= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MichaelGR comments on Less Wrong Q&A with Eliezer Yudkowsky: Video Answers - 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 (94)
Well, if the future doesn't take care of itself, then I definitely won't be around to see it. ;)
And I don't know if my being around to see it would be a good thing. I can't imagine the distant future needing me any more than the present needs men like Nathan Bedford Forrest or any random ancient Roman gladiator.
What would the average educated person from 1800 think about today? How many things would they be horrified by? Let's see...
Interracial marriages?
Divorce being commonplace and accepted?
The Bible not being taught in schools?
Children talking back to their parents?
Pornography?
Women in the workforce?
Gay rights?
I'm sure that the list could go on and on, and I'd also expect that I'd be as horrified by our future as our ancestors would be by our present.
My point is that it might or might not "take care of itself", we shouldn't be so sure either way, which is why we should do what we can to nudge it in the right direction (by, f.ex., working on existential risks and FAI, among other things).
And how many things would they find amazing and worth living for (many of which we take for granted and don't even notice anymore)?
As Kutta says, this isn't a time machine scenario (unless cryonics are involved, I suppose). The future would come one day at a time, as it has always done throughout your life.