Here’s what I’m learning from the thread so far.
The bottom line question seems to be…
Can we successfully manage existential scale powers?
I now think that I/we should be aiming directly at this bottom line question, and leaving the “relationship with knowledge” business to the detail section of the discussion.
I’ve had this conversation many times and am only realizing this now, so thank you for that. Duh…!
I think I was seduced by the “relationship with knowledge” business because, like many of my fellow members, my ego likes to play the role of dogma debunker, and the “more is better” relationship with knowledge assumption is one of the fundamental dogma assumptions of modern culture.
However, while I still think that dogma should challenged, doing so tends to be very distracting. It’s a lot like going in to an evangelical Christian forum and claiming that Jesus was just a figment of some Bible writer’s imagination. Ok, I suppose that could be true, but honking that horn would tend to derail more productive conversations.
If it can be shown that we can successfully manage existential scale powers, then the relationship with knowledge issue becomes far less pressing.
If that case can’t be made, the serious response would seem to be to focus on the most immediately pressing threats, such as nuclear weapons at the current moment in history.
John, Thank you for characterizing my thoughts on the subject, but please allow me to remind you that characterizing an argument, and addressing that argument, are not at all the same thing. And characterizing any argument is obviously not by itself a debunking of that argument.Maybe we're just trying to figure out what it is you are saying. That was my first comment, and you have done a poor job of explaining yourself ever since, jumping from one argument to another.
Let's get back to the actual thesis. 1) If the thesis of this thread is correct, we should be trying to involve others in the discussion with the goal of coming up with constructive ways to address the threat. 2) If the thesis is not correct, somebody should try to explain why. I don't hear such an explanation yet.We have. You don't listen.
I don't know of a way to successfully manage every existential scale power that will emerge. Do you John? This isn't a debating challenge, but a sincere question. If you, or anybody else reading, knows of a way to do this please share it. If we don't know of a way to successfully manage every existential scale power that will emerge, could we please just admit that so the conversation can proceed? It might proceed in the direction of looking for others who claim they have a solution to this problem. I'm not claiming there is no solution. I'm claiming I don't know of one, and don't know of anyone else who does either. If anyone here can fix that, please do!We keep saying that there are entire organizations working on the threats you have specifically mentioned. We have been discussing global warming and nukes for generations. You just don't respond to those comments and keep going on that there is some other approach that is needed or something.
Here's what I'm learning from the thread so far. The bottom line question seems to be... Can we successfully manage existential scale powers? I now think that I/we should be aiming directly at this bottom line question, and leaving the "relationship with knowledge" business to the detail section of the discussion. I've had this conversation many times and am only realizing this now, so thank you for that. Duh.....!Then suddenly you say you have learned something from the conversation although above you are telling people to shut up if they don't agree with you.
If that case can't be made, the serious response would seem to be to focus on the most immediately pressing threats, such as nuclear weapons at the current moment in history.Right, it's about priorities, that's what I said.
Tanny, it would be nice to get rid of all nuclear weapons but it seems to me that there is so much mistrust and suspicion between the global powers that this doesn’t seem a likely prospect. The Russians continually lie to us and their own people and seem determined to re-instate their previous lost territories, that is in terms of client states. We have the threat of global terrorism and if one day a terrorist gets hold of a nuclear device we are in a great deal of trouble. The problem is the world has different ideas about the best way to live is and, therefore, there does not seem to be much prospect of reconciliation and because of the mistrust there is I’m not sure anyone would truly believe that a nation has complete given up its nuclear weapons. You have to remember that in a place like Russia it pays its leaders to cultivate a culture of suspicion towards the west because that way they consolidate their power. Why? Because if the masses are more frightened of a possible foreign invasion they are less likely to question the validity of their leaders if they see them as acting to protect them from external threats. And don’t forget Russia has a state controlled media which facilitates whatever propaganda they want to broadcast.
