= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
infotropism comments on Our society lacks good self-preservation mechanisms - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (105)
Technological progress seems to be necessary, but not sufficient to ensure our civilization's long term survival.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem quite adamant on arguing against the idea that our current civilization is in danger of extinction, when so many other people argue the other way around. This seems like it has the potential to degenerate into a fruitless debate, or even a flame war.
Yet you probably have some good points to make; why not think it over, and make a post about it, if your opinion is so different, and substantiated by facts and good reasoning, as I am sure it must be ?
That's a function of the venue of this discussion. The blog's founder goes to existential risk conferences - and so here we see the opinions of his supporters.
Doom prophecies are an old phenomenon. The explanation appears to me to be mainly sociological: warning others about risk makes you look as though you are contributing positively. If the risk doesn't actually exist, then it needs manufacturing - so that you can still alert others to the danger.
Of course, the bigger the risk, the more important it is to tell people about it. Existential risks are the "biggest" risks of all - so they are the most important ones to tell people about. Plus, alerting people to the risk might help you to SAVE THE WORLD! Thus the modern success of the "doom" meme.
I see your point, sometimes we may have already written the bottom line, and all that comes afterward is trying to justify it.
However, if an existential risk is conceivable, how much would you be ready to pay, or do, to investigate it ? Your answer could plausibly range from nothing, to everything you have. There ought to be a healthy middle there.
I could certainly understand how someone would arrive at saying that the problem isn't worth investigating further, because that person has a definite explanation of why other people care about that particular question, their reason being biased.
I'd for instance think of religion, as an example of that. I wouldn't read the Bible and centuries of apologetics and debates to decide that God does or doesn't exist. I'd just check to see if at first, people started to justify the existence of a god for other reasons than it existing. That's certainly a much more efficient way of looking at the problem.
Is there no sum of money, no amount of effort, however trivial, that could nevertheless be expanded on such an investigation, considering its possible repercussions, however unlikely those seem to be ?
By all means, discuss the risks we face. However, my council is to bear in mind the sociological explanation for the "the end is nigh" phenomenon. 2012 isn't the first year in which the end of the world has been predictied.
Are you actually concerned about the risk? Or are you attempting to signal to others what a fine fellow you are by alerting them to potential danger. Or is it that you wish to meet and form alliances with other people who want to help with the fine and noble cause of helping to SAVE THE WORLD? We understand the sociological explanation for the "DOOM" bias. Let us therefore exercise due caution in its immediate vicinity.
You mean that the idea that the end of the world is nigh is a classical failed model - much like geocentrism was...?
You are not introducing data that distinguishes the hypothesis that the cause of saving the world is worthwhile from the hypothesis that it's but an attire, serving status and rationalization thereof. It's name-calling, not an argument.
The argument was being made that "so many other people argue the other way around".
Lots of people arguing something is not a very good reason for thinking it is true. Ideas can become popular because they are good at spreading, not because of their truth value.
In the case of risks, it is pretty obvious how this could happen. Warning people about risks has a positive effect on your reputation.
It is well known to psychologists that humans concoct risks when they are not real for signalling purposes:
"Psychologists have dubbed the phenomenon The Boy Who Cried Wolf Effect, named after Aesop's fable about a shepherd who fakes wolf attacks. In real life, experts say, these "shepherds," mostly women, aren't acting out of boredom. These damsels in distress are very often motivated by an intense desire for attention and may feel unfairly neglected by those close to them, often romantic partners. Others are simply crying out to a world they feel ignores them."
I do not know to what extent memetic and evolutionary psychology explanations explain the observed effect. My estimate - from what I have seen - is that the extent is probably quite large. So: I think that discussion of the extent to which these beliefs may be being caused by signalling-related biases is quite appropriate.
Under this model, agents exaggerate the risks, and tell others about those risks, which makes them feel good. It also makes the recipients grateful. They then go on to infect others with the DOOM meme.
The infected agents construct elaborate rationales to explain the repeated historical failures of the DOOM predictions to come true. Yes, all those other folk who thought the same thing were wrong - but this time it is different, because ...
Your argument is that it's plausible that the idea is propagating independently of its truth (which is obviously true, when the idea is construed at the level of crude approximation), but it's not an argument against the idea's truth, especially if the idea is recreated apart from its fame.
Also, your version of the idea is about fuzzies, while ours is about utility, prompting different kinds of actions. The empty buzz of doomsaying was around for a long time, never crossing over towards serious study.
The idea that the DOOM meme is a plague is indeed an argument against its truth value. DOOM being ancient and persistent argues for its basis in human universals, rather than it being a realistic assessment of historical events. If DOOM was a new phenomenon, that might make it a more interesting object of study - but I don't see credible evidence supporting that. DOOM is clearly ancient - see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypticism
As for "fuzzies" vs "utility" - that just seems like an attempt to rubbish my position. Those who think they are going to RAISE THE ALARM and help SAVE THE WORLD remind me of "Total Recall":
"What's bullshit, Mr. Quaid? That you're having a paranoid episode triggered by acute neuro-chemical trauma? Or that you're really an invincible secret agent from Mars who's the victim of an interplanetary conspiracy to make him think he's a lowly construction worker?"