Some biologists and ecologists think social media is a risk to humanity • Hacker News Board

Re: Some biologists and ecologists think social media is a risk to humanity

#11

Post by throwaaskjdfh » Sat, Jun 26, 2021, 5:36 PM UTC

slipframe wrote: post #5

underseacables wrote: post #2

I think the global reduction in in person communication is a grave risk to humanity. We used to spend so much time together, doing things together, I’m talking in the office to the roller rink. Perhaps this just shows how old I am, but I really felt like that was better for humanity. Global communication and interaction is great and all, but I really miss sitting around the backyard with friends talking

I think that ubiquitous global communication is the "Great Filter" that prevents intelligent civilizations from colonizing the universe. Before any intelligent species can hope to tackle a problem like that, they invent something like the internet. And once they've invented an internet, they become addicted to low latency communication and will never stray far from it, at least not in significant numbers. Even one ye…

I suspect the Great Filter is that sufficiently intelligent life has no interest in expansion, and doesn't communicate at all.

Re: Some biologists and ecologists think social media is a risk to humanity

#12

Post by LarryEt » Sat, Jun 26, 2021, 5:42 PM UTC

incrudible wrote: post #8

"For example, the paper says that tech companies have “fumbled their way through the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, unable to stem the ‘infodemic’ of misinformation” that has hindered widespread acceptance of masks and vaccines" The numbers on masks and vaccines show that acceptance is widespread. What are we looking for here, approval rates to rival Kim Jong Un? The worst thing that could happen to what little is lef…

It seems many people have a completely unscientific view of reality in that they have absolute certainty in what they believe to be true.

I think there are people who are looking for North Korea level approval ratings on things. If you have zero uncertainty in what you think is true then anything contradictory is naturally "misinformation".

Re: Some biologists and ecologists think social media is a risk to humanity

#13

Post by slipframe » Sat, Jun 26, 2021, 5:45 PM UTC

marcosdumay wrote: post #10

slipframe wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that ubiquitous global communication is the "Great Filter" that prevents intelligent civilizations from colonizing the universe. Before any intelligent species can hope to tackle a problem like that, they invent something like the internet. And once they've invented an internet, they become addicted to low latency communication and will never stray far from it, at least not in significant numbers. Even one ye…

> at least not in significant numbers That's ok. Insignificant numbers are more than enough to colonize an entire galaxy on geologic timescales. The thing about the "Great Filter" is that it is great. If you can even imagine an exception for your candidate filter, then it's not great enough.

I'm thinking that if you sent a dozen people to Alpha Centari, it wouldn't make any difference because that is under the threshold of people that would be required to establish a self-sustaining colony that, in turn, sends out similar expeditions in the future.

Do that sort of stunt as much as you like, it won't become something more. It's like trying to jump over a building by hopping a bunch. You can hop one time or one billion times, you won't clear the building because after each failed hop you're back to square one.

Re: Some biologists and ecologists think social media is a risk to humanity

#14

Post by twirligigue » Sat, Jun 26, 2021, 5:51 PM UTC

incrudible wrote: post #8

"For example, the paper says that tech companies have “fumbled their way through the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, unable to stem the ‘infodemic’ of misinformation” that has hindered widespread acceptance of masks and vaccines" The numbers on masks and vaccines show that acceptance is widespread. What are we looking for here, approval rates to rival Kim Jong Un? The worst thing that could happen to what little is lef…

Yes, and as much as I dislike political correctness, I sometimes wonder if it's a response, perhaps even a necessary response, to the accelerating politicisation and polarisation brought on by the web. If all events and even facts must be framed according to a simplifying narrative then I wonder if the human mind/brain is doing something similar in order to operate stably? This could be the origin of the ego -- a set of unacknowledged fears and desires which shape a personal story or set of goals through which we attempt to organise our lives.

Re: Some biologists and ecologists think social media is a risk to humanity

#15

Post by mudil » Sat, Jun 26, 2021, 5:52 PM UTC

It sure feels thought provoking to read an article or a paper that essentially predict how the future will unfold, or what we need to do to prevent something from developing in the future. And yet, the future is inherently unpredictable, and these exercises in predicting fail more often than not. Even if there is something that could be predicted becomes the reality, the degree of expression of that reality could not have been predicted.

Re: Some biologists and ecologists think social media is a risk to humanity

#16

Post by grawprog » Sat, Jun 26, 2021, 5:55 PM UTC

I think social media needs to be redefined. What the average person thinks social media is is very different than what it actually is.

