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

Humanity’s broken risk perception is reversing global progress

undrr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 255 posts

Re: Humanity’s broken risk perception is reversing global progress

#11

Post by nonrandomstring »

> The GAR2022 blames these disasters on a broken perception of risk based on “optimism, underestimation and invincibility,” which leads to policy, finance and development decisions that exacerbate existing vulnerabilities and put people in danger.

The most fatal expression I have heard is that "We need to push through".

In Digital Vegan I describe this mentality thus:

  "I feel there is more hope that one can survive a car crash by
  accelerating at a wall to more cleanly demolish it. Instead we must
  learn the self-discipline and endure the pain of being able to
  disconnect first, in order to build new connections." [2]
Iatrogenics and solutionism, by which we make things worse by trying to improve them as-is, is now our mode of existence. Stopping that requires humility. Falliblism is the ability to realise you are going the wrong way and turn around, despite the ego losing face.

Surely I am an idiot, but I remain an optimist that human beings can pull ourselves out of a great collective delusion built on pride and greed.

For example; the GAR2022 statement perfectly describes the state of cybersecurity. I recall a point around 2019, before the pandemic when major breaches and incidents got to occurring once per day. I had a feeling that the world was finally taking notice and something could now be done. Then suddenly it vanished from the news cycle. When something is happening daily, it's no longer news. Covid-19 then eclipsed all threads of reflection and we plunged deeper into the very forms of cybernetic technofascism and blind dependency we needed to avoid.

It's now become impossible to research or teach anything but the most cartoon version of computer security - one that holds the established mythologies harmless and allows profitable abuses to continue. There is no permitted narrative that doesn't compound the errors we are already making [1] for the sake of those who have power. There is too much resting on not comprehending the big picture and finding human-centred solutions. A generation of smart young people who could help us are left frustrated.

I think similar things are happening in other areas of human intellectual endeavour now, climate, transport, health, education. We have not valued competencies, but instead put prideful appearance before reality. We have a bleak crisis of leadership. We cannot face the onslaught of challenges by reason alone as we are all fatigued already by tyranny, pestilence, looming poverty and war.

The first step is "When you're in a hole, stop digging".

We need to curb enthusiasm and withdraw support, even tacit, for many of the "sacred" norms. We must reject monotonism and the idea that progress is a "inevitable" scalar. That is not a rejection of technology, or neo-Luddism. Computer people should at least recognise that it is called "back-tracking".

[1] http://techrights.org/2021/11/29/teaching-cybersecurity/

[2] https://digitalvegan.net

Re: Humanity’s broken risk perception is reversing global progress

#12

Post by verisimi »

blueflow wrote: post #10
verisimi wrote: post #3

Coming from the UN, we already know what the answer will be. More governance, more/better management of risk by the UN that is then delegated to its administrative regions (the US, EU, etc). This is because as long as we are talking about risk, this plays into the hands of a global governance structure. All risks should be planned for and managed - I mean the covid response was fantastic, right? What was wrong was no…

> let local people decide for themselves what they want to do - use leaded petrol - build fridges using HCFCs - burn trash This stuff had to be forbidden by the government to make it stop. The UN might be some corrupt stuff, but the point of reducing government at all is nonsense. People on their own won't stop doing harmful things if they dont suffer the consequences themself.

You're right - but also wrong.

Governments built the roads - other solutions are conceivable. Tax payers paid once for the roads to be built, and are now paying for roads to made unusable for cars (lane restrictions, pedestrianisation, etc). That's a waste.

Did you know that electric cars were very popular 100 years ago - but because of the oil industry + government, they were quashed?

Government waves through unacceptable, unenvironmental behaviour by corporations. However, it does want the consumer who bought the fridges, to foot the bill! Consumers are ignorant of course of the unenvironmental impact of the products they were being sold - that's what government was ostensibly there for - all those agencies were meant to assure that we were getting decent products.

It hasn't worked as we thought - but it has worked out as corporations planned.

A bigger governance system is not the answer.

Re: Humanity’s broken risk perception is reversing global progress

#13

Post by axiomsEnd »

verisimi wrote: post #3

Coming from the UN, we already know what the answer will be. More governance, more/better management of risk by the UN that is then delegated to its administrative regions (the US, EU, etc). This is because as long as we are talking about risk, this plays into the hands of a global governance structure. All risks should be planned for and managed - I mean the covid response was fantastic, right? What was wrong was no…

How do we want to fight global warming, if we have rather big industries and local incentives pushing in favor of fossil fuels..?

Re: Humanity’s broken risk perception is reversing global progress

#14

Post by axiomsEnd »

verisimi wrote: post #12
blueflow wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> let local people decide for themselves what they want to do - use leaded petrol - build fridges using HCFCs - burn trash This stuff had to be forbidden by the government to make it stop. The UN might be some corrupt stuff, but the point of reducing government at all is nonsense. People on their own won't stop doing harmful things if they dont suffer the consequences themself.

You're right - but also wrong. Governments built the roads - other solutions are conceivable. Tax payers paid once for the roads to be built, and are now paying for roads to made unusable for cars (lane restrictions, pedestrianisation, etc). That's a waste. Did you know that electric cars were very popular 100 years ago - but because of the oil industry + government, they were quashed? Government waves through unacce…

Ok, but how removing the goverment will change that we have massive industries? Small groups of consumers will held accounrable companies?