Tanny, it would be nice to get rid of all nuclear weapons but it seems to me that there is so much mistrust and suspicion between the global powers that this doesn't seem a likely prospect.Yes, that seems true now, agreed. But there is the potential for the situation to radically change on that inevitably coming day when a nuke erases a city somewhere in the world. That event may push all of us deeper in to mistrust and fear, or it may bring us to our senses. It has revolutionary potential in both directions. As I see it, we're in a race between a single terrorist nuke event, and a nuke war between countries. By the sensible logic of your comments, we will arrive at one of those sooner or later. I find myself almost wishing for the terrorist event, because maybe that will wake us up before the major #$%^ hits the fan.
We have the threat of global terrorism and if one day a terrorist gets hold of a nuclear device we are in a great deal of trouble.Check out the excellent documentary video Countdown To Zero. It should do a good job of totally ruining your day. Here's the trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWJN9cZcT64 And the full film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXMjZAvsXmM
I really find comments like this rather unsettling…
So let’s identify those thinkers who have thought it through to the logical conclusion. I don’t claim they don’t exist, and it seems likely that they do. But who are they? Other than Ted Kaczynski.
Logical conclusion? Yikes! He’s mentioned twice and then…
I find myself almost wishing for the terrorist event, because maybe that will wake us up before the major #$%^ hits the fan.Not something that would cross my mind - far from "almost wish for". How far is this from helping events along?
How far is this from helping events along?Well, think it through. 1) As Webplodder suggested, there is currently little evidence that countries are interested in giving up their nuclear weapons. Limiting maybe, giving up, no. 2) Human history going back to the invention of agriculture shows a consistent pattern of periodic all out wars between human groups. 3) These facts suggest that it's only a matter of time until we see some warring parties resort to nuclear weapons. 4) Something major is probably going to have to happen to interfere with this pattern, or we're likely to just keep drifting along towards the one really bad day. 5) Losing one city would be a major event, but not a fatal event. 6) Thus, the choice may be a) lose one city or, b) lose a bunch of cities or maybe the planet. If we lose one city first, there's at least a chance that such an event will change our perspective enough to avoid catastrophic events later. All of the above is based on the theory that it's unlikely we're going to be able to solve such huge problems with reason alone.
Well, think it through. 1) As Webplodder suggested, there is currently little evidence that countries are interested in giving up their nuclear weapons. Limiting maybe, giving up, no.Nuclear bombs can also be used for saving mankind. Just last week news had a large rock that is in an orbit that comes close to the earth. It’s next passing orbit is only 20,000 miles from the earth at this time. It is too early and too far away to nail it’s orbit down and it is very possible that it might hit the earth.
2) Human history going back to the invention of agriculture shows a consistent pattern of periodic all out wars between human groups.Only after the deities do we see walled cities. Not at the invention of agriculture.
Tanny, it would be nice to get rid of all nuclear weapons but it seems to me that there is so much mistrust and suspicion between the global powers that this doesn't seem a likely prospect.Yes, that seems true now, agreed. But there is the potential for the situation to radically change on that inevitably coming day when a nuke erases a city somewhere in the world. That event may push all of us deeper in to mistrust and fear, or it may bring us to our senses. It has revolutionary potential in both directions. As I see it, we're in a race between a single terrorist nuke event, and a nuke war between countries. By the sensible logic of your comments, we will arrive at one of those sooner or later. I find myself almost wishing for the terrorist event, because maybe that will wake us up before the major #$%^ hits the fan.
We have the threat of global terrorism and if one day a terrorist gets hold of a nuclear device we are in a great deal of trouble.Check out the excellent documentary video Countdown To Zero. It should do a good job of totally ruining your day. Here's the trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWJN9cZcT64 And the full film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXMjZAvsXmMThere's 2 far-fetched scenarios where nuclear war could happen: 1) AI takes over and decides to kill us off with our nuclear arsenal. 2) War between humans and aliens Outside of this, nuclear war will never happen. The possibility of terrorists or some other rogue group detonating a suitcase nuke is on the table, but even this is unlikely because of the difficulty involved.
Only this morning there was a report about North Korea launching what they seem to think is an ICBM towards Japan, landing in the Sea of Japan. Now, apparently, their objective is to develop a missile that can reach mainland USA, so what does this do for international relations? Yes, Kim Jong-um is a buffoon but a dangerous buffoon that could de-stabilize world peace by provoking the USA into some kind of military action. This is why, at present, multilateral nuclear disarmament seems a distant dream. Maybe things will change in time.
