experiences like this are appearing more and more common.

 

[Einherjar86]

I think you and I have different views on what "embrace" means.

You and I have different views on what a lot of things mean.

The Amish are also a much smaller and intimate community. It's very different than providing healthcare to an entire country.

Sure, they must be lying or just too stupid to understand the subtleties of relativist lessons.

There's a difference between not bothering to understand something and being too stupid to understand. Plenty of people simply don't care.

I don't think I have much of any issue with any of the comments, sure The Fountain part I do disagree with because I don't think you can really value art objectively, but the rest of his comment about how actress and fireman are sexist terms and that being ridiculous is not so unreasonable.

They're gendered terms, and they reinforce gender expectations. That's pretty obvious.

The past few decades have seen a shift in academic writing in which scholars start to use "she" as the default pronoun rather than "he." You have to actually look at the history of scholarship, but the gender of language absolutely colors how we see men and women.

There's no biological reason for "he" to be the default pronoun.

You can't just ignore that videos and experiences like this are appearing more and more common.

I definitely can't ignore it, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

 

[CiG]

They're gendered terms, and they reinforce gender expectations. That's pretty obvious.

I don't really see how fireman falls into this description. It's an overwhelmingly male job and women overwhelmingly can't do it.

I definitely can't ignore it, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

Which part do you disagree with? That it exists or that it's a bad thing that dissenting views in many of these classes are treated like shit?

 

[rms]

really have no interest in what a 17 year old has to say tbh

This is the gulf emerging in the West, but I honestly can't decide if it's better to try and teach people why a toilet can be art, or to say fuck it and here's to the new culture war.

I am feeling more and more pessimistic these days. I gotta get away

 

[Satanstoenail]

I think you're grossly underestimating the fragility of the multilayered, interconnected levels of complexity in modern techbology/existence, with each level at a minimum adding points of critical failure of not multiplying them.

 

[CiG]

really have no interest in what a 17 year old has to say tbh

She's not 17, if you're referring to my video, she was 17 when she began the university courses she's talking about, I think.

Anyway her video content is vastly more interesting than anything I've ever seen you say in here and they're not that interesting, so there's that.

 

[rms]

"I do think that feminism was needed, but not anymore"

just bounds of interesting and thought provoking dialogue