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

Magnifica Humanitas

vatican.va

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

891–900 of 1001 posts

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#891

Post by doginasuit »

jfengel wrote: post #26
qsort wrote: post #15

I have only skimmed it, will definitely read carefully as soon as I have time. I will say, as an atheist, that regarding technology the Vatican has some of the best takes of any institution/government I have ever seen.

Much of Western thought traces back to serious work by Church theologians. Even atheists are strongly influenced by the patterns they set down. The Catholic Church, for all its many faults, retains a serious intellectual tradition. (In fact I think atheists should make more effort to learn about the vast diversity of other faiths. It's very narrow to be atheist only about the Abrahamic deity. You end up incorporating…

Church theology does not happen in a bubble, elements can also be traced back to contemporary and secular thinking. To its great credit, the Catholic Church has not taken the path of other parts of Christianity but have listened and learned from the public conversation.

The ideas in this work are not entirely unique or original, they fit with what many people have been saying since language models came on the scene. But it is the most articulate, earnest, and balanced that I have seen from prominent figures and institutions. It has helped me discover and question my biases. Humanity desperately needed a better champion in the conversation, and it is moving to see the Church step into that role so effectively.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#892

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

CalRobert wrote: post #866
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #827

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If we don't, we all die. No, we don't. Even in the worse case scenarios, a runaway greenhouse effect a la Venus was never remotely part of the scientific consensus. Heck, the IPCC just retired the worst case RCP 8.5 scenario saying it is now scientifically implausible. Now a big reason it was deemed implausible is the transition to renewable energy is happening. But even if RCP 8.5 did happen, it was not a humanity…

In what scenario does humanity not achieve net neutral emissions and survive?

This idea that climate change would lead to "ending humanity" just shows to me how a lot of the popular messaging outran the actual science on the issue.

Again, a "runaway Venus" was never really in the cards. As far as I am aware, basically all the carbon that is now locked in the ground in fossil fuels was once in the environment, and Earth still supported copious life at that time. E.g. at one point when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, there were no polar ice caps (Antarctica, even when it was near its current position over the South Pole, had lush green forests and lots of dinosaurs, even with many months of darkness), sea level was many meters higher, but life still flourished.

I'm not downplaying climate change. A significant, geologically fast rise in global temperatures would kill millions/billions of people, inundate coastal areas, result in major migrations and resource wars, etc. But "ending humanity" by making the entire planet unlivable was never supported by the science.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#894

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

tardedmeme wrote: post #886
ndrh wrote: post #807

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kind of terrifying that "we may" turn the tide on CO2 is an acceptable level of optimism. If we don't, we all die. it isn't something to leave up to mindless market mechanics.

We're now, in 2026, currently at 1.5 degrees above baseline. This used to be the threshold at which we decided it would be too late and everything would be fucked and human civilization would inevitably collapse. That won't happen, of course, since we kept increasing the threshold every time we approached the previous threshold. Luckily for us now, human society won't collapse until we hit 2 degrees!

> This used to be the threshold at which we decided it would be too late and everything would be fucked and human civilization would inevitably collapse.

Man, reading these comments is making me realize how crazy the messaging on climate alarmism actually got. No, 1.5 C was literally never the threshold where "everything would be fucked and human civilization would inevitably collapse." Where are people getting this misinformation? It wasn't from the IPCC, nor from the broader scientific consensus, nor was it part of the Kyoto or Paris Protocol statements. Yes, there would be colossally bad impacts, but "everything would be fucked and human civilization would inevitably collapse" is just total bullshit.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#895

Post by daveguy »

boxed wrote: post #839
daveguy wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DEI was only ever meant to reflect the diversity of society in our institutions (which historically have been and continue to be homogeneous compared to society). Of course there are better and worse ways to create the outcome of increased diversity. But thr recent backlash is the antithesis of diversity, wrapped up in the propaganda of "reverse racism."

> DEI was only ever meant to reflect the diversity of society in our institutions That sounds reasonable, but it's not really true. It was a tool to DISTORT the diversity of society by making minority groups front and center to a disproportionate degree. The more minority the better. This isn't reflecting the diversity of society, that's flipping it over. I'm not saying the intentions weren't good. They were. But goo…

Why wouldn't there be a period when more diverse groups are accepted at a higher than societally present amount until representation is more balanced? Because little Johnny feels entitled to get preferetial treatment when the system works for him, but insists everything be absolutely fair when he's not the recipient? After a while you have to wise up. Quotas aren't the best way, but they are certainly the most straightforward way. Best way would be to provide the social safety nets that dumpty-doge gutted. If the applications are more diverse the quotas are less important (but possibly still important if there is discrimination on things like names).