Re: Humanity’s broken risk perception is reversing global progress

#15

Post by verisimi »

pedro2 wrote: post #9
verisimi wrote: post #3

Coming from the UN, we already know what the answer will be. More governance, more/better management of risk by the UN that is then delegated to its administrative regions (the US, EU, etc). This is because as long as we are talking about risk, this plays into the hands of a global governance structure. All risks should be planned for and managed - I mean the covid response was fantastic, right? What was wrong was no…

I agree with you but I'm easily swayed by liberal propaganda. What's your opinion on unions?

I see unions as one part of a 'bigger state' dialectic. The idea here is not that state supports corporations, but that the state supports the workers. Its all still about the government.

In fact, that 'argument' is already resolved - we are moving forward with what I think is fascism - government + corporations working together.

A state, is called the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly lieth it also; and this lie creepeth from its mouth: "I, the state, am the people." - Nietzsche.

I prefer this as:

The governance structure, is called the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly lieth it also; and this lie creepeth from its mouth: "I, government, am the people."

Re: Humanity’s broken risk perception is reversing global progress

#16

Post by verisimi »

axiomsEnd wrote: post #14
verisimi wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right - but also wrong. Governments built the roads - other solutions are conceivable. Tax payers paid once for the roads to be built, and are now paying for roads to made unusable for cars (lane restrictions, pedestrianisation, etc). That's a waste. Did you know that electric cars were very popular 100 years ago - but because of the oil industry + government, they were quashed? Government waves through unacce…

Ok, but how removing the goverment will change that we have massive industries? Small groups of consumers will held accounrable companies?

You say remove - I say rollback.

The sentiment should be that we have less government - we should empower individuals, not monolithic state apparatus.

It would ideally be rolled back slowly, keeping a steady focus where governmental power is continuously eroded. However, I also think that things are so wildly out of kilter now, that it is far more likely that things could become even more tumultuous.

I even think the tumult is planned for - we are in a somewhat artificial and managed crisis - the co-ordinated global response to the virus, was calculate to devastate Western economies.

The plan - as I understand it - is for us to be brought to our knees so that we accept/want even global governance as an end to our suffering. At that point, when the deal is done, the crises will disappear as the global technocratic goals will have been achieved.

Re: Humanity’s broken risk perception is reversing global progress

#17

Post by 2000UltraDeluxe »

zirobi wrote: post #7
raspberry1337 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I stopped respecting the UN when they said they criticized Elon Musk for not giving them 6 billion dollars so that they could "solve world hunger". That's about as much as the state of Sweden donates to poverty every single year, and that is just Sweden alone. The total amount of charity donations worldwide is in the trillions of dollars yet there's always just more required. Bureaucrats with humanities degrees at th…

They were incredibly disingenuous about the Elon Musk thing. He said he'd sell $6bn of Tesla stock and donate it if they could provide an open source plan to completely solve world hunger. They said they'd written a private plan to reduce world hunger then criticised him for not making the donation. Whatever you think of Elon, I don't think he acted in bad faith here.

Definitely not. Musk did not ask for anything outrageous in return for the money. It was a PR disaster from the UN's point of view. Perhaps their perception of the risk of calling Elon Musk out like that was broken?

Re: Humanity’s broken risk perception is reversing global progress

#18

Post by chrisco255 »

Right now, we have a host of problems, almost all of them manmade, but no, they're not related to the state of nature or even mankind's influence on nature.

We are on the brink of world war three and the UN's only reason for existing is to prevent that from happening again, but instead of doing its job it's playing propaganda games with the word 'disaster' to make you think a global carbon tax is the solution to all of your problems (even though deaths from natural disasters are at all-time lows: https://ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters).

We've got major inflationary pressures triggered from man-made economic policy decisions compounded by the incredibly disastrous decision to attempt to shut down whole economies in the vain attempt to prevent human beings from breathing in the same air space as each other. That was a disaster. We are still living with the chain reaction of that stupidity, and China is still running with it in Shanghai, maybe because power is kinda addictive, even when it's horribly disastrous, I don't know.

The last thing we need is more centralization of power vis-a-vis the UN.

Re: Humanity’s broken risk perception is reversing global progress

#19

Post by p_l »

chrisco255 wrote: post #18

Right now, we have a host of problems, almost all of them manmade, but no, they're not related to the state of nature or even mankind's influence on nature. We are on the brink of world war three and the UN's only reason for existing is to prevent that from happening again, but instead of doing its job it's playing propaganda games with the word 'disaster' to make you think a global carbon tax is the solution to all…

China is running it all across China, it's just that Shanghai fucked up implementation (central government set guidelines, provinces then implemented them adjusted to local situation).

Unfortunately reality of exponential growth of easily transmitable virus like COVID-19 (recorded cases where infection happened due to sharing common sewage main) is that if you don't keep it contained early on, you're fucked.

Re: Humanity’s broken risk perception is reversing global progress

#20

Post by notahacker »

zirobi wrote: post #7
raspberry1337 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I stopped respecting the UN when they said they criticized Elon Musk for not giving them 6 billion dollars so that they could "solve world hunger". That's about as much as the state of Sweden donates to poverty every single year, and that is just Sweden alone. The total amount of charity donations worldwide is in the trillions of dollars yet there's always just more required. Bureaucrats with humanities degrees at th…

They were incredibly disingenuous about the Elon Musk thing. He said he'd sell $6bn of Tesla stock and donate it if they could provide an open source plan to completely solve world hunger. They said they'd written a private plan to reduce world hunger then criticised him for not making the donation. Whatever you think of Elon, I don't think he acted in bad faith here.

No, Elon responded saying that if they could describe exactly how world hunger could be solved "on this Twitter thread" he would donate $6bn. Nothing to do with "open source", everything to do with making the request undeliverable (UN staff did of course tweet links to already-too-long-for-Twitter UN documents at him)
Post reply on HN