= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MichaelAnissimov comments on Existential Risk - 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 (108)
Whilst I really, really like the last picture - it seems a little odd to include it in the article.
Isn't this meant to seem like a hard-nosed introduction to non-transhumanist/sci-fi people? And doesn't the picture sort of act against that - by being slightly sci-fi and weird?
I'm in favor of including the last picture as part of the article, because it shows the possible world we gain by averting existential risk. I don't believe that "context" is necessary, the image is self-explanatory.
Nitpicking on ringworld vs. stanford torus is not relevant, or interesting. The overall connotations and message are clear.
"Sci-fi" of today becomes "reality" of tomorrow. Non-transhumanists ought to open up their eyes to the potential of the light cone, and introducing them to that potential, whether directly or indirectly, is one of the biggest tasks that we have. Otherwise people are just stuck with what they see right in front of their eyes.
For a big picture issue like existential risk, it fits that one would want to also introduce a vague sketch of the possibilities of the big picture future.
Suggesting that the Earth picture itself doesn't belong in the post shows some kind of general bias against visuals, or something. You think that a picture about saving human life on earth isn't appropriately paired with a picture of the Earth? What image could be more appropriate than that?
I didn't understand it. It didn't self-explain to me.
Woah! That's quite a leap! But hold on a second! This isn't meant to be literature, is it? It doesn't seem to me that an explanation of this kind benefits from having hidden meanings and whatnot, especially ideological ones like that.
Agreed.
This is a Fully General Counterargument that you could use on objections to any image, no matter what the image is, and no matter what the objection is.
As for me, I'm not really Blue or Green on whether to keep the image. It's really pretty, but the relevance is dubious at best and nonexistent at worst.
I'm a genius transhumanist who likes sci-fi, and the connotations and message of the image were not clear to me. I wasn't even sure what it was supposed to be a picture of (my first guess was something from the Halo games, though I couldn't imagine the relevance). Is this more something that would be clear to the general populace and not folks like me, and thus should be included in a post to appeal to the general populace?
Strange enough. After all, while I am a transhumanist to some degree and also enjoy scifi, I am far from being a genious. Still the message of the pictures were immeditately obvious.This would suggest towards what you said: they maybe appealing to general people, while not necessarily as appealing to those already very familiar with scifi and transhumanism.
I would count myself among "general people". I didn't get it at all. In fact, having read the comments, I'm still not sure I get it. It's a pretty picture and all, but why is it there?
The first picture is a dark image of a planet with a sligthly threatening atmosphere. It looks like the upper half of a mushroom cloud, but it could be also seen as the earth violently torn apart. This is why I think , given the context, that it symbolises the threat of a nuclear war, and more universally, the threat of a dystopia.
The last picture shows a beatiful utopia. I thought it's there to give a message of the type: "If everything goes well, we can still achieve a very good future." That is, while the first picture symbolises the threat of a dystopia, the last one symbolises the hope and possibility of an utopia.
Of course, this is merely my interpretation. There are very many ways one can inerprent these pictures.
Note: "interesting", "clear", and perhaps even "relevant" are 2-place words.
Well, how about a picture of human life? Or even a picture of human life being saved; it might not be a bad idea to suggest a similarity between a doctor saving a patient's life and an x-risk-reduction policy saving many peoples' lives.
Well, or something like that but a little more subtle as a metaphor.
Needlessly distracting. Most people have enough trouble appreciating the scale of existential risk that their minds often shut down when thinking about it, or just try to change the subject. Adding into it other ideas which are larger scale and even more controversial is not a recipe for getting them to pay attention.