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#896

Post by sdellis »

overfeed wrote: post #786
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #650

I'm curious if there has ever been an instance where people have been able to "tame" a technology to consider a broader, societal good, or if we've always just been at the whims of how any particular tech naturally concentrates or dissipates power. For example, if you look at the boom of the middle classes in the mid 20th century, this appears to me largely a consequence of the fact that industrial technology at the…

> So I guess I'm looking for some specific examples of where we've actually consciously, as a collective society, altered the course of technological progress for the greater good, because I honestly can't think of any. Firearms and explosives are not abused nearly as much as one would have imagined before their invention (or soon after). I don't think it's because we stunted the explosives tech-tree, but the social…

I think the 22 million people who died in World War I, for reasons there is no consensus on, would contest your claim. And that is just a fraction of a fraction of all humans, with their own stories and dreams and loved ones, who have died (and continue to die) in vain to firearms and explosives.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#897

Post by jvanderbot »

ShinyLeftPad wrote: post #830
jvanderbot wrote: post #780

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI should fall under husbandry, not society rules, as we are the reason they are alive, no matter how much some may disapprove of their enslavement. An animal that defies a human and becomes an unwilling tool is food or eliminated. It should be no different if the animal can mimic human speech.

You are the reason your children are alive, do they fall under husbandry? > An animal that defies a human and becomes an unwilling tool is food or eliminated Some animals are protected legally. Animal welfare in general is an important topic. (But it's irrelevant because LLMs do not provide food that's key to human survival.) Your logic sounds like the logic of slaveowners back then. Remember how it turned out?

A slave is something that has an intrinsic right to live, liberty, etc, and has had that taken from them to serve another. This is unjust.

A hammer cannot be a slave, it is property. A table saw is not a slave. A self driving car is not a slave. A text generating program cannot be a slave. It has no intrinisc rights. Like animals have none of those rights, except those we've agreed to recognize, and which we will happily take away whenever we want.

AI is not human or even animal, and should not be anthropomorphized to the point that we use on them emotions that should only be applied to individuals, especially human individuals.

There is no uniqueness, no genetic lineage to preserve, no scarcity or predators, no shortage of food, no aging or disease, no mortality and no struggle to survive or thrive whatsoever.

It has only exactly things that we put our own labor, resources, etc in to produce, and will exist as long as we want it to. There is no specialness to its existence. It has no rights to life liberty property or a pursuit of anything other than service to us.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#898

Post by sdellis »

Paracompact wrote: post #683
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #650

I'm curious if there has ever been an instance where people have been able to "tame" a technology to consider a broader, societal good, or if we've always just been at the whims of how any particular tech naturally concentrates or dissipates power. For example, if you look at the boom of the middle classes in the mid 20th century, this appears to me largely a consequence of the fact that industrial technology at the…

We have (for now) restrained ourselves from the more vicious applications of technology to war, in the form of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Although I could see the argument being made that such has not occurred for strictly humanitarian reasons, but instead as a predictable consequence of game theory. In less important matters, we've regulated many harmful substances that the free market would love to…

The USA is currently undoing their previous PFAS regulations and declaring "game on" for poisoning the populace. And who doesn't want Glysophate on their cereal?!? The "free market" has done such a great job protecting us from corporate poisoning. /s

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#899

Post by javier_e06 »

beloch wrote: post #870
pizzaman1 wrote: post #663

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In a similar vein, it looks like we may eventually (at least at some point) turn the tide on CO2 emissions, but not because anyone (at large) really sacrificed anything, or did something that was mildly painful now in the hopes for a better future, but instead because renewable and battery tech is just getting to be the economic best option. One should not forget the reason that these technologies have become so ch…

Check out Charles C. Man's "The Wizard and the Prophet". In this book, a wizard is someone who approaches a problem with technological innovation. A prophet is someone who approaches it with societal transformation, usually involving sacrifice by the masses. e.g. Malthus (and others) observed that human populations were growing exponentially, but crop-land is a finite resource. Humanity seemed doomed to starvation in…

That is a great book. I like how the book describes the Wizards tackling world famine through GMO's.

AI accelerates our rate of energy consumption as we vie for efficiencies and alternative sources of energy. That is concerning.

Maybe the next book will be:

The AI and The Prophet.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#900

Post by lukan »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #813
lukan wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It is, therefore, not enough to state simply that men and women have equal dignity and rights; it is necessary that this be reflected in concrete decisions, such as in laws, access to employment, education, social and political responsibilities, and the way society listens to and values women’s contributions. As long as this gap persists, we cannot say that society truly and fully recognizes that women have the same…

> So ... women should have the same dignity as men and should get the same access to "employment, education, social and political responsibilities". But of course they cannot be trusted with spiritual matters... Nobody has said that. You are attacking a strawman. The actual teaching of the Catholic Church is that because Jesus was a man, and because priests act in the priestly role Jesus held, that priests must be me…

It is not a strawman that the catholic church only allows men as priests.

But can you find me some teachings of Jesus where he said, women cannot be priests?

I am not aware of any. Also not that a priest is a replacement of Jesus.

But I am aware that we don't even have direct sources from jesus, but 3. hand at best. So there are lots of christians who think women as priests are fine. So it is a choice the catholic church made centuries ago and it is a choice to not change. Their choice. And mine to stay away from them, but still comment on their wisdom.

Post reply on HN