Haha, that's a nice pair of haikus. Happy holidays, and thanks for your efforts to conduct your analyses and communicate them over the years. It has educated me a lot.
在回复Jason Wemyss。< / p >
Traditional governance structures, including democracy, seem likely to fail. Promotion of short term human interests, which you point out is the goal of human governance, is unbalanced and has failure risk built in. I don't see technocracy as a solution either. Only your last paragraph approaches what I think is necessary: emphasis on far future success. In this sense, it can still be centered on human self-interest (not as an individual, though). But to get it right, we'd have to recognize that we must also value the interests of all other species on the planet. Successful selfishness, therefore, needs to be less selfish.
None of this would be relevant if we did not possess the power to effect major disruption. We're about to lose one of our chief enablers, in fossil fuels. Maybe that will restore some balance/recovery despite any governance or values structures we adopt.
在回复丹施罗德。< / p >
If the basis for dismissing serious ecological collapse is that it hasn't happened yet, well, good luck with that. Humans and livestock now comprise 96% of mammal mass on the planet. We're putting the squeeze on the wild world. Animal populations are down by a factor of two in the last 50 years. We can't take another 50 years like that. Insect populations have been hard hit, and messing with the lower rungs of the food chain seems like a bad idea.
It hardly matters how much we have learned about disrupting ecosystems. Most ignore what we know and have learned, and keep engaging in damaging practices anyway. We've known about the tidal wave of climate change for decades, and that whole time the principal cause—fossil fuels—has only risen. Even recently, annual fossil fuel use has continued to rise. Color me skeptical that "we've got this."
It's not at all hard to educate yourself on the numerous ecological crises, if you choose to be objectively interested in it. And it's not at all hard to understand why a sudden surge of 8 billion fossil-fueled humans taking the planet and its resources by storm would be extremely disruptive. It seems a much harder job to make the case that all this will be fine—especially in the face of all the hockey stick curves (some of which are inverted and plummeting, like animal populations, habitat, and other measures of ecosystem health). I've been slowly crafting a post to showcase these hockey sticks, but it takes a while to collect/plot the data among my other tasks.
In reply to tmurphy.
Have y'all read "Daemon"& # 034;自由,& # 034;丹尼尔·苏亚雷斯?< / p > < p > TLDR;一个非常富有的人死了，留下一个半感知的人工智能负责他的财富。它消灭了所有对它有直接了解的人，然后开始重塑世界。因为它有大量的财富可以挥霍，它可以推动在某些领域创造更可持续的能源，并为那些选择反对它的人创造机械化的死亡和混乱。许多人只是为了谋生，养家糊口，等等，通过创造上述军队的元素来赚钱;其他国家则获得了技术和资金，以创造一个更可持续的未来。随着各种富有的公司被人工智能收购，更多的钱被没收了。那些真正阻碍进步的人以各种可怕的方式死去。< / p >
Not all who are helping this along are good guys (different people, different motives, etc.). Not all who oppose this are bad.
The most rapid progress tends to be seen where there is a "benevolent dictator" running the show (genuinely interested in the greater good, unlimited power to affect change). This is part of how China has grown so rapidly in the last few decades (debatable how "benevolent" their leadership has been; I suspect the majority of China would agree that it is). The semi-sentient AI fills that role, in these books. Since it has no essence of greed or vanity, that a human being might have … it makes an interesting tale.
Pretty sure this is NOT the first book or series to posit such an outcome.
在回复Jason Wemyss。< / p >
This is kinda where Jimmy Carter was going with his speech, where he encouraged us to pivot away from oil. It's widely known as the "malaise" speech, although he never actually used that word. He realized that OPEC and oil-producing nations were NOT, really, our allies and, so long as we remained addicted to their product, they'd be able to jerk us around at will.
He didn't get re-elected. His successor promptly took the solar panels off the White House because he perceived them as "wimpy." That guy got 8 full years to wreak havoc on our nation.
We've had the opportunity to choose a different path. The majority has chosen NOT to pursue it. Given a similar choice today, I doubt the USA would choose a different (even if it's better, long-term) path.
Many of us are, privately, choosing that different path, looking for ways to reduce rampant consumerism and wasteful excess in our own lives. There aren't enough of us to swing an election which might alter our national trajectory.
By the time there ARE enough people to do so, I suspect we'll be a day late and a dollar short.
"[We must] first and foremost [consider] the non-human world, and only then see to human concerns. Putting human needs on top is what got us here in the first place."
Technically correct. The problem is that such a philosophy has no limiting principle, when used as a basis for action. For one, if other species' concerns are paramount, then we must use non-democratic dictatorial powers against the selfish humans.
The well-being of the individual is the only basis for a democratic government, since it is the only basis for decision-making by the individual voter. Therefore we'd need a technocracy.
Whenever academics or intellectuals advocate a technocracy, they—in their delusional arrogance—always imagine themselves in charge of it. The experiment has been run many times, and the academics never fail to be shocked when ruthless and self-interested political operators seize control after approximately 5 minutes. All of the communist revolutions were attempts to install rational and humane technocracies.
It is usually at this point that the intellectuals and academics—deeply offended and betrayed—turn strongly against the dictatorship which they helped usher into being, resulting in them being promptly imprisoned for trying to overthrow the new government.
The lesson is that if we are to have humane government, it must remain bound to the well-being of individuals *as judged by the individual.*
The solution, if there is one, must be to encourage people to attain a more advanced understanding of what human self-interest is. Properly understood, self-interest isn't what's good for you today; it's what's good for you and your children today, and tomorrow, and *across time.* Humans do understand this. Approached from this angle, human-centered progress is possible. No?
In reply to tmurphy.
你说we're "already"目睹生态系统崩溃。我想说，自从更新世晚期(大型动物灭绝，早期使用火来改变景观)，我们就一直在看到它，继续通过农业的发展，哥伦比亚交换，和工业革命，直到昨天我让我的洗碗布在阳光下晒干。到目前为止，这些生态系统的崩溃似乎都没有威胁到人类的事业。(从我们的角度来看)其中很多都是有益的。< / p >
I suppose you could argue that the current pace of these local and regional disruptions/collapses is greater than ever before, and this increased pace makes it harder for us to adapt to whatever negative (for us) side effects the collapses may cause. The counter-argument is that in recent decades humans have learned a great deal about how to avoid disrupting ecosystems, and about how to adapt to the negative side effects.
So it's not obvious to me that we're in any greater danger from local or regional ecosystem disruptions today than we were a century ago, or that dangers of this type will be any greater a century from now than they are today. I'm open to being persuaded that these dangers are on the rise, but only by seeing detailed evidence and analysis. Broad philosophical pronouncements don't convince me.
What has changed in the last century is that we're now causing global temperatures to rise by measurable amounts. This kind of global threat is in a different category from merely regional ecosystem disruptions and deserves everyone's attention. But are there any other truly global human-caused ecosystem threats? There's ocean acidification, which of course is closely related to rising temperatures. There's stratospheric ozone depletion, but that seems to be under control. If there are others that I should be aware of, please educate me.
在回复杰拉尔德林德纳。< / p >
I'm all for breaking the current economic system, which is dragging us into a worsening world. However, the focus here is: "human dignity, solidarity and social justice, environmental sustainability." One could do worse, but the ordering/hierarchy is wrong: any long-term viable system needs to first and foremost address the impact to the non-human world, and only then see to human concerns. Putting human needs on top is what got us here in the first place. Fascinating that the same bird in the background was in all locations.