Make the future bright again: On building a new philosophy of progress(thehub.ca)
thehub.ca
Make the future bright again: On building a new philosophy of progress
https://thehub.ca/2023-04-11/make-the-future-bright-again-jason-crawford-on-the-importance-of-building-a-new-philosophy-of-progress/
108 comments
Lack of purpose is the core thing I think. If you have that, then isolation solves itself, and obesity might very well solve itself too.
Lack of purpose is also the consequence of not being able to even think of a brighter future. Not seeing what humanity COULD be and working towards it.
Lack of purpose is also the consequence of not being able to even think of a brighter future. Not seeing what humanity COULD be and working towards it.
Lack of purpose is inevitable and unfixable. In the world where success is infinitely scalable as we are living in the information age, most people are doomed to uselessness no matter what. Trick is how to help them get over it.
Obesity is a medical problem and will be solved by rather trivial medical means very soon, at least on that front, future is bright.
Obesity is a medical problem and will be solved by rather trivial medical means very soon, at least on that front, future is bright.
Not everyone has to have some grand purpose. I work to earn enough money to do what I like, I'm not planning or hoping to make a heap of money. I would be perfectly happy living a comfortable yet completely unnoticed life.
In fact I think a lot of people my age (late 20s) are starting to feel like this as a reaction to the idea that anyone who isn't driving a nice car or going abroad several times a year is a failure. That's the impression I get from talking to people at work anyway.
You still get those status-driven people but frankly I feel very uneasy around them.
In fact I think a lot of people my age (late 20s) are starting to feel like this as a reaction to the idea that anyone who isn't driving a nice car or going abroad several times a year is a failure. That's the impression I get from talking to people at work anyway.
You still get those status-driven people but frankly I feel very uneasy around them.
>In fact I think a lot of people my age (late 20s) are starting to feel like this as a reaction to the idea that anyone who isn't driving a nice car or going abroad several times a year is a failure.
Most of the people around me and I always saw that lifestyle as an strong indication of and reaction to no sense of purpose.
Most of the people around me and I always saw that lifestyle as an strong indication of and reaction to no sense of purpose.
Sense of purpose need not have anything to do with money or status.
You should review the psychological literature around sense of purpose. Basically every study ever conducted on humans has concluded that mental health is more or less impossible without a sense of purpose. The experts in this field say it's very likely that "helping them get over it" is either impossible or close enough that we'll never figure it out.
If, as you say, lack of purpose is inevitable and unfixable, many decades of research says humanity is doomed.
If, as you say, lack of purpose is inevitable and unfixable, many decades of research says humanity is doomed.
>most people are doomed to uselessness no matter what
Well, no mater how smart computers get, mothers will be generally useful to their children. So at least one counter example.
Well, no mater how smart computers get, mothers will be generally useful to their children. So at least one counter example.
That's right and this is why rates of depression, suicide and stuff, is way lower among women than men. Still it leaves an impression of a Ponzi scheme of a sort?
A Ponzi scheme works because it gives the illusion of being real. Life isn't that. Life is real. The only real thing in many ways.
> Lack of purpose is inevitable and unfixable
Citation needed. We're a loooooong way from post scarcity, as should be pretty obvious from the unemployment numbers.
> In the world where success is infinitely scalable as we are living in the information age
One of those things doesn't follow from the other.
Citation needed. We're a loooooong way from post scarcity, as should be pretty obvious from the unemployment numbers.
> In the world where success is infinitely scalable as we are living in the information age
One of those things doesn't follow from the other.
I like spending time with my friends and family. This makes my life purposeful. I love creating experiences for them. Studying and working are secondary. I like messing with data, love linux, and have a blast with emacs and all that... But when I am near death I only think about my loved ones.
Woah that's a contrarian take on obesity. Can you elaborate?
GLP-1 receptor agonists seem to be the one-and-for-all solution for obesity and they seem to work for nearly every person regardless of existing health conditions, diabetes, etc (they are primarily diabetes drugs) with under 3% quit rate from side effects. Only problem is production volumes ramp-up but that will solve itself over time just like with covid vaccines, because drugs are new, 2021-2022. Smart asses willing to pay ~$1500+ per month already all got access to them.
In 3-4 years, at least in developed countries, only people who will still be fat are those with rare and unusual health issues, rare people with extreme side effects to these drugs, and those who don't care. In another few years, health insurance will probably be unaccessible to those who are overweight and don't use these drugs so it will not even be a choice.
In 3-4 years, at least in developed countries, only people who will still be fat are those with rare and unusual health issues, rare people with extreme side effects to these drugs, and those who don't care. In another few years, health insurance will probably be unaccessible to those who are overweight and don't use these drugs so it will not even be a choice.
So we’ll just be taking pills for everything ?
Why should it be impossible to think of a brighter future? Maybe humans should be living like gods, not worried about diseases, the environment, etc. Maybe humans should strive to become the dominant species in the universe? Why should the current "protestant work ethic" (in a Max Weber sense) guide us - hedonism might also have something to each us.
We tried hedonism as a guiding principle over and over in the 20th century. Whereas Protestant work ethic gave us america, hedonism gave us the aids epidemic, over 100,000 drug overdoses annually, a generation of men that have opted out of adulthood, and the need to import people from non-hedonist countries just to keep the population stable. Enjoy your antibiotic resistant STDs.
> We tried hedonism as a guiding principle over and over in the 20th century.
[citation needed]
[citation needed]
What do you define as hedonism and its philosophical roots/components?
I think if you’re talking about social change that happens at scale, people are not necessarily following a specific coherent philosophy. But hedonistic values were widely adopted in various contexts in the mid-20th century. For example the sexual revolution and free love movement of the 1960s: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna19053382. These attitudes are also prevalent in terms of messages given to young people regarding vocation (“follow your bliss,” etc.)
What is the net social negative then? How do we know, given that counterfactuals are not readily available. What philosophy (in a broader sense) should people follow? Do we want forever a society where people need to do "shitty jobs", for example, to satisfy some philosophical need for "suffering"?
You’re right, we don’t have any easy counterfactual. But we can draw inferences from observations and conduct thought experiments. If we dropped some people from San Francisco off in the hostile desert of Utah, would they be able to create thriving cities like the Mormons did? If we dropped them off in the frigid plains of Illinois, would they be able to create Chicago? If you dropped them off in the mudflats of Singapore, would they be able to turn it into the modern and wealthy city it is today?
