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

Future of Humanity Institute shuts down

futureofhumanityinstitute.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 319 posts

Re: Future of Humanity Institute shuts down

#251

Post by n4r9 »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #204
cool_dude85 wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a false trilemma, as there are othe possibilities: he did not actually exist historically, or he was a wise, nice guy and others made up all the God stuff over the years, or he was a nice guy trying to help people and he thought tactically the mystical claims would allow him to help more people. One can probably imagine a bunch more or less realistic possibilities given a little while to think about it.

You must remember that the trilemma exists in a context. Lewis set it up as a reply to people who "say that they're ready to accept Jesus as a good human teacher, but not ready to accept him as God". That is, they already accepted that he existed, and that the set of teachings recorded was more or less accurate. That rules out "did not actually exist historically" and "others made up all the God stuff over the years"…

I don't think it rules out "others made up all the God stuff over the years". It's perfectly reasonable to take John with a big pinch of salt and believe that Jesus did not claim divinity, and I wouldn't be surprised if Lewis' intended audience included such people.

Re: Future of Humanity Institute shuts down

#252

Post by pfdietz »

robertlagrant wrote: post #244
pfdietz wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Focusing only on the grid is bad faith; if one includes non-grid energy use, France doesn't even get 50% of its energy from nuclear.

What's the non-grid energy use?

Transportation, industry, maybe heating.

Re: Future of Humanity Institute shuts down

#253

Post by robertlagrant »

pfdietz wrote: post #252
robertlagrant wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the non-grid energy use?

Transportation, industry, maybe heating.

How is that relevant in this context, though? Why is it bad faith when we're talking about grid-supplied electricity generation? We need electricity generation, and most of France's is nuclear. It seems uncontroversial.

Re: Future of Humanity Institute shuts down

#254

Post by cauch »

skissane wrote: post #245
cauch wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, at the level of a specific nation, during a specific period in its history: that nation may be composed of a small number of major descent groups. ... and groups A and B may also differ in their frequency of physical appearance traits genes. That's exactly my argument. Isn't it funny that people interested in the Black IQ question just consider that the only physical appearance worth studying is the color…

> Isn't it funny that people interested in the Black IQ question just consider that the only physical appearance worth studying is the color of the skin? "Black" isn't a proper descent group, it is a term applied to everyone from American Descendants of Slavery to Indigenous Australians to Melanesians to umpteen different distantly related groups in Africa (a continent with massive internal genetic diversity). There…

> There is no meaningful question to ask about "Black IQ"

Yep, exactly my point.

> Is that actually what happened though?

I'm not saying that you can only consider a group as a outgroup if they have different skin color. What I'm saying is that foreigners (whatever skin color they have) are considered as a outgroup, and then, people associate easy characteristics of these outgroup as "being foreigner". This is for example why black-skin people who live in white-skin-dominated countries for generations are still strongly associated as being "foreigner" even if they are less foreigner than the white-skin person who was born 500 kilometers away and grew up in a totally different culture.

And this is why people are so interested in Black IQ, not because they are interested in science, but because they are interested in easy ways to confirm or rationalize their prejudice on people they associate with their outgroup.

> I think human genetic diversity and the heritability of intelligence is an interesting topic

It is. But it is very very strange that people who, according to them, are just "interested in the subject" are focalising in the most useless and stupid approach of it. I cannot find the quote, I think it was from Gould, saying that genetic of intelligence is an interesting topic but people who are approaching it with this particular aspect are not contributing anything to science.

> But my impression is a lot of people want to approach that topic primarily through the lens of contemporary and historical inter-group dynamics within one specific country

Yes, I agree with that: what you call "the lens of contemporary and historical inter-group dynamics within one specific country" is what I call "confirming or rationalizing their prejudice on people they associate with their outgroup".

Re: Future of Humanity Institute shuts down

#255

Post by cauch »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #207
notahacker wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A statement that Race X is "more stupid" than Race Y is almost tautologically racist. The idea that Nick denigrating an entire race as 'stupid' is "accurate and mild", whereas any suggestion that the statement contains racism requires a "license to denigrate" is truly through the looking glass...

Do facts not have any relevance to this debate? Is it all just vibes? I.e. Bostrom is racist because his vibe was off?

Who is saying that Bostrom is racist because his vibe was off?

The fact is that Bostrom gave credit to science quackery just because he wanted to be cool and rebel. I personally don't think Bostrom is "racist", more that he is an idiot with edgelord tendencies (and I think this alone justifies to not consider him for intellectual jobs: in a similar way, it is sometimes funny how some people are arguing that they are not racist or sexist, they just are a dick to other people regardless of their skin color or gender, as if it does not mean that society would be better without them too)

Re: Future of Humanity Institute shuts down

#256

Post by pfdietz »

robertlagrant wrote: post #253
pfdietz wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Transportation, industry, maybe heating.

How is that relevant in this context, though? Why is it bad faith when we're talking about grid-supplied electricity generation? We need electricity generation, and most of France's is nuclear. It seems uncontroversial.

It's because the "if it hasn't been done, it can't be done" argument applies to nuclear displacing fossil fuels. Remember, the decarbonization goal has to be all uses of fossil fuels, not just their use for the grid.

Re: Future of Humanity Institute shuts down

#257

Post by krimskrams »

pfdietz wrote: post #252
robertlagrant wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the non-grid energy use?

Transportation, industry, maybe heating.

Are you confusing electricity generation with electricity use? If we're counting off-grid electricity generation, then we're talking about A) critical infrastructure like utilities or B) off-grid homes or communities which typically use solar panels, small wind turbines or gas/biogas to generate their own power. The off-grid portion most likely make up a tiny portion of France's energy mix, which is dominated by nuclear (>50%).

Re: Future of Humanity Institute shuts down

#258

Post by pfdietz »

krimskrams wrote: post #257
pfdietz wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Transportation, industry, maybe heating.

Are you confusing electricity generation with electricity use? If we're counting off-grid electricity generation, then we're talking about A) critical infrastructure like utilities or B) off-grid homes or communities which typically use solar panels, small wind turbines or gas/biogas to generate their own power. The off-grid portion most likely make up a tiny portion of France's energy mix, which is dominated by nucl…

No, I'm talking about energy use that doesn't involve electricity production at all. It potentially could be electrified in many cases, but that doesn't reduce the hypocrisy of the selective "if it hasn't been done it can't be done" mindset.

Re: Future of Humanity Institute shuts down

#259

Post by robertlagrant »

pfdietz wrote: post #256
robertlagrant wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that relevant in this context, though? Why is it bad faith when we're talking about grid-supplied electricity generation? We need electricity generation, and most of France's is nuclear. It seems uncontroversial.

It's because the "if it hasn't been done, it can't be done" argument applies to nuclear displacing fossil fuels. Remember, the decarbonization goal has to be all uses of fossil fuels, not just their use for the grid.

I honestly think we have crossed wires. I don't think anyone here is saying things can't be done based on history.

Re: Future of Humanity Institute shuts down

#260

Post by pfdietz »

robertlagrant wrote: post #259
pfdietz wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's because the "if it hasn't been done, it can't be done" argument applies to nuclear displacing fossil fuels. Remember, the decarbonization goal has to be all uses of fossil fuels, not just their use for the grid.

I honestly think we have crossed wires. I don't think anyone here is saying things can't be done based on history.

I have repeatedly and literally seen this argument applied to renewables. I've even seen it on HN.
Post reply on HN