Today's post, Why is the Future So Absurd? was originally published on 07 September 2007. A summary (taken from the LW wiki):

 

New technologies and social changes have consistently happened at a rate that would seem absurd and impossible to people only a few decades before they happen. Hindsight bias causes us to see the past as obvious and as a series of changes towards the "normalcy" of the present; availability biases make it hard for us to imagine changes greater than those we've already encountered, or the effects of multiple changes. The future will be stranger than we think.


Discuss the post here (rather than in the comments to the original post).

This post is part of the Rerunning the Sequences series, where we'll be going through Eliezer Yudkowsky's old posts in order so that people who are interested can (re-)read and discuss them. The previous post was Availability, and you can use the sequence_reruns tag or rss feed to follow the rest of the series.

Sequence reruns are a community-driven effort. You can participate by re-reading the sequence post, discussing it here, posting the next day's sequence reruns post, or summarizing forthcoming articles on the wiki. Go here for more details, or to have meta discussions about the Rerunning the Sequences series.

New Comment
3 comments, sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Discuss the post here (rather than in the comments to the original post).

This comment by alexflint doesn't look like it's gotten much exposure back when sequence reruns were first discussed.

Maybe the template shouldn't be instructing people to leave comments here?

When it was discussed, many people asked that comments go in the rerun, so that the "recent comments" feature wasn't showing comments on EY's old posts. If you do want to discuss something about a rerun, by all means leave a comment. But if you do have a question about a post that we won't get to for another year, then definitely leave it on the original post and hope someone spots it.

Gotcha. I wasn't aware that there had been more discussion about sequence reruns than that one thread.