• praxis
    809
    The "more is better" paradigm you are defending arose in an era when the powers available to human beings were modest in scale, in comparison to today, and what is coming. That era is over, and my honorable fellow members along with most of the rest of society, are still stuck there philosophically.Jake

    And you're not stuck in it? What is your lifestyle like? Is it eco friendly or reflect an ethic of scientific/technological economy? We know that you value the free exchange of information via the internet, and computerization in general (which is an existential AGI threat to humanity), if nothing else about your true values. Frankly, without knowing anything else about you we know that you’re a fucking hypocrite.
  • karl stone
    96
    Or a million things. Or your neighbor might crash the ecosystem before any of that happens. What's your plan, do nothing and wait to see what happens?Jake

    What's your plan? Bitch about the need to limit technology in some vague way? How? It's not about that for you - or you'd be able to say how. It's about putting people down, about rubbing people's noses in it. That's what you're about.
  • Jake
    516
    Knowledge and technology could potentially equip (via biotech enhancement or whatever) our species to be effectively responsible enough to handle dangerous tech.praxis

    Yes, if technology was able to profoundly transform the human condition for the better, that might solve the problem. But who would be designing such a transformation? The imperfect human designers. What the evidence of history shows is that it's most likely the designers would use whatever this mystery power is to their own advantage.

    Or, there would be good intentions that would somehow go wrong. You know, that's how we got in to the climate change mess. The industrial revolution was created with good intentions, but without enough information and maturity to anticipate all the consequences.

    Whatever Karl means about "science as truth" or humans becoming supernatural, or whatever he means and I doubt he himself knows, that might work too, whatever it is.

    As wonderful as all these dreamy notions are, the fact remains is that civilization is racing towards calamity today, and it is imperfect humans who will have to fix it. You guys don't wish to face this, and so you are escaping in to various futuristic fantasies.
  • Pattern-chaser
    461
    Had science been adopted by the Church from 1630 - and pursued, and integrated into philosophy, politics, economics and society on an ongoing basis, individuals would be much more rational.karl stone
    [My emphasis]

    Wow! How would this have come to pass, do you think? :chin:
  • Pattern-chaser
    461
    More is inevitable!karl stone

    Then humans will be extinct within a century or so. :cry: Planetary resources are dwindling. Less is inevitable! You can't have more (say) fresh water if there is no more fresh water to be had. Or if not water then food, clothing, shelter, fuel (of whatever sort) ... or air. :chin: :fear:
  • Pattern-chaser
    461
    My beef with you is - this is my thread, and thus far you haven't discussed my ideas at all. You keep putting the same idea forward again and again - and ignoring the massive flaws with it, which I've pointed out. Not least, that more is inevitable.karl stone

    We are on a helter-skelter. Jake is concerned about the pit filled with sharpened stakes that we reach when we get to the bottom, and you are observing - probably quite correctly - that we humans are just sliding on down, shouting "faster, faster!". Faster is inevitable! :chin: Yeah, right. :roll:
  • karl stone
    96


    My arguments are a proposal. How to save the world is not some vague sentimental notion - it's a plan. A plan you haven't read, A plan Jake has glanced at, but not really understood. Imagine my frustration...
  • Pattern-chaser
    461
    If your plan is based on "more is inevitable", it isn't a viable plan. We live in an environment with limited and dwindling resources. More is not an option. :chin:
  • karl stone
    96
    If your plan is based on "more is inevitable", it isn't a viable plan. We live in an environment with limited and dwindling resources. More is not an option.Pattern-chaser

    Thanks for your remarks, but if you believe this:

    You can't have more (say) fresh water if there is no more fresh water to be had.Pattern-chaser

    Then perhaps you have some reading to do before you do any writing. Google the word 'desalination' - and have a good old read! And thank you again for your interest. Goodbye.
  • praxis
    809
    As wonderful as all these dreamy notions are, the fact remains is that civilization is racing towards calamity today, and it is imperfect humans who will have to fix it. You guys don't wish to face this, and so you are escaping in to various futuristic fantasies.Jake

    You’re the one who started with the sci-fi story about my neighbor creating new life forms in his garage like a futuristic Frankenstein, and I pointed out how silly or unuseful such wild speculations are. Why are your stupid fantasies valid and ours not?

    I’m pretty much convinced you’re trolling, at least for the most part, Jake, given the nonsense you’ve been spewing and your lack of concern for topic subject matter. This topic is titled “How to Save the World!” which in itself shows a recognition of the ‘calamity civilization is racing towards’ and an intention to confront the problem.
  • unenlightened
    2.7k
    Well in case anyone is interested, the cost of desalination and the energy required may be about to drop significantly. https://www.manchester.ac.uk/research/beacons/breakthroughs/affordable-desalination/
  • Jake
    516
    You’re the one who started with the sci-fi story about my neighbor creating new life forms in his garagepraxis

    I didn't invent this story. That's exactly what's going to happen if DNA manipulation continues on it's present course of rapidly getting easier and easier, cheaper and cheaper. It's just like what happened with computers. First they were primitive and expensive and only governments and big corporations had them. And now everybody has a computer or two in their pocket.

    I asked you that question to try to get to the bottom line so we wouldn't have to waste even more time on all this endless blah, blah, blah.

    But anyway, you're not even interested in the subject. You're just looking for somebody to argue with. I'm sure you'll find some takers, but I'm going to pass.
  • praxis
    809
    I didn't invent this story. That's exactly what's going to happenJake

    It hasn’t happened yet but you didn’t invent the story. Truly remarkable nonsense.
  • Jake
    516
    It hasn’t happened yet but you didn’t invent the story. Truly remarkable nonsense.praxis

    See? This is what you're interested in, squabbling.

    To disprove this, start your own thread on these subjects where you attempt to dive deeper in to these topics in a sustained manner.
  • praxis
    809


    Jake, try to be sensible. You invented a story about my neighbor creating new life forms in his garage and then claimed that it’s not a story you invented. You must realize how ridiculous that sounds.
145678Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.