Not sure why building cities in the Utah desert matters today. The question is much broader, I think: without some of the 1960s hedonism, would we have had some of effects of counterculture that manifested in tech? Would we have had more wars like Vietnam? How would society look like?
You can, of course, say you want a different society - but that is a different take, really.
You can, of course, say you want a different society - but that is a different take, really.
I come from a poor country. I want people back home to act like the Mormons, not like people in San Francisco. And America exports its culture all around the world. Moreover, I don’t think a hedonistic, individualistic culture is prepared to tackle the challenges we face (like climate change) nor to take society to the next level.
I also came from a poor country that could use a big dose of Protestant work ethic. If you have $0, getting an extra million is the biggest of deals for your happiness.
But once you are rich and you’ve got snowballing wealth, maybe a change of perspective is in order. You won’t find as much meaning in going from $5m to $10m as in 0-$1m for example.
Not that laziness is the answer, but you need a new motivating principle.
But once you are rich and you’ve got snowballing wealth, maybe a change of perspective is in order. You won’t find as much meaning in going from $5m to $10m as in 0-$1m for example.
Not that laziness is the answer, but you need a new motivating principle.
The 20th century had some large-scale "experiments" with non-individualistic society models - they were not pretty.
Signapore is a terribly bad example. It's geography meant it was a ready source of money. Barring an absolutely terrible level of mismanagement, or chronic worldwide economic depression, there was no way it won't become rich.
There’s nothing magic about the geography of Singapore, which is self-evident from a map. Singapore was poorer than Malaysia when the two countries split.
The notion that the economic fate of countries is outside their control is incredibly pernicious. Britain went from being a backwater that was almost a millennium late to the Bronze Age to the greatest empire in the world.
The notion that the economic fate of countries is outside their control is incredibly pernicious. Britain went from being a backwater that was almost a millennium late to the Bronze Age to the greatest empire in the world.
Epicureanism perhaps? The hedonist mindset is certainly not novel to the 20th century as that poster seems to imply- Though I largely agree with their characterization of it, as its popularity seems to accompany periods of societal decline- Though whether it is a cause or a symptom is hard to say
I would find it hard to draw a line from classical Epicureanism towards social decline or simply map some hedonistic periods of the 20th century onto it.
The line would be overly broad and blurry, to be sure. But I think Voltaire's maxim has some sense to it- "History is only the pattern of silken slippers descending the stairs to the thunder of hobnailed boots climbing upward from below." The rise and fall of great societies frequently parallel this general difference in temperament- The prosperous fruits of stoic labor create a lavish environment for their successors, in which they languish in indolence and allow the foundations built by their ancestors to crumble for want of diligence and prudence.
The problem is, that it is so much in the interest of those in power and with means to promote "stoic labor".
Maybe, but it’s also in the interest of ordinary people. Look what that attitude did for countries like Singapore, Korea, and Japan. It’s easy to rile people up for redistribution. It’s much harder to create a culture oriented towards building.
I am not talking about redistribution or riling people up, but I don't see building and some forms of hedonism as fundamentally incompatible.
Not saying it should be. But for many it is.
I thought Max Tegmark had some pretty awesome words to say they resonate with this on his latest interview with Lex Fridman, it was quite inspiring albeit kind of scary. Worth checking it out if you like him.
But yeah, we really need to start questioning if optimizing everything is the best way forwards as a species.
But yeah, we really need to start questioning if optimizing everything is the best way forwards as a species.
This list of problems really just sounds a lot like the goals of humanity at large for the last couple hundred thousand years.
To have plenty, more than your neighbors, and enough that you don’t need to deal with other people (what hell is, to wit).
To have plenty, more than your neighbors, and enough that you don’t need to deal with other people (what hell is, to wit).
> and enough that you don’t need to deal with other people (what hell is, to wit)
This is actually a new phenomenon. I'm not sure if it's just because I'm older, but I've literally grown to see this shift in mindset. There was a time when it was common to invite neighbors over for dinner, now more often than not, it seems like people want to have bigger fences and less interaction with their community. Meanwhile, all mental health indicators are going in the wrong direction in the developed world.
This is actually a new phenomenon. I'm not sure if it's just because I'm older, but I've literally grown to see this shift in mindset. There was a time when it was common to invite neighbors over for dinner, now more often than not, it seems like people want to have bigger fences and less interaction with their community. Meanwhile, all mental health indicators are going in the wrong direction in the developed world.
A lot of people, myself included, get tired of dealing with people as we get older.
We have to deal with people for the majority of our lives, especially during our schooling and working years. Once we've accumulated enough to retire into the countryside with no need to give a fuck to anyone it becomes a very appealing change of scenery.
We have to deal with people for the majority of our lives, especially during our schooling and working years. Once we've accumulated enough to retire into the countryside with no need to give a fuck to anyone it becomes a very appealing change of scenery.
The question is why a lot of people get "tired of dealing with people". Was that even a thing in most of history? Is there some subconcious cost-benefit analysis their brain is working out where solitary activities are more enjoyable for them? Probably. There's infinite entertainment at our fingertips these days.
It’s funny because I grew up in the country and I have mostly worked alone. Now at 38 I’ve moved in to the city and I’m fascinated by how many interesting people there are here! I guess we just appreciate change and novelty over the course of our lives.
And I’m saying this wasn’t always the case for the majority. It’s worth understanding how that came to be
Wait why do we need more than our neighbors to be happy? I mean, I don't believe that personally. It is also unachievable for humanity as a whole to all have more than our neighbors.
Yeah, srsly. Just inserting the word "more" suddenly ties the comment to an entire discredited life philosophy of competitive acquisition.
To quote from Martin Luther King Jr., during his 1964 Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech:
"We have learned to fly the air like birds and swim the sea like fish, but we have not learned the simple art of living together as brothers"
"We have learned to fly the air like birds and swim the sea like fish, but we have not learned the simple art of living together as brothers"
> Admittedly, it does seem slightly ludicrous to forget about one’s immortal soul and instead busy oneself, as Faust does, with the project of reclaiming land from the sea.
> We should acknowledge that there are many perils with the scientific and technological trajectory on which we find ourselves. But we should never forget that the alternatives to technological acceleration are far from ethically or politically neutral.