Outside of this, nuclear war will never happen.
The possibility of terrorists or some other rogue group detonating a suitcase nuke is on the table, but even this is unlikely because of the difficulty involved.Ok, we found someone who needs to watch the documentary linked above. Seriously Beltane, I'd like to hear your comments on this, but not until you've educated yourself on the subject. Watch the documentary. No, don't just hit the reply button, actually watch the documentary. And THEN come on back, hit reply, and present your arguments.
This is why, at present, multilateral nuclear disarmament seems a distant dream. Maybe things will change in time.I hear ya, but the North Korean situation doesn't stop other parties from radically reducing their arsenals. If the U.S., China and Russia all reduced their arsenals by 95% we'd still have plenty of firepower for dealing with North Korea. We don't even need nukes to deal with them, and if the @#T% hits the fan, I doubt we'd use nukes against the North Koreans. It seems to me the burden is on the U.S. and Russia to unravel the nuclear age. We started this ball rolling, and we together still have the vast majority of the nukes. Reagan and Gorby talked about getting rid of them all, and there's nothing stopping us from having that conversation again. At the least we could radically reduce the arsenals and still have way more than anybody else. All that said, I'm inclined to agree with your pessimism, at least for now. But the situation could change dramatically once the next nuke is used. Should that happen, global media will be saturated with the story for at least months. The photos of irradiated victims and massive destruction will be shown over and over and over again in a continuous loop. The nuclear issue will transform from a boring obscure nerd topic to the only thing anybody anywhere is talking about. Getting more back on topic, the bottom line question is, can we fix the existential scale threats already created by the knowledge explosion? If we could get rid of nukes and solve climate change, that would be a pretty good argument for continuing with the knowledge explosion status quo. If we can't address those challenges, it's a real stretch to argue why we should proceed to create even more such threats.
Link to Countdown To Zero on YouTube is pay per view. Sorry about that.
I’ve found a free version, but the idiot spam filter won’t let me post it. If anyone can teach me how to defeat the filter I’ll post the free version link.
Aha, found a work around, see link in my sig.
This is why, at present, multilateral nuclear disarmament seems a distant dream. Maybe things will change in time.I hear ya, but the North Korean situation doesn't stop other parties from radically reducing their arsenals. If the U.S., China and Russia all reduced their arsenals by 95% we'd still have plenty of firepower for dealing with North Korea. We don't even need nukes to deal with them, and if the @#T% hits the fan, I doubt we'd use nukes against the North Koreans. It seems to me the burden is on the U.S. and Russia to unravel the nuclear age. We started this ball rolling, and we together still have the vast majority of the nukes. Reagan and Gorby talked about getting rid of them all, and there's nothing stopping us from having that conversation again. At the least we could radically reduce the arsenals and still have way more than anybody else. All that said, I'm inclined to agree with your pessimism, at least for now. But the situation could change dramatically once the next nuke is used. Should that happen, global media will be saturated with the story for at least months. The photos of irradiated victims and massive destruction will be shown over and over and over again in a continuous loop. The nuclear issue will transform from a boring obscure nerd topic to the only thing anybody anywhere is talking about. Getting more back on topic, the bottom line question is, can we fix the existential scale threats already created by the knowledge explosion? If we could get rid of nukes and solve climate change, that would be a pretty good argument for continuing with the knowledge explosion status quo. If we can't address those challenges, it's a real stretch to argue why we should proceed to create even more such threats. I think what we do have is the 'global village', i.e. the worldwide communications network that reports things immediately and gets people talking about things. This is good because talking about stuff lets any country, whether China, N. Korea or Russia, what the rest of the world thinks about unfolding situations. In the old days, before the advent of worldwide communication, the old powers had to use the usual channels of diplomacy which did not allow them to gauge the public opinion of other countries and the possible action of their governments. Nowadays, by people talking about things, situations can be changed and views changed, which can only be a good thing. But I think countries like to have nuclear weapons, not because they are going to use them, but to make others sit up and take notice by virtue of belonging to 'the nuclear club.' N. Korea will no way attack the USA because it will destroy itself and they probably just want to develop a nuclear capability in order to use as a bargaining chip for demands they might make concerning aid etc. Having said that, however, there is always a danger that things could escalate and get out of hand and it only takes some accident to trigger a nuclear strike. So it probably would be a good idea to get rid of all nukes, but if and when remains unanswerable.
