Re:Earth might be experiencing 7th mass extinction, not 6th
by tshaddox on Wednesday November 23, 2022 @10:33PM
(#33727541)
If you think there are very long term existential threats we can’t protect against without massive technological advances, or if there might be existential threats we don’t know about yet, you probably don’t want a relatively static society regardless of how internally stable and comfortable it seems to be. We probably need to up our game a lot to even be safe from existential threats we know about, like asteroid/comet impacts. And what about supernovae? And what about stuff that might be even less frequent that we don’t even know about?
I guess what I’m saying is that optimizing for stability and comfort almost certainly is at odds with optimizing for longevity. Unless we eventually have some good reason to think that we’ve discovered all the long-term existential threats and are protected against them.
Re:Earth might be experiencing 7th mass extinction, not 6th
by pmitow on Wednesday November 23, 2022 @10:41PM
(#33727581)
Human civilization is only 6,000 years old. Worrying about supernovae and comets is really jumping the gun. Our biggest danger -- by many orders of magnitude -- is ourselves.
Re:Earth might be experiencing 7th mass extinction, not 6th
by tshaddox on Thursday November 24, 2022 @10:44PM
(#33738957)
Everything I said applies just as well to existential threats caused by humans!
Re:Earth might be experiencing 7th mass extinction, not 6th
by throwaway4aday on Thursday November 24, 2022 @09:46AM
(#33731835)
I won't stand in your way if you want to live in a commune in the woods foraging for roots and berries. It's your life so do what you want with it. I prefer living in a heated house with modern amenities like smokeless lighting and clean drinking water.
A material minimum to sustain biology and abundance of time for altered states of such resolution and variety produced through nascent regenerative medicinal therapies like bio electrics is way more interesting; hack realities fields directly versus build synthetic machines to upgrade forever? Sign me up.
IMO more building of synthetic stuff to appear different and novel is the wrong path. It’s classical physics.
It may reduce industrial consumption as the outputs are the uniform means of producing a variety of experiences not a literal variety of things necessitating bespoke assembly lines.
But humans are so literal. Carry on with rockets because Star Trek. Few think “take pill, believe I’m Captain Kirk with Orion cadet for an hour.” Drugs are bad, mmmk.