> Technology means doing more with less. In the absence of technological progress, we end up with a zero-sum world, in which there must be a loser for every winner.
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2015/06/against-edenism
Yes this is from Peter Thiel. Yes it is not very persuasive. But it is worth thinking what the alternatives are and if they can be any better.
> We should acknowledge that there are many perils with the scientific and technological trajectory on which we find ourselves. But we should never forget that the alternatives to technological acceleration are far from ethically or politically neutral.
> Technology means doing more with less. In the absence of technological progress, we end up with a zero-sum world, in which there must be a loser for every winner.
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2015/06/against-edenism
Yes this is from Peter Thiel. Yes it is not very persuasive. But it is worth thinking what the alternatives are and if they can be any better.
AI will shift things, if I can boot up another doctor or therapist or educator that's 80% as good as a human, in comparison to nothing at all, that's good, so one professional doctor could oversee a small squad of AI doctors and sign off on treatments. Whether this makes things better or worse, who knows! The apocalypse has been arriving since we invented the word.
If in the developed world most policies now are based on the premise that the future is bleak (climate change, war, deficits, ...) then it comes as no surprise that actual progress isn't high on anyone's agenda. Until the future is seen as a land of opportunity again, things will remain bleak.
Curious - many people do see those "problems" as the "opportunity" of our time, just as past generations had their own bleaknesses to overcome.
If you compare, for example, the 1960s view of future with the current - quite a difference. A lot now is about costs to bear and then eventually it might get better.
Are there business opportunities in the problems - for sure, but that isn't quite the same as a general bright outlook on the future.
Our future was robbed between the 1960s and now.
Crazy great things have happened - usually thanks to the best of us. But the worst of us have been pulling the same mega-destructive stunts for decades, and they keep getting away with it.
There are good reasons to have optimism, but like... We were violently mugged, and are bleeding. We need to do something about all that before worrying that our outlook isn't rosy enough.
Crazy great things have happened - usually thanks to the best of us. But the worst of us have been pulling the same mega-destructive stunts for decades, and they keep getting away with it.
There are good reasons to have optimism, but like... We were violently mugged, and are bleeding. We need to do something about all that before worrying that our outlook isn't rosy enough.
Nothing was robbed or destroyed - not sure why you adopt that defeatist attitude. The future could probably be all yours.
The anthropocene extinction, the insect apocalypse, ocean acidification, topsoil destruction, the pollution of 99% of wells and rivers....
Do I really need to go on? Yes, we were mugged. Yes, it was violent, and yes, we are bleeding. There is a fossil fuel and plastic industry rep right over there, with a smoking gun, saying we all need to do our part to recycle with a smirk on their face.
Do I really need to go on? Yes, we were mugged. Yes, it was violent, and yes, we are bleeding. There is a fossil fuel and plastic industry rep right over there, with a smoking gun, saying we all need to do our part to recycle with a smirk on their face.
if you believe in the world ending, sure.
Huh?
The anthropocene extinction and the insect apocalypse aren't matters of belief.
The anthropocene extinction and the insect apocalypse aren't matters of belief.
We don’t become more productive because we are striving towards it like some shared goal, we do it because if we don’t, we lose (our jobs, among other things).
There is no element of choice. There is no stopping this.
There is no element of choice. There is no stopping this.
That my be true, but what I was referring to when I used the word productivity, and what for example an economist would usually be referring to, isn't personal productivity per se. Like yes you can work more hours a day, or potentially work more efficiently, and yes a shitty boss may force you to do too much of this. But that is a very small part of what happened in the Industrial Revolution.
Better to think of increased productivity in this context as "all inputs generate greater outputs," or as a function of available energy a society can produce. Like the increase in what society can produce when you go from horsepower to burning fossil fuels to splitting the atom is many orders of magnitude because you get more energy for cheaper at every step up. Or the way that agricultural technology has enabled us to obtain a harvest that is 100-1,000x more productive in terms of calories than it was in antiquity. That's productivity in this context.
Calories (as in food) is a really good example of what I'm talking about with relation to the problems of modernity. For much of human history famine and starvation were basically an agricultural problem, there were situations where a geography couldn't produce enough calories to feed all the people there. Technology has solved this problem, we now produce an insane surplus of calories and can ship them all over the globe with ease, if people starve today it is not an agricultural problem, it is a political problem, it is systems of people choosing not to allocate food to the starving. It's not clear that better agricultural tech will further reduce starvation - quite possibly it won't without some kind of societal evolution.
Better to think of increased productivity in this context as "all inputs generate greater outputs," or as a function of available energy a society can produce. Like the increase in what society can produce when you go from horsepower to burning fossil fuels to splitting the atom is many orders of magnitude because you get more energy for cheaper at every step up. Or the way that agricultural technology has enabled us to obtain a harvest that is 100-1,000x more productive in terms of calories than it was in antiquity. That's productivity in this context.
Calories (as in food) is a really good example of what I'm talking about with relation to the problems of modernity. For much of human history famine and starvation were basically an agricultural problem, there were situations where a geography couldn't produce enough calories to feed all the people there. Technology has solved this problem, we now produce an insane surplus of calories and can ship them all over the globe with ease, if people starve today it is not an agricultural problem, it is a political problem, it is systems of people choosing not to allocate food to the starving. It's not clear that better agricultural tech will further reduce starvation - quite possibly it won't without some kind of societal evolution.
I understand and thank you for the clarification.
My point was that societal productivity progress is ultimately not driven by factors such as “better lives” (satisfying primary needs). It is IMO not going matter if increasing productivity leads to “better lives” or not because that was never the primary driver in the first place.
So I wouldn’t be surprised if this march continues even if it in fact decreases our quality of life as is already happening.
What is a primary driver? Good question. I can think of multiple candidates, but power comes to mind. Given a choice we would all rather be financially independent rather than tied to a job. Why? Some of us like the status, others like the freedom, but we all enjoy the power to just say “nope, not going to do that”.
I think “nope” may be the most powerful driver of human progress.
Edit: I forgot to quote.
> it's not obvious that becoming another order of magnitude more productive will automatically lead to people having even better lives.
This was my point: no better lives, but an order of magnitude productivity will increase the power we (or a small group) will experience and ultimately that is a stronger drive.
