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

The scarcity of the long term

kk.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 107 posts

Re: The scarcity of the long term

#41

Post by TedHerman »

I once hosted a European researcher in my home (which is in flyover country America). He saw the utility poles and wiring stretching to houses in the neighborhood and remarked that his father had said a hallmark of undeveloped countries is that power lines are above ground. This was 20 years ago. Now, I do see that new neighborhoods have buried power and fiber. But that quality of fiber wasn't affordable decades ago. In retrospect, it might have been wise to delay putting infrastructure underground in urban settings because of high cost.

Who knows what advances in material science, computing, energy and transport will bring in coming generations? Not to mention climate changes. Therefore it can be presumptuous to think that sticking to a long term plan is the best course. To the extent that a long term plan depends on the supporting environment of the plan staying the same, a plan might be judged foolish in retrospect.

Re: The scarcity of the long term

#42

Post by badpun »

alexpotato wrote: post #38

Seeing a lot of comments about human lifespan, projects shouldn't take more than 5 years etc The Florence Cathedral took over 140 years to build. There is clear precedent that humans can design, plan and then execute a project that spans multiple lifetimes. Even better, they didn't have a final design when they started: > While the main structure of the nave was completed by 1380, a solution to constructing a dome to…

> Me: "I would think they needed a committee since that can last longer than a lifetime if the current members add in new people as the old members die"

> Tour Guide: "Yes! Exactly! So few people realize that is what happened."

This also implies that C++ will potentially live forever...

Re: The scarcity of the long term

#43

Post by JackFr »

robinzfc wrote: post #35
denton-scratch wrote: post #15

> The only real scarcity would be of a long attention span. I get the author's drift, and broadly agree. But I don't think it's really a long attention span that would get in the way of (e.g.) a Mars colony, or interstellar travel; it's that people's views change from one generation to the next. My kids have been imbued with some of my attitudes, sure; but I've not had much of a hand in the raising of my grandchildre…

> the Roman Empire lasted about 200 years. The Roman Empire lasted about 500 years - from 31 BC to the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476. If we include the period of existence of the Eastern Roman Empire it would be almost 1500 years - until the fall of Constantinople in 1453.

And that ignores the five centuries of the Roman Republic, before the empire.

Re: The scarcity of the long term

#44

Post by sotillan »

I think the problem the author describes is a result of short-term factors that are unlikely to affect humanity forever. Right now, technology and culture are progressing extremely quickly, relatively to any other point in human history. As a result, our understanding and our capabilities are radically different from generation to generation. Also, many problems remain unsolved and present serious, short-term challenges to our survival. Understandably therefore, our priorities frequently change, reacting both to changes in our capabilities and the most immediate threats.

However, this situation will not continue indefinitely. An advanced, post-scarcity human civilisation will (hopefully) not face constant danger of war, disease and famine, Technology will still advance, but at a slower pace, and not in ways that significantly transform day-to-day lives. Human lifespan will probably also be significantly increased. The result will be a more homogenous, stable and static society. There will still be differences, bug huge disparities of economic and societal status will no longer exist.

In this environment, having no longer to deal with a constant background of threats to their survival, it's likely that humanity will have the time and space to turn to far longer term projects. Indeed, such projects will probably be the only way for a person to imbue their life with a greater meaning in such a future society.

Re: The scarcity of the long term

#45

Post by JackFr »

lukas099 wrote: post #25
js8 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Today’s Catholic Church would be viewed by its founders as some kind of uber-hippy bunch of democratic maniacs out to destroy civilisation. Are you sure? It seems to me that Jesus would be dismayed by how establishment they've become and not nearly radical enough.

I don't think they were thinking of Jesus as the founder of the Catholic Church. Although I think that is what the Vatican itself would say (?)

I think the Vatican's perspective would be that it's a theologically meaningless and mostly ill-formed question.