This is why, at present, multilateral nuclear disarmament seems a distant dream. Maybe things will change in time.I hear ya, but the North Korean situation doesn't stop other parties from radically reducing their arsenals. If the U.S., China and Russia all reduced their arsenals by 95% we'd still have plenty of firepower for dealing with North Korea. We don't even need nukes to deal with them, and if the @#T% hits the fan, I doubt we'd use nukes against the North Koreans. It seems to me the burden is on the U.S. and Russia to unravel the nuclear age. We started this ball rolling, and we together still have the vast majority of the nukes. Reagan and Gorby talked about getting rid of them all, and there's nothing stopping us from having that conversation again. At the least we could radically reduce the arsenals and still have way more than anybody else. All that said, I'm inclined to agree with your pessimism, at least for now. But the situation could change dramatically once the next nuke is used. Should that happen, global media will be saturated with the story for at least months. The photos of irradiated victims and massive destruction will be shown over and over and over again in a continuous loop. The nuclear issue will transform from a boring obscure nerd topic to the only thing anybody anywhere is talking about. Getting more back on topic, the bottom line question is, can we fix the existential scale threats already created by the knowledge explosion? If we could get rid of nukes and solve climate change, that would be a pretty good argument for continuing with the knowledge explosion status quo. If we can't address those challenges, it's a real stretch to argue why we should proceed to create even more such threats. I think what we do have is the 'global village', i.e. the worldwide communications network that reports things immediately and gets people talking about things. This is good because talking about stuff lets any country, whether China, N. Korea or Russia, what the rest of the world think about unfolding situations. In the old days, before the advent of worldwide communication, the old powers had to use the usual channels of diplomacy which did not allow them to gauge the public opinion of other countries and the possible action of their governments. Nowadays, by people talking about things, situations can be changed and views changed, which can only be a good thing. But I think countries like to have nuclear weapons, not because they are going to use them, but to make others sit up and take notice by virtue of belonging to 'the nuclear club.' N. Korea will no way attack the USA because it will destroy itself and they probably just want to develop a nuclear capability in order to use as a bargaining chip for demands they might make concerning aid etc. Having said that, however, there is always a danger that things could escalate and get out of hand and it only takes some accident to trigger a nuclear strike. So it probably would be a good idea to get rid of all nukes, but if and when remains unanswerable.
In one sense I agree with Tanny. Our scientific knowledge of new discoveries is far outstripping our knowledge of unintended consequences from applying those discoveries.
Therefore I propose a new area of scientific inquiry, i.e. The study of long term “unintended consequences” from applied science.
A simple example can be found in the development of insecticides to protect crops from pests. The development of DDT seemed at first an effective pest control. But if we had considered that introducing a poison into the food chain would inevitably result in DDT becoming a hazard to humans and birds and grazing animals such as cattle, finally ending up in the milk we drink for breakfast.
The irony lies in the fact that insects easily adapt to change in their environment and the pests would become immune to DDT, which then prompted the development of even stronger poisons. I call that just plain stupidity, no offense intended to the scientists who developed these products. Their job is not anticipate what will happen 20 years from now. They just use their knowledge to create the requested chemistry or technology.
btw. just read an article that the very popular weed killer Round-Up is a powerful carcinogenic.
If we had anticipated this and appreciated the danger in these unintended consequences, we might have focused on a more benign method of pest and weed control .
Really bad example Write4U. The IARC ruling on glyphosate has been widely criticized. You need to check your news sources. In fact that could be the turn this thread should take. It’s not the “knowledge” side that is the problem, it’s how to be a “skeptic”. Fear mongering about nuclear war is part of what caused the bad relationship with science that we have. It leads to people believing that chemicals in our food have become increasingly toxic when the opposite is true.