My point was that societal productivity progress is ultimately not driven by factors such as “better lives” (satisfying primary needs). It is IMO not going matter if increasing productivity leads to “better lives” or not because that was never the primary driver in the first place.
So I wouldn’t be surprised if this march continues even if it in fact decreases our quality of life as is already happening.
What is a primary driver? Good question. I can think of multiple candidates, but power comes to mind. Given a choice we would all rather be financially independent rather than tied to a job. Why? Some of us like the status, others like the freedom, but we all enjoy the power to just say “nope, not going to do that”.
I think “nope” may be the most powerful driver of human progress.
Edit: I forgot to quote.
> it's not obvious that becoming another order of magnitude more productive will automatically lead to people having even better lives.
This was my point: no better lives, but an order of magnitude productivity will increase the power we (or a small group) will experience and ultimately that is a stronger drive.
I hate to say it, but the tech industry is the roadblock.
Most of what happens is far off, remote, unobservable, unlearnable. People cannot understand what is happening on the things they deal with the most. Everything is black box apps powered by vast cloud data centers. Humanity has zero chance to find their footing in this world, to comprehend what goes on about them.
Tech is to blame, tech is the problem, and there are so many simple basic remedies tech could be trying to deliver, to make General Systems Research to make computers general again, to make what happens in the computer knowable again. New frameworks, new systems, not no-code for developers, but no-code for users, to watch & adjust data percolating through systems.
We are no where, we've gone further into the dark, we've made it worse, and we, we techies, are to blame for letting corporations misuse our sharp keen selves for these shitty disprogressive ends.
Most of what happens is far off, remote, unobservable, unlearnable. People cannot understand what is happening on the things they deal with the most. Everything is black box apps powered by vast cloud data centers. Humanity has zero chance to find their footing in this world, to comprehend what goes on about them.
Tech is to blame, tech is the problem, and there are so many simple basic remedies tech could be trying to deliver, to make General Systems Research to make computers general again, to make what happens in the computer knowable again. New frameworks, new systems, not no-code for developers, but no-code for users, to watch & adjust data percolating through systems.
We are no where, we've gone further into the dark, we've made it worse, and we, we techies, are to blame for letting corporations misuse our sharp keen selves for these shitty disprogressive ends.
Maybe the real issues emerge from capitalist system rules and incentives and the current tech industry is just shaped and emerged as a result?
I ask myself what on-ramps consumers have to get interested & excited.
Almost nothing in the world offers this path. Most tech rebuffs & rejects interest. It's a very very long path to learning programming & shell before one can begin to reverse engineer & peak behind the veil on what tech about us does.
Without observability, there is no hope. Tech has to start. Tech has to open the possibility of visibility. Then we can start to judge.
Almost nothing in the world offers this path. Most tech rebuffs & rejects interest. It's a very very long path to learning programming & shell before one can begin to reverse engineer & peak behind the veil on what tech about us does.
Without observability, there is no hope. Tech has to start. Tech has to open the possibility of visibility. Then we can start to judge.
I've switched to thinking consumerism is more of a problem than capitalism. Capitalism is just the producer, if what capitalism produced isn't consumered, certain things won't be produced.
Additionally consumerism is something that we all can influence with our credit cards. Capitalism is largely controlled by large nameless corporations.
Additionally consumerism is something that we all can influence with our credit cards. Capitalism is largely controlled by large nameless corporations.
Problem is: The larger the wallet, the larger the vote.
Also, consumers get manipulated to buy into black boxes all the time. Nobody wants to know how their sausage is made but everyone would buy one. A company that is perfectly transparent about their supply chain would fail.
Also, consumers get manipulated to buy into black boxes all the time. Nobody wants to know how their sausage is made but everyone would buy one. A company that is perfectly transparent about their supply chain would fail.
Well yes and no, in not purchasing something I am also making a statement.
Manipulation has to do with education and sources of information. But as long as the notion that happiness can only be found in purchasing products, then not much will change.
Perhaps poverty can be a good thing.
Manipulation has to do with education and sources of information. But as long as the notion that happiness can only be found in purchasing products, then not much will change.
Perhaps poverty can be a good thing.
The sources of information are the limit though - to make a better world using this sort of 'consumption vote'[0], businesses and their relationships need to be way more transparent, with possibly a regulated transparency.
I wonder whether there could be FOSS business intelligence to a degree that the most likely business relationships of entities will be estimated and published, automatically. And then companies that actually supply data about their supply chains etc. will have a marketing advantage.
[0] you cannot organize this vote, since there are anti-boycott laws
I wonder whether there could be FOSS business intelligence to a degree that the most likely business relationships of entities will be estimated and published, automatically. And then companies that actually supply data about their supply chains etc. will have a marketing advantage.
[0] you cannot organize this vote, since there are anti-boycott laws
Anti-boycott laws, but surely only between nation states? Being forced to purchase something would seem little dictatorial.
Boycott could also include purchasing an EV - thereby the consumer is boycotting the oil industry. Meaning there does not necessarily need to be transparency of the supply chain to make a consumption vote.
Boycott could also include purchasing an EV - thereby the consumer is boycotting the oil industry. Meaning there does not necessarily need to be transparency of the supply chain to make a consumption vote.
> Capitalism is just the producer
I'm having difficulty parsing this part. What does this mean?
I'm having difficulty parsing this part. What does this mean?
For me there are two parts at play: consumerism and capitalism, without one, neither the other.
If consumers don't purchase the products produced by the capitalist factories then the system would come to a standstill.
(I am thinking of the companies running/ordering from the factories not necessarily the factories themselves, i.e. Chinese factory.)
This means that as a consumer, I can influence the system by not purchasing certain products. The larger consumer group, the larger the change.
If consumers don't purchase the products produced by the capitalist factories then the system would come to a standstill.
(I am thinking of the companies running/ordering from the factories not necessarily the factories themselves, i.e. Chinese factory.)
This means that as a consumer, I can influence the system by not purchasing certain products. The larger consumer group, the larger the change.
I'm still having trouble understanding what you meant by "Capitalism is just the producer"
> If consumers don't purchase the products produced by the capitalist factories then the system would come to a standstill.
What about buying from a socialist factory? Is socialism also just the producer?
> This means that as a consumer, I can influence the system by not purchasing certain products. The larger consumer group, the larger the change.
This seems like you are talking about markets, not really capitalism.