I think a lot of people think big social media platforms are actually communication platforms, they're not. They're designed intentionally to be difficult to communicate on.

That the not the purpose of them, it's in the name 'social media' they are the media, you are the social. They are creating media based on the things users post. They're not made to facilitate communication between friends, family, coworkers, etc...

They are designed specifically for users to generate monetizable content and data. They use a veneer of 'connecting the world together' so users will generate content that drives clicks and makes them money.

A true global communication platform would look nothing like the social media we have today. It would be designed around allowing people to communicate easily and freely, it would give you control over who and what you interact with and it would allow you to maintain granular levels of privacy.

Ya know...like other systems designed to facilitate communications...like say the telephone system...

Re: Some biologists and ecologists think social media is a risk to humanity

#17

Post by nitrogen » Sat, Jun 26, 2021, 5:55 PM UTC

slipframe wrote: post #13

marcosdumay wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> at least not in significant numbers That's ok. Insignificant numbers are more than enough to colonize an entire galaxy on geologic timescales. The thing about the "Great Filter" is that it is great. If you can even imagine an exception for your candidate filter, then it's not great enough.

I'm thinking that if you sent a dozen people to Alpha Centari, it wouldn't make any difference because that is under the threshold of people that would be required to establish a self-sustaining colony that, in turn, sends out similar expeditions in the future. Do that sort of stunt as much as you like, it won't become something more. It's like trying to jump over a building by hopping a bunch. You can hop one time o…

under the threshold of people that would be required to establish a self-sustaining colony

Such a small group of people, armed with current genetic engineering and future artificial means of reproduction, could bring with them enough genetic diversity and reproductive capacity to reach colonizing scale.

You can hop one time or one billion times, you won't clear the building because after each failed hop you're back to square one.

Despite the first part of my reply, this point about minimum activation energy is relevant to a lot of contexts, from escaping poverty to switching careers, from getting fit to overcoming medical conditions. This is a pretty good analogy that I might use in the future.

Re: Some biologists and ecologists think social media is a risk to humanity

#18

Post by softwaredoug » Sat, Jun 26, 2021, 5:57 PM UTC

I’m more interested in what would cause people to ignore their doctor and choose to believe whatever insane thing is on social media about, say, vaccines. There’s always been places you could go and find nonsense. But what’s different about this moment? What’s drawing people to nonsense?

IMO social media gets the blame, but it’s just the vehicle for something darker happening. Something more about widespread nativism that distrusts an educated, cosmopolitan elite.

Just because we see this on social media, doesn’t make social media the cause.

Re: Some biologists and ecologists think social media is a risk to humanity

#19

Post by SV_BubbleTime » Sat, Jun 26, 2021, 6:03 PM UTC

softwaredoug wrote: post #18

I’m more interested in what would cause people to ignore their doctor and choose to believe whatever insane thing is on social media about, say, vaccines. There’s always been places you could go and find nonsense. But what’s different about this moment? What’s drawing people to nonsense? IMO social media gets the blame, but it’s just the vehicle for something darker happening. Something more about widespread nativism…

On the other hand… have you considered that your doctor, politicians and scientists may also effected by social media in their professional advice you are supposed to take because they are an authority?

We don’t need to get into all the times doctors have been way wrong. Now those people who might know that are within your ear shot, perhaps a little less than the lunatics who just want to talk shit.

Maybe you are right, maybe it’s not social media but an extreme polarization for another reason and social media is speeding it along? Maybe that’s just what we do over time?

Either way, I can’t accept the appeal to authority you started with. I have personally be on the wrong side of a diagnosis and it’s a good thing I didn’t listen to my doctor in favor of information I discovered first on social media.

Re: Some biologists and ecologists think social media is a risk to humanity

#20

Post by dasil003 » Sat, Jun 26, 2021, 6:04 PM UTC

The media narrative that social media is the cause of these societal ills, especially environmental problems is laughable.

The real danger technology poses is the increased leverage of ever-increasing automation consolidating in the hands of oligarchs who using it to enrich themselves and isolate themselves from the consequences with no regard for broader impact on the planet or future generations.

Despite the problems with social media, removing it would have no beneficial effect on this trajectory towards environmental catastrophe. To the contrary, I still believe that lowered barriers to global communication and information access are generally good for society. Sure it hasn't resulted in becoming a nation of philosopher kings in the utopian ideal envisioned by those early Berkeley engineers, but the problems we are seeing are just the same old dance of populism and propaganda that have always been at the heart of large scale politics.