Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A 25-Year-Old Bet Comes Due: Has Tech Destroyed Society?

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 452 posts

Re: A 25-Year-Old Bet Comes Due: Has Tech Destroyed Society?

#291

Post by celticninja »

yesenadam wrote: post #231
lwhi wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The doctrine was M.A.D. .. or mutually assured distruction[1]. I believe the (arguably crazy) idea was that the weapons wouldn't ever be used. The fact that each nuclear superpower has a similar amount of weapons assured that the equalibrium would stop the worst from happening. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

That page says "Although the Cold War ended in the early 1990s, the MAD doctrine continues to be applied." I get the feeling that's not generally known. Isn't that kind of extremely weird? I've never seen discussion of it on HN, for example, or maybe what to do about the prospect of living indefinitely under the threat of MAD. With more countries with nuclear weapons all the time. Well, you read here about people not…

The problem with MAD is that it only works with logical people. Once you include religious fanatics then they don't fear the destruction, in their warped sense of reality their death just takes them to the next spiritual level (or whatever claptrap they preach). So they dont care if they are destroyed as long as their enemy is destroyed also. Because their enemy is some sort of heretic/unbeliever they will not be saved, whilst their people will all live happily in heaven because their god excuses genocide if you do it in HIS name.

Re: A 25-Year-Old Bet Comes Due: Has Tech Destroyed Society?

#292

Post by glenstein »

stavros_ wrote: post #188
jb_gericke wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually the global poverty line has been on a steady decline over the last three decades ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty ). We have made untold advances in the medical sciences (hello MRNA vaccines), we are rapidly divorcing ourselves from our reliance on fossil fuels, and we are living in a time when there is an unprecedented level of awareness for basal human rights (well, primarily in the West a…

Back breaking labour, very long working hours, poor health care and for the most part, endentured servitude to those who own the land/mills/factories you toil away in? All of these things are more true now than they were in the average subsistence based society. Amazon warehouse workers have a worse deal than serfs, and a much much worse deal than hunter gatherers. Oh and this we are rapidly divorcing ourselves from…

>All of these things are more true now than they were in the average subsistence based society

I don't think that's accurate at all. For one, we no longer have prevalence of childhood leukemia that we used to have. You could run down a long list of similar examples related to health.

For another, we have robust labor standards in most of the world which we didn't didn't used to have. Warehouse workers do indeed have appalling work conditions measured by modern standards, and we should be incensed by those. But I think any serious consideration of what, say, dust bowl Texas was like prior to rural electrification, or what an experience of hunter-gatherer life would be like for a person who actually wanted to go out and try it, I think it would be nuts to say such conditions are preferable.

As others have mentioned, your own link to EROI doesn't appear to make the point that you think it does.

Re: A 25-Year-Old Bet Comes Due: Has Tech Destroyed Society?

#293

Post by Daho0n »

simonh wrote: post #235
Daho0n wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that simple. Sure "the good old days" wasn't that good, but that doesn't mean he was completely wrong. >We have made untold advances in the medical sciences Out of reach of a lot of humanity and for those that can access it it is not without risks (just look at the medical devices debacle in the US). It also isn't as good as we often seem to believe. For example the US is number 7 in Deaths by heart attack b…

The US is just one country and we're talking about the future of humanity as a whole. Here in the UK we've eliminated more than half our carbon emissions from energy generation, and generally the US is lagging far behind a lot of other countries. Covid aside, economic and health improvement trends globally have been incredibly positive. Since 1995 about a billion people have been lifted out of extreme poverty. That d…

>Since 1995 about a billion people have been lifted out of extreme poverty

That is a great soundbite for the news but is it actually as great as it sounds? If we take it as fact that "one billion humans have been lifted out of extreme poverty" what about how many are in extreme poverty? Note that how many is outside extreme poverty doesn't say anything about the amount in extreme poverty, just that more are now above it. The world population grew by 1.6 billion between 1990 and 2010 according to the UN. So on one side we have the "one billion have been lifted out of extreme poverty" but on the other we have "1.6 billion more humans" with the greatest growth in poverty stricken countries like Nigeria. I don't know the numbers but I don't believe that the "about a billion people have been lifted out of extreme poverty" is the whole truth since AFAIK the amount in extreme poverty have grown.

EDIT: Looking up the numbers it hasn't "grown" but "extreme poverty" is seen as "statically less than 1.9 international dollars per day". Is it a lift to $3 or $30? $3 is still living in squalor and destitution if you ask most people in the West I'm sure. IMO extreme poverty haven't declined outside statistics.

Re: A 25-Year-Old Bet Comes Due: Has Tech Destroyed Society?

#294

Post by olau »

simonh wrote: post #214
fabianhjr wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am from Latin America though and have a 0.025 USD / year tuition on my current math undergrad education, public healthcare, and a more robust social security net overall.

Sure. I'm a capitalist and free marketeer, but support social security systems and even public health care. I think the US goes too far, particularly it's health care system is appalling, but I have to admit it's thin employment protections do make it a lot more flexible and responsive to economic conditions. Just look at how rapidly it recovered from the 2008 crisis compared to Europe, it was a whole year ahead of u…

How do you know that was because of their job market?

As far as I'm aware, that was because they printed tons of money. Money was printed in the EU too, but stopped much sooner - far too soon. As if people forgot about Keynes.