> If consumers don't purchase the products produced by the capitalist factories then the system would come to a standstill.
What about buying from a socialist factory? Is socialism also just the producer?
> This means that as a consumer, I can influence the system by not purchasing certain products. The larger consumer group, the larger the change.
This seems like you are talking about markets, not really capitalism.
> If consumers don't purchase the products produced by the capitalist factories then the system would come to a standstill.
it kind of makes one ask which came first...
I would argue capitalism arose with the invention of money, before that humans bartered. Consumption was the aim of the barter system also, so I would say consumerism came first ;)
> before that humans bartered
This account of history of money is largely viewed as bunk by historians since there exist no evidence or description of a barter economy in our history.
This account of history of money is largely viewed as bunk by historians since there exist no evidence or description of a barter economy in our history.
The problem is not with progress. The problem is with denial of a dilema. Human baseline nature is unable to handle much more progress.
Meaning, we are already very close to the killer drone dilema, and as even small crisis like the Covid virus have shown, once we come under pressure we fall apart. We can pretend all we want in good times, that we are strong and cohesive and we have good captains steering the ship. But in the bad times, its revealed these are just play actors, standing with unconnected steering wheels in light opera uniforms on deck of breaking vessels.
To think that handing more dangerous technology to such a unpatched humanity solves problems instead of just upping the stakes in a dangerous game, instead of patching the holes in our heads first, is contraproductive. We need to tame ourselves, before we are able to advance. Thus we need a realistic assesement of all our behaviour, a solid patching holding up to crisis and a almost stoic with apps as result, before progress can continue. Our hands are to flimsy for the tools we can make.
PS: " Automnomous suicide drones in city XXXXXX due to progress" should be the real title.
To think that handing more dangerous technology to such a unpatched humanity solves problems instead of just upping the stakes in a dangerous game, instead of patching the holes in our heads first, is contraproductive. We need to tame ourselves, before we are able to advance. Thus we need a realistic assesement of all our behaviour, a solid patching holding up to crisis and a almost stoic with apps as result, before progress can continue. Our hands are to flimsy for the tools we can make.
PS: " Automnomous suicide drones in city XXXXXX due to progress" should be the real title.
I agree that the problem isn't progress, and that there are problems being denied. I don't think the root of the problem is most people's human nature though.
Culture has been cynically and scientifically hacked by megamedia conglomerates, blasting brains with full volume fear porn 24h a day for decades over every outlet. This is great for media, great for politicians, great for advertisers like insurance companies to tell us how kind they are, and for energy companies to explain why they're great for the environment.
It's phenomenally bad for us, as a species and as a biosphere. Don't confuse natural human reactions to relentless state-of-the-art propaganda with actual baseline human nature.
Energy companies, politicians, and the media didn't just lie to us about the reality of climate change - they actively made things worse, sowing doubt just like the tobacco companies did.
It's not that our nature needs a patch! We need to stop letting greedy and self interested psychopaths use media, education, politics, regulation, finance, etc. to get around our very natural human reactions to these issues.
Culture has been cynically and scientifically hacked by megamedia conglomerates, blasting brains with full volume fear porn 24h a day for decades over every outlet. This is great for media, great for politicians, great for advertisers like insurance companies to tell us how kind they are, and for energy companies to explain why they're great for the environment.
It's phenomenally bad for us, as a species and as a biosphere. Don't confuse natural human reactions to relentless state-of-the-art propaganda with actual baseline human nature.
Energy companies, politicians, and the media didn't just lie to us about the reality of climate change - they actively made things worse, sowing doubt just like the tobacco companies did.
It's not that our nature needs a patch! We need to stop letting greedy and self interested psychopaths use media, education, politics, regulation, finance, etc. to get around our very natural human reactions to these issues.
Both of you basically said the same thing to me, our seeking of unbriddled progress is like a moth to a flame, we think it's our guide but it'll just burn us if we don't think properly/rationally about it.
Our single most important skill as humans is our ability to adapt, hence the plasticity in our mindstate, culture, introspection etc... The Elites understand that very well and uses that to fulfill whatever sick fantasies they harbor.
qikInNdOutReply said we need a patch, you appeal to common sense, I like to speak about some kind of "transcendence". In the end, we all speak about the same thing: With this much progress, technical prowess, power etc.. comes a great deal of problem and responsibility we are unable to handle, we need to balance this with a "progress" in our mindset and culture to get some sort of control over our tools, society, destiny or whatever we deem important to continue living decently.
qikInNdOutReply said we need a patch, you appeal to common sense, I like to speak about some kind of "transcendence". In the end, we all speak about the same thing: With this much progress, technical prowess, power etc.. comes a great deal of problem and responsibility we are unable to handle, we need to balance this with a "progress" in our mindset and culture to get some sort of control over our tools, society, destiny or whatever we deem important to continue living decently.
This sounds like a compelling argument to me.
So what could actually be done about the fear porn? To what extent are people aware of the effects of fear-mongering / click-bait media able to make other choices if offered alternatives? Because surely people will actually feel better if they do.
Would neutral-to-hopeful media stories be able to reach enough people? If we let go of the goal of maximizing profits, would it be possible to make such an effort self-sustaining? Would it perhaps require volunteers who want to make a positive impact?
Finally, what is needed to start doing this and reaching people with it, right now?
So what could actually be done about the fear porn? To what extent are people aware of the effects of fear-mongering / click-bait media able to make other choices if offered alternatives? Because surely people will actually feel better if they do.
Would neutral-to-hopeful media stories be able to reach enough people? If we let go of the goal of maximizing profits, would it be possible to make such an effort self-sustaining? Would it perhaps require volunteers who want to make a positive impact?
Finally, what is needed to start doing this and reaching people with it, right now?
That's a lot of questions, haha. I'll try:
> what could actually be done about the fear porn?
The short answer is, I don't know what can be done. The people doing it are doing it because it's very profitable for them, and not just because fear grabs attention. Their corporate sponsors love having control of the narrative.
I don't think I could pull even one person out of their fear bubble, either the CNN flavour or the Fox flavour. All you can do is try to help them feel safe, and loved. But it's like having a drug addict in the family; it's a lot of work and very often there isn't much you can do.
You need to go after the drug pusher, and the manufacturer, and take away their control of the fear supply and distribution.
