Grognor 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.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (108)
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.