Re: The scarcity of the long term

#46

Post by Solvency »

sotillan wrote: post #44

I think the problem the author describes is a result of short-term factors that are unlikely to affect humanity forever. Right now, technology and culture are progressing extremely quickly, relatively to any other point in human history. As a result, our understanding and our capabilities are radically different from generation to generation. Also, many problems remain unsolved and present serious, short-term challen…

This is heavily reducing the human experience. Even better technology and post-scarcity aren't magic solutions to all of the insanely weird evolutionary quirks/pitfalls/problems built into our monkey brains.

Having a planet of hyper long-lived people who never have to work hard, who are constantly fed without concern, fully dependent on advanced technology sounds like the context of a YA novel. In reality, none of us are hardwired for that kind of lifestyle. Hell, we're not even hardwired for this one. We're just messily and sloppily trying to hang on as we stumble forward. Core human conflicts and oppositions and disputes and wars and existential meltdowns and all of the other things our emergent survival consciousness deal with aren't going anywhere.

Re: The scarcity of the long term

#47

Post by KineticLensman »

denton-scratch wrote: post #15

> The only real scarcity would be of a long attention span. I get the author's drift, and broadly agree. But I don't think it's really a long attention span that would get in the way of (e.g.) a Mars colony, or interstellar travel; it's that people's views change from one generation to the next. My kids have been imbued with some of my attitudes, sure; but I've not had much of a hand in the raising of my grandchildre…

> the Roman Empire lasted about 200 years. Chinese imperial rule lasted much longer, maybe 1,500 years?

The Roman empire lasted considerably longer than 200 years - perhaps 500 years in its best understood form going from Octavian becoming emperor in ~30BCE to the fall of the Western Roman Empire in approx 470CE. The eastern end of the empire lasted in various forms for another 1000 years (!) until the fall of Constantinople.

Re: The scarcity of the long term

#48

Post by marcosdumay »

lukas099 wrote: post #25
js8 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Today’s Catholic Church would be viewed by its founders as some kind of uber-hippy bunch of democratic maniacs out to destroy civilisation. Are you sure? It seems to me that Jesus would be dismayed by how establishment they've become and not nearly radical enough.

I don't think they were thinking of Jesus as the founder of the Catholic Church. Although I think that is what the Vatican itself would say (?)

If we go with Constantine, I guess his strong impression would be how tame and uncommitted modern politics are.

Re: The scarcity of the long term

#49

Post by denton-scratch »

lloeki wrote: post #19
denton-scratch wrote: post #15

> The only real scarcity would be of a long attention span. I get the author's drift, and broadly agree. But I don't think it's really a long attention span that would get in the way of (e.g.) a Mars colony, or interstellar travel; it's that people's views change from one generation to the next. My kids have been imbued with some of my attitudes, sure; but I've not had much of a hand in the raising of my grandchildre…

So essentially the problem is one of being able to foster a meme+ that outlives the scale of an individual's life. + the original meaning, not the internets one, which is only an extremely short-lived subset.

> to foster a meme+

So, I guess, pyramid-building; that's a collective project spanning a few centuries. I struggle to think of any collective project that spans centuries, that isn't fundamentally a religious enterprise.

Re: The scarcity of the long term

#50

Post by roenxi »

lukas099 wrote: post #24
roenxi wrote: post #3

This is almost a solved problem; institutions are capable of sustaining intentions for insane periods of time. The major organised religious institutes have been pushing some basic standards for ethical living for millennia. There aren't a lot of projects that humans have considered worth a millenium of effort. Due to the limited abilities of humans that long ago they are all philosophical projects. But we can do it.…

Seems like survivorship bias. A lot of projects fizzle out. Vietnam War comes to mind.

Now I'm not exactly sure what the Vietnam war was supposed to achieve, and insofar as it fizzled out we need to define what, exactly, the aim was. I suspect it was pointless and fizzled out due to pointlessness eventually overwhelming the ability of the Americans to fight.

However, if it was to combat communism/the USSR, which is my hazy understanding of the official justification, note communism has largely been expunged as a political ideology. All the communist states failed. The majors (USSR & China) have moved to capitalism. Well, China did. The USSR was removed from the map.

Post reply on HN