That's a "radical" and monumental task, which can only be begun when enough people recognize the disease that's attacking them. Very smart and effective people have tried to do this for decades, and been smeared for their efforts. Witness Assange, Chomsky, Klein, etc.
> To what extent are people aware of the effects of fear-mongering / click-bait media able to make other choices if offered alternatives?
Again, I feel that the correct analogy here is that of a drug addict. Fear-porn corporate news is heroin - bad for you, but highly addictive. What you're talking about here is like going up to a junkie and offering them an organic apple, or a tasty hummus sandwich. Sure, they'd feel better if they swapped needles for nutrition, but bruh - not gonna happen.
> Would neutral-to-hopeful media stories be able to reach enough people?
They're out there. They often do grab attention, and a lot of people really love stories like that. But they don't trigger that drug-reflex like the shock-terror-drivel that corporate news gushes every minute of the day.
Gather all the volunteers you like - you're still offering apples to heroin addicts.
> what is needed to start doing this and reaching people with it, right now?
Treat fear-porn like heroin, and use similar interventions. Take control of the fear-porn, make it safe, and offer it in small doses in safe environments to addicts. Make society so safe and good that people aren't interested in heroin/fear-porn.
Now, can you do this without the fear-drug gangs doing anything and everything to stop you from accomplishing this? In America?
“We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” - Karl Rove.
> what could actually be done about the fear porn?
The short answer is, I don't know what can be done. The people doing it are doing it because it's very profitable for them, and not just because fear grabs attention. Their corporate sponsors love having control of the narrative.
I don't think I could pull even one person out of their fear bubble, either the CNN flavour or the Fox flavour. All you can do is try to help them feel safe, and loved. But it's like having a drug addict in the family; it's a lot of work and very often there isn't much you can do.
You need to go after the drug pusher, and the manufacturer, and take away their control of the fear supply and distribution.
That's a "radical" and monumental task, which can only be begun when enough people recognize the disease that's attacking them. Very smart and effective people have tried to do this for decades, and been smeared for their efforts. Witness Assange, Chomsky, Klein, etc.
> To what extent are people aware of the effects of fear-mongering / click-bait media able to make other choices if offered alternatives?
Again, I feel that the correct analogy here is that of a drug addict. Fear-porn corporate news is heroin - bad for you, but highly addictive. What you're talking about here is like going up to a junkie and offering them an organic apple, or a tasty hummus sandwich. Sure, they'd feel better if they swapped needles for nutrition, but bruh - not gonna happen.
> Would neutral-to-hopeful media stories be able to reach enough people?
They're out there. They often do grab attention, and a lot of people really love stories like that. But they don't trigger that drug-reflex like the shock-terror-drivel that corporate news gushes every minute of the day.
Gather all the volunteers you like - you're still offering apples to heroin addicts.
> what is needed to start doing this and reaching people with it, right now?
Treat fear-porn like heroin, and use similar interventions. Take control of the fear-porn, make it safe, and offer it in small doses in safe environments to addicts. Make society so safe and good that people aren't interested in heroin/fear-porn.
Now, can you do this without the fear-drug gangs doing anything and everything to stop you from accomplishing this? In America?
“We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” - Karl Rove.
Tune out of TV/radio news and stop reading newspapers (be it online or paper form), life becomes several orders of magnitudes more enjoyable.
Journalism ("full volume fear porn") isn't worth giving any of your precious time and energy to.
Journalism ("full volume fear porn") isn't worth giving any of your precious time and energy to.
I would say, our modern controlled democracy can’t solve any problem. Why “controlled”? Because only professional conmen backed by some shady organizations can enter the voting list with real election change. I know tons really smart and good hearted people. I can guarantee, their work would be very beneficial for whole society. And yet no one of them gets elected somewhere. Democracy being complete scam is also being promoted as a single true government form. It’s actually worse than communism. There is same ruling class, same corruption and also nobody is responsive for anything. Best case something is being planned until next election and NO big project is being touched. That’s how one ends building 40 years 6 mile long train track. Democracy must be replaced with something working. Maybe with real direct democracy where everybody could vote using some app.
Democracy being complete scam is also being promoted as a single true government form. It’s actually worse than communism.
I’m actually seeing this a lot lately. Maybe a bit of American self-doubt starting to show ?
I’ve really noticed the last few weeks especially a bit of a “Maybe China has it right” attitude.
My theory is maybe it’s the fear of job losses making people think twice about the free market capitalist society actually being a wise thing to be part of once you’re no longer as required as in the past ? Just general disillusionment ?
I actually agree with you btw , what we have does not work anymore, it’s not solving the problems of today.
I’m actually seeing this a lot lately. Maybe a bit of American self-doubt starting to show ?
I’ve really noticed the last few weeks especially a bit of a “Maybe China has it right” attitude.
My theory is maybe it’s the fear of job losses making people think twice about the free market capitalist society actually being a wise thing to be part of once you’re no longer as required as in the past ? Just general disillusionment ?
I actually agree with you btw , what we have does not work anymore, it’s not solving the problems of today.
> Stop climate change and prevent pandemics and so there are all these terrible things that people are worried about and if we can just not have them, then maybe that’s a bright future, but that’s not actually a better future than today. It’s just avoiding a worse one.
He should study the notion of priority before thinking about philosophy. That's much more in its abilities.
> Here’s the case as clearly and concisely as I can make it. Consider the 50-year period that ended about 100 years ago, from 1870 to 1920, let’s say. In this period, we got by my count, five major innovations.
Between 1870 and 1920 one had WW1. So maybe there wasn't much progress on peace ?
> One is the burden of regulation, which has grown enormously.
Regulation is progress in handling innovation.
He should study the notion of priority before thinking about philosophy. That's much more in its abilities.
> Here’s the case as clearly and concisely as I can make it. Consider the 50-year period that ended about 100 years ago, from 1870 to 1920, let’s say. In this period, we got by my count, five major innovations.
Between 1870 and 1920 one had WW1. So maybe there wasn't much progress on peace ?
> One is the burden of regulation, which has grown enormously.
Regulation is progress in handling innovation.
The main problem with humanity is the lack of wisdom, not the lack of progress. Discovering something is nice, but if you are not able to handle it, it is of no use. When antibiotics were discovered, it made a great improvement on health of people. But instead of using it in a wise way, it was grossly overused, resulting in widespread resistance, slowly undoing all it positive effects. And that is how it basically has gone with every discovery.