And actually I think you have some of this backwards. If you have a good social security net, you don't have to protect workers as much.

Likewise, health care is an investment in human capital. When people are ill, they can't produce.

Re: A 25-Year-Old Bet Comes Due: Has Tech Destroyed Society?

#295

Post by littlestymaar »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #284
tremon wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have made so many enemies that you need 18,000 nuclear bombs to feel safe, I question your attitude to life.

As others have said - the primary reason is that you need 1+ nukes to take out the other side's launch sites, and the other side knows this so they spread the siloses across their whole territory - so now you need 1+ nukes for every silo they have (or suspect they have), and they need 1+ nukes for every silo you have (or suspect you have), and this is a positive feedback loop.

By the time your nukes get to the silos, they will most likely be empty already though.

Re: A 25-Year-Old Bet Comes Due: Has Tech Destroyed Society?

#296

Post by zelphirkalt »

Society is a moving target however. That's what makes it difficult to see how society is being destroyed. It is more that many aspects of it change (are "destroyed"). Something unthinkable a hundred years ago has become normal today. Perhaps we do not need to even go that long a time back to find examples.

Re: A 25-Year-Old Bet Comes Due: Has Tech Destroyed Society?

#297

Post by MaxBarraclough »

darkerside wrote: post #155
glenstein wrote: post #37

A comment I made on this when it was posted a few days ago: I am surprised that this was regarded as a close decision. I guess a lot depends on wording, but when one person is predicting the dollar will be worthless, and the person in the role of judge claims that given global economic uncertainty, it's a "close" question, I wonder if they're just saying that to be diplomatic. Obviously there's a lot of uncertainty,…

No credit to Sale for denying victory to his opponent. I'm more disappointed than I thought I would be.

Right. He agreed that they'd go with Patrick's judgement, then petulantly went back on his word after he lost.

Re: A 25-Year-Old Bet Comes Due: Has Tech Destroyed Society?

#298

Post by eternalban »

fabianhjr wrote: post #185
konjin wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>father to Ada Lovelace the first programmer Babbage was the first programmer seeing as he invented the first computer. Lovelace is a perfect mirror for our society: a vapid socialite with shallow understanding of the problems and a willingness to make grandiose claims without the ability to back them up. That she is a woman just makes it even more blatant that we care nothing for ability as long as it makes for a go…

Here are some of Ada Lovelace's notes on Menebrea's paper on Babbage's Analytical Engine: http://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/tap/Files/ada-lovelace-notes.ht... > Again, it [the Analytical Engine] might act upon other things besides number, were objects found whose mutual fundamental relations could be expressed by those of the abstract science of operations, and which should be also susceptible of adaptations to the action…

Is the claim here that what Ada Lovelace wrote is original to her and not Charles Babbage? To be specific: is the claim here that Lovelace saw in Babbage's invention something he himself failed to see and anticipate?

[please don't simply downvote. This is a sincere question. Do we know the answer?]

Re: A 25-Year-Old Bet Comes Due: Has Tech Destroyed Society?

#299

Post by zelphirkalt »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #122
dimitrios1 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what I am saying at all. I mean for the sake of conversation and discussion, asking to even explain a belief, for understanding. Sometimes even the question is seemed as a threat. I didn't say I want to change anyone's mind. Wanting to have a discussion about important topics with loved ones isn't an instant trip down selfishness lane. I see what you are saying, but you jumped the gun a little bit.

Wanting to have a discussion about important topics with loved ones isn't an instant trip down selfishness lane. Are you sure? I don’t know. It helped me to view it as “yes, this is selfish. They’re more important to me than the topic.” The reason they’re talking is to feel good with themselves (as we all are). But asking someone to explain a tricky subject throws that off, doesn’t it? Another way to phrase it: why c…

What is your definition of selfishness then?

Looking at the things you wrote:

> They’re more important to me than the topic.

Why does it mean one is selfish, when _a topic_ (not oneself) is more important to oneself than that other person?

> The reason they’re talking is to feel good with themselves (as we all are). But asking someone to explain a tricky subject throws that off, doesn’t it?

Perhaps. But the interpretation is still not immediately "selfishness" for me. You are not there to please them and make them feel good. But how does that immediately become "selfish"?

> To reframe the question a bit, what do you feel you would get out of it if they explained their belief structure to you? (Explain your belief about this, ha.)

Yes, that is a good introspective question, that one maybe should ask oneself.

However, if anything that could somehow be interpreted as "wanting something for oneself" is considered selfish, then we can shut down all our media right now and stop talking to everyone else. You can always claim "You did this or that conversation only to feel good about yourself! So Selfish!"

So I am asking: What is your definition of selfishness?

Re: A 25-Year-Old Bet Comes Due: Has Tech Destroyed Society?

#300

Post by TeMPOraL »

littlestymaar wrote: post #295
TeMPOraL wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As others have said - the primary reason is that you need 1+ nukes to take out the other side's launch sites, and the other side knows this so they spread the siloses across their whole territory - so now you need 1+ nukes for every silo they have (or suspect they have), and they need 1+ nukes for every silo you have (or suspect you have), and this is a positive feedback loop.

By the time your nukes get to the silos, they will most likely be empty already though.

Which is the reason you want to have more nukes than they have silos - to be able to hit all of them at once in a surprise attack (also called "first strike").
Post reply on HN