N. Korea will no way attack the USA because it will destroy itself and they probably just want to develop a nuclear capability in order to use as a bargaining chip for demands they might make concerning aid etc.I think they want nukes that can reach the U.S. to neutralize the U.S. Once that's done the north will be free to attack the south and reunite the Korean peninsula under the North's rule, the goal they've had since the very beginning of their regime. Would the U.S. risk Los Angeles and Portland to save the South Koreans? When push came to shove, probably not. Most Americans probably don't even know where South Korea is.
There's 2 far-fetched scenarios where nuclear war could happen: 1) AI takes over and decides to kill us off with our nuclear arsenal. 2) War between humans and aliens Outside of this, nuclear war will never happen. The possibility of terrorists or some other rogue group detonating a suitcase nuke is on the table, but even this is unlikely because of the difficulty involved.Broken Arrows: Nuclear Weapons Accidents Since 1950, there have been 32 nuclear weapon accidents, known as "Broken Arrows." A Broken Arrow is defined as an unexpected event involving nuclear weapons that result in the accidental launching, firing, detonating, theft or loss of the weapon. To date, six nuclear weapons have been lost and never recovered. http://www.atomicarchive.com/Almanac/Brokenarrows_static.shtml How many Broken Arrows have taken place in other countries? Just data I came across.
Thanks Mike. The video linked in my sig documents some of these whoops mistakes. There is another video on Netflix which focuses entirely on the time a nuclear silo in Arkansas exploded, destroying the silo and tossing the nuke in to the surrounding landscape. I’ll dig up the title if anyone is interested.
What happened was that a guy working on the missile dropped a wrench, which fell all the way to the bottom of the silo and then bounced, punching a hole in the missile. The silo then began to fill with rocket fuel, and after a few hours blew the entire launch facility to smithereens.
There’s a story in the video in my sig about the time the Americans were launching a research satelitte from Norway. They told the Russians about it ahead of time according to protocol. But oops, the Russians they told forget to pass the message up the chain of command. So when the American missile appeared on Russian radar they thought it was a first strike. The generals rushed the nuclear football to Yeltsin and told him he had to launch. Luckily this was a day when the chronically boozed up Yeltsin wasn’t totally drunk, and he paused to consider.
To me, the best analogy is that of a guy walking around all day everyday with a loaded gun in his mouth. If he trips over the curb, that’s it, game over.
Really bad example Write4U. The IARC ruling on glyphosate has been widely criticized. You need to check your news sources. In fact that could be the turn this thread should take. It's not the "knowledge" side that is the problem, it's how to be a "skeptic". Fear mongering about nuclear war is part of what caused the bad relationship with science that we have. It leads to people believing that chemicals in our food have become increasingly toxic when the opposite is true.Sorry Lauston, but I must disagree. All we need is look at lawsuits filed and awarded for billions of dollars. Asbestos, smoking, pesticides, insecticides, household cleaners and gadgets, toys, the list is too long. All these things were once tauted as the "solution" to so many problems and turned out to be hazardous to your or your pet's health. Oh I know many other discoveries are truly beneficial, such as aspirin, vitamin supplements, and yes extracts from naturally occurring medicines which have been used and tested for thousands of years. It is when we start making new synthetics, which do not occur naturally. Therein lies the danger. Plastics that wont degrade, artificially assembling long strands of synthetic molecules. Nature has no way to deal with those things we carelessly throw away for birds to eat and die. Why are bees disappearing? Is it possible that our chemistry has rendered their perfectly sterile environment and resistance to natural defenses vulnerable to mites and viruses which are practically immune to everything. As I said, I love science and the discovery of the secrets of the universe. It is the human application of artificially created environments for our personal convenience, nature be damned, that is the problem. As I suggested before, we need a new field of scientific/philosophical study that specializes in the science of "long-term" impacts and consequences of using artificially created products especially those products which make our lives easier and instead of using water to clean the sink, we dump a bottle of bleach to sterilize the surface and thereby trigger an evolutionary cycle in the unseen life, making them more and more resistant, to whatever we throw at them and all of it ends up in our aquafers, rivers, lakes and oceans, killing all organisms that do not have the ability to adapt quickly, including as humans.