Antibiotics has worked well, since its invention and continues to work very well to this day.
Sure, resistance to antibiotics is an occasional problem. But it's also a problem that doesn't seem to grow much worse over time.
Problem is, when people are thinking in the abstract they are bad at figuring what is significant and how significant it is. Living in the age before antibiotics was a completely different world, with a lot more risk. Living today with a moderate and constant amount of antibiotics resistance is nothing like that at all. And if resistance becomes too severe a problem, new antibiotics will be invented quickly as the general principle has been figured out.
Problem is that people want to or are driven to obsess over all these, to a vast degree, imaginary dangers, instead of focusing on how far they've come and how far they could yet go and how wonderful that would be.
Sure, resistance to antibiotics is an occasional problem. But it's also a problem that doesn't seem to grow much worse over time.
Problem is, when people are thinking in the abstract they are bad at figuring what is significant and how significant it is. Living in the age before antibiotics was a completely different world, with a lot more risk. Living today with a moderate and constant amount of antibiotics resistance is nothing like that at all. And if resistance becomes too severe a problem, new antibiotics will be invented quickly as the general principle has been figured out.
Problem is that people want to or are driven to obsess over all these, to a vast degree, imaginary dangers, instead of focusing on how far they've come and how far they could yet go and how wonderful that would be.
Wisdom is sure lacking, this is what scares me about generative AI, it doesn’t grant wisdom, it allows us to do stupid shit at 10x.
An ultra individualist complaining about progress of the non-individual a.k.a the common.
The problem has been solved already, there is nothing new to discover here. The capitalist economy is the driving the current state of technological progress. It used to have an accelerated pace compared to pre-capitalist economies and it has now reached it's limits.
You may like it, you may dislike it, it doesn't matter. It is what it is. It is a mode of production, a mode of progress and it produces it's artifacts.
Like every tool, when you try to do something bigger, it becomes obsolete, unusable, unsustanable. You can't build a skyscraper with a shovel.
You may disagree with what a better tool will be. You may be emotionally attached to your tool and may not want to abandon it. That's ok. Just dont helusinate over putting an addon to your shovel that will help us build a skyscraper and sell it as the solution.
This kind of philosophy is not new at all, it is 300 years old.
The problem has been solved already, there is nothing new to discover here. The capitalist economy is the driving the current state of technological progress. It used to have an accelerated pace compared to pre-capitalist economies and it has now reached it's limits.
You may like it, you may dislike it, it doesn't matter. It is what it is. It is a mode of production, a mode of progress and it produces it's artifacts.
Like every tool, when you try to do something bigger, it becomes obsolete, unusable, unsustanable. You can't build a skyscraper with a shovel.
You may disagree with what a better tool will be. You may be emotionally attached to your tool and may not want to abandon it. That's ok. Just dont helusinate over putting an addon to your shovel that will help us build a skyscraper and sell it as the solution.
This kind of philosophy is not new at all, it is 300 years old.
"Progress" in the innovation sense comes from many places. Once something has been successful somewhere, it gets copied elsewhere. No one government controls innovation. The author does not seem to get this. (For an overview of the copying process, see "How Asia Works" by Studwell. It's a good study on how various Asian countries became part of the developed world.)
The "Roots of Progress" organization he comes from is basically him.[1]
[1] https://rootsofprogress.org/
The "Roots of Progress" organization he comes from is basically him.[1]
[1] https://rootsofprogress.org/
Yeah while I enjoy some of the stuff from Roots of Progress, there's a bit too much Whig Historianism in it to be accurate. The history of technology is full of technological copying, transferring, and refinement.
What changed in early 1970s is the energy crisis. Economic growth before 1973 was about finding new ways to burn more and more fossil fuels to make stuff: US GDP increased 2.1x between 1953 and 1973 while final energy consumption increased 2.01x, barely any improvement in energy efficiency (4.5% in 20 years).
Between 2001 and 2021, GDP indeed grew less, by only 46.5%, but energy consumption grew by only 1.8%, resulting in 44% growth in energy efficiency.
Same trend is the case worldwide. Progress is slow because we have moved from extensive to intensive economy, learning how to do more with less.
Between 2001 and 2021, GDP indeed grew less, by only 46.5%, but energy consumption grew by only 1.8%, resulting in 44% growth in energy efficiency.
Same trend is the case worldwide. Progress is slow because we have moved from extensive to intensive economy, learning how to do more with less.
I like the techno optimism of this guy.
Max Roser's work is more holistic and maybe more important:
"Measuring progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals:"
https://sdg-tracker.org/
https://www.maxroser.com/
Max Roser's work is more holistic and maybe more important:
"Measuring progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals:"
https://sdg-tracker.org/
https://www.maxroser.com/
Natural selection only works if the organism is allowed to die. I think the same is true for institutions and the cultural elite. Part of the stagnation, if you buy it's existence, is a slowing of the rate of death of institutions. I partially buy these arguments but life extension is such a stupid non-goal because it'll only calcify the elite leadership important institutions.
Within a year or two we will have an AI ethics governing body whose members may live to 150. I find that concerning
Within a year or two we will have an AI ethics governing body whose members may live to 150. I find that concerning
It‘s the Singularity talk from 2009 all over again … Why would they live to 150? They won‘t. They will die with 95, just like everyone else.
Well, who knows what genetic advances we'll make in 40 years. We squashed a pandemic in two years based on research that had been percolating for ten years. People don't die of old age, they die of ailments that accumulate through age. The more of those we fix, the longer people live. I'm not confident of the 150 number, but larger generational cohorts above 100? You bet.
I have already accounted for that and that‘s why I said 95 and not 75.
Take a look at the historical numbers and extrapolate. And that‘s without taking into account that most progress is preventing death at a young age.
Take a look at the historical numbers and extrapolate. And that‘s without taking into account that most progress is preventing death at a young age.
This is also noticeable in the ages of our leaders, it seems that 80 years of age is becoming the new average.
With that we get out-of-date worldviews and status-quo capitalism.
With that we get out-of-date worldviews and status-quo capitalism.
Wow! I have been surprised two times, once when listening to the podcast:
Someone who seems to grasp some global understanding not given to most and articulate them (the central role that progress plays in our society, the progress having peaked, the need to study and understand the notion of progress) being so short-sighted and individualistic that he fails to even take into account the nature of progress itself. He wants and believes in a brighter future (I do to) but what he is advocating for leads us to catastrophy, I am all for progress, but I think we really need progress on moral standing, a progress in mindset etc... Basically a progress of ideas and spirituality, and NOT more technical/technological progress!
My second surprise was to see this heavily tech-oriented community not bite into this bait and remain very critical without falling into cynicism, this makes me hopeful that something can be done about this. A lot has been said to highlight the shortsightedness of the guest speaker's argument and even more could be said, but I want to ask something else, what are we doing about this? What can we do as techies/engineers to address this madness?
My second surprise was to see this heavily tech-oriented community not bite into this bait and remain very critical without falling into cynicism, this makes me hopeful that something can be done about this. A lot has been said to highlight the shortsightedness of the guest speaker's argument and even more could be said, but I want to ask something else, what are we doing about this? What can we do as techies/engineers to address this madness?
1870 to 1920 is compared to the last 50 years yet internal combustion, planes, electricity, vaccines, fertilizers, radio, telephone etc. hadn't really achieved much by 1920, not compared with what they grew into.
Model T Ford's are remembered as the car that kicked off the century of the car, not its peak.
Carbon fibre, solar power or one of a million other technologies that have started to catch on in the last few decades could revolutionise the world. It's a bit silly trying to predict them in advance. What did the future look like in 1920? Zeppelin's?
Though if I was going to predict one, solar power (renewables more generally) seems a very effective counter to all his complaints. Something that was pushed forward by centralised beaurocracy and government regulation at every turn and is providing the cheapest, most abundant energy in history.
Model T Ford's are remembered as the car that kicked off the century of the car, not its peak.
Carbon fibre, solar power or one of a million other technologies that have started to catch on in the last few decades could revolutionise the world. It's a bit silly trying to predict them in advance. What did the future look like in 1920? Zeppelin's?
Though if I was going to predict one, solar power (renewables more generally) seems a very effective counter to all his complaints. Something that was pushed forward by centralised beaurocracy and government regulation at every turn and is providing the cheapest, most abundant energy in history.
Its good to have somebody root for progress. A monoculture of doom cannot possibly serve us well. But if that advocacy is done in a poor way it only serves to highlight how justified the critical view of technosolutionism.
There are at least three areas where I find his world view lacking.
First, its not historically informed. There was another astonishing period of progress and it did not end well: the broader GreacoRoman period. It was arguably even more revolutionary as it cultivated the basic mental modes required for science. Yet that world did not land smoothly on an s-curve, it collapsed completely. Yes, collapse is an accessible end-state today as well. If it turns out we cannot learn from the disasters of the past we have every reason to worry they will be repeated.
Which brings to the second point. You cant separate the scientific and technological universe from socio-economic organization. There are countless ways one can mobilize society for a while (eg slave labor that frees elites for higher pursuits) but long-term stable progress must, by definition, be based on fundamentally fair and distributive societies that dont chew on themselves.
Third, there are objective, physical and biological constraints that limit progress. The universe and our planet dont owe us a boundless canvas for us to realize any bizarre mental construct or obsession. What is on offer is already vast, but it does not extend in all directions. Learning to identify the naturally available growth options will be key for sustainable development.
I also think he misunderstands the role of digital tech. It is true that its impact so far has been marginal, even regressive, and pales in comparison to the major breakthroughs of 19th and 20th centuries. But its true nature is really human knowledge augmentation, similar to the invention of writing, the invention of mathematical proof etc. If we could liberate tech from the psychopaths and the sick economic system that supports them, it could lead to a enormous boost of global ingenuity and productivity. The tech dividend is still to be seen.
There are at least three areas where I find his world view lacking.
First, its not historically informed. There was another astonishing period of progress and it did not end well: the broader GreacoRoman period. It was arguably even more revolutionary as it cultivated the basic mental modes required for science. Yet that world did not land smoothly on an s-curve, it collapsed completely. Yes, collapse is an accessible end-state today as well. If it turns out we cannot learn from the disasters of the past we have every reason to worry they will be repeated.
Which brings to the second point. You cant separate the scientific and technological universe from socio-economic organization. There are countless ways one can mobilize society for a while (eg slave labor that frees elites for higher pursuits) but long-term stable progress must, by definition, be based on fundamentally fair and distributive societies that dont chew on themselves.
Third, there are objective, physical and biological constraints that limit progress. The universe and our planet dont owe us a boundless canvas for us to realize any bizarre mental construct or obsession. What is on offer is already vast, but it does not extend in all directions. Learning to identify the naturally available growth options will be key for sustainable development.
I also think he misunderstands the role of digital tech. It is true that its impact so far has been marginal, even regressive, and pales in comparison to the major breakthroughs of 19th and 20th centuries. But its true nature is really human knowledge augmentation, similar to the invention of writing, the invention of mathematical proof etc. If we could liberate tech from the psychopaths and the sick economic system that supports them, it could lead to a enormous boost of global ingenuity and productivity. The tech dividend is still to be seen.
Don’t need a philosophy. Need a destination.
[deleted]
ultra MTFBA?
I see only three paths of progress:
a) space colonization (however that may work, I don't think there's a way)
b) embracing stagnation (in all countable units, except perhaps transistors)
c) buildup to violent collapse (which may or may not be followed by something capable of written history)
b in particular goes far beyond just "a sufficiently large number of people don't procreate", because if it's not somewhat evenly distributed, all future generations will be descendants of high-reproduction ancestors and you're back at square one.
a) space colonization (however that may work, I don't think there's a way)
b) embracing stagnation (in all countable units, except perhaps transistors)
c) buildup to violent collapse (which may or may not be followed by something capable of written history)
b in particular goes far beyond just "a sufficiently large number of people don't procreate", because if it's not somewhat evenly distributed, all future generations will be descendants of high-reproduction ancestors and you're back at square one.
In the advanced countries of the world there is no shortage of material and energy abundance, our intractable problems are things like isolation, obesity, inequality, and a lack of purpose, and the mental and physical ailments which accompany them. If there is a technological solution to these things it's not obvious. In some cases, technology is the problem. In others the problem stems from how we order our society, but there are no serious and thoughtful proposals about how to reorder it.