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

Make the future bright again: On building a new philosophy of progress

thehub.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 109 posts

Re: Make the future bright again: On building a new philosophy of progress

#91

Post by anovikov »

rayiner wrote: post #86
RandomLensman wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the net social negative then? How do we know, given that counterfactuals are not readily available. What philosophy (in a broader sense) should people follow? Do we want forever a society where people need to do "shitty jobs", for example, to satisfy some philosophical need for "suffering"?

You’re right, we don’t have any easy counterfactual. But we can draw inferences from observations and conduct thought experiments. If we dropped some people from San Francisco off in the hostile desert of Utah, would they be able to create thriving cities like the Mormons did? If we dropped them off in the frigid plains of Illinois, would they be able to create Chicago? If you dropped them off in the mudflats of Sing…

Signapore is a terribly bad example. It's geography meant it was a ready source of money. Barring an absolutely terrible level of mismanagement, or chronic worldwide economic depression, there was no way it won't become rich.

Re: Make the future bright again: On building a new philosophy of progress

#92

Post by boxed »

RandomLensman wrote: post #33
boxed wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lack of purpose is the core thing I think. If you have that, then isolation solves itself, and obesity might very well solve itself too. Lack of purpose is also the consequence of not being able to even think of a brighter future. Not seeing what humanity COULD be and working towards it.

Why should it be impossible to think of a brighter future? Maybe humans should be living like gods, not worried about diseases, the environment, etc. Maybe humans should strive to become the dominant species in the universe? Why should the current "protestant work ethic" (in a Max Weber sense) guide us - hedonism might also have something to each us.

Not saying it should be. But for many it is.

Re: Make the future bright again: On building a new philosophy of progress

#93

Post by boxed »

anovikov wrote: post #50
dr_dshiv wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>most people are doomed to uselessness no matter what Well, no mater how smart computers get, mothers will be generally useful to their children. So at least one counter example.

That's right and this is why rates of depression, suicide and stuff, is way lower among women than men. Still it leaves an impression of a Ponzi scheme of a sort?

A Ponzi scheme works because it gives the illusion of being real. Life isn't that. Life is real. The only real thing in many ways.

Re: Make the future bright again: On building a new philosophy of progress

#94

Post by marssaxman »

mathieuh wrote: post #32
anovikov wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lack of purpose is inevitable and unfixable. In the world where success is infinitely scalable as we are living in the information age, most people are doomed to uselessness no matter what. Trick is how to help them get over it. Obesity is a medical problem and will be solved by rather trivial medical means very soon, at least on that front, future is bright.

Not everyone has to have some grand purpose. I work to earn enough money to do what I like, I'm not planning or hoping to make a heap of money. I would be perfectly happy living a comfortable yet completely unnoticed life. In fact I think a lot of people my age (late 20s) are starting to feel like this as a reaction to the idea that anyone who isn't driving a nice car or going abroad several times a year is a failure…

Sense of purpose need not have anything to do with money or status.

Re: Make the future bright again: On building a new philosophy of progress

#95

Post by rayiner »

RandomLensman wrote: post #88
rayiner wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re right, we don’t have any easy counterfactual. But we can draw inferences from observations and conduct thought experiments. If we dropped some people from San Francisco off in the hostile desert of Utah, would they be able to create thriving cities like the Mormons did? If we dropped them off in the frigid plains of Illinois, would they be able to create Chicago? If you dropped them off in the mudflats of Sing…

Not sure why building cities in the Utah desert matters today. The question is much broader, I think: without some of the 1960s hedonism, would we have had some of effects of counterculture that manifested in tech? Would we have had more wars like Vietnam? How would society look like? You can, of course, say you want a different society - but that is a different take, really.

I come from a poor country. I want people back home to act like the Mormons, not like people in San Francisco. And America exports its culture all around the world. Moreover, I don’t think a hedonistic, individualistic culture is prepared to tackle the challenges we face (like climate change) nor to take society to the next level.

Re: Make the future bright again: On building a new philosophy of progress

#96

Post by rayiner »

anovikov wrote: post #91
rayiner wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re right, we don’t have any easy counterfactual. But we can draw inferences from observations and conduct thought experiments. If we dropped some people from San Francisco off in the hostile desert of Utah, would they be able to create thriving cities like the Mormons did? If we dropped them off in the frigid plains of Illinois, would they be able to create Chicago? If you dropped them off in the mudflats of Sing…

Signapore is a terribly bad example. It's geography meant it was a ready source of money. Barring an absolutely terrible level of mismanagement, or chronic worldwide economic depression, there was no way it won't become rich.

There’s nothing magic about the geography of Singapore, which is self-evident from a map. Singapore was poorer than Malaysia when the two countries split.

The notion that the economic fate of countries is outside their control is incredibly pernicious. Britain went from being a backwater that was almost a millennium late to the Bronze Age to the greatest empire in the world.

Re: Make the future bright again: On building a new philosophy of progress

#97

Post by rektide »

abss wrote: post #11
rektide wrote: post #3

I hate to say it, but the tech industry is the roadblock. Most of what happens is far off, remote, unobservable, unlearnable. People cannot understand what is happening on the things they deal with the most. Everything is black box apps powered by vast cloud data centers. Humanity has zero chance to find their footing in this world, to comprehend what goes on about them. Tech is to blame, tech is the problem, and the…

Maybe the real issues emerge from capitalist system rules and incentives and the current tech industry is just shaped and emerged as a result?

I ask myself what on-ramps consumers have to get interested & excited.

Almost nothing in the world offers this path. Most tech rebuffs & rejects interest. It's a very very long path to learning programming & shell before one can begin to reverse engineer & peak behind the veil on what tech about us does.

Without observability, there is no hope. Tech has to start. Tech has to open the possibility of visibility. Then we can start to judge.

Re: Make the future bright again: On building a new philosophy of progress

#98

Post by h0l0cube »

Dalewyn wrote: post #54
h0l0cube wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and enough that you don’t need to deal with other people (what hell is, to wit) This is actually a new phenomenon. I'm not sure if it's just because I'm older, but I've literally grown to see this shift in mindset. There was a time when it was common to invite neighbors over for dinner, now more often than not, it seems like people want to have bigger fences and less interaction with their community. Meanwhile, all…

A lot of people, myself included, get tired of dealing with people as we get older. We have to deal with people for the majority of our lives, especially during our schooling and working years. Once we've accumulated enough to retire into the countryside with no need to give a fuck to anyone it becomes a very appealing change of scenery.

And I’m saying this wasn’t always the case for the majority. It’s worth understanding how that came to be

Re: Make the future bright again: On building a new philosophy of progress

#99

Post by FredPret »

rayiner wrote: post #95
RandomLensman wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why building cities in the Utah desert matters today. The question is much broader, I think: without some of the 1960s hedonism, would we have had some of effects of counterculture that manifested in tech? Would we have had more wars like Vietnam? How would society look like? You can, of course, say you want a different society - but that is a different take, really.

I come from a poor country. I want people back home to act like the Mormons, not like people in San Francisco. And America exports its culture all around the world. Moreover, I don’t think a hedonistic, individualistic culture is prepared to tackle the challenges we face (like climate change) nor to take society to the next level.

I also came from a poor country that could use a big dose of Protestant work ethic. If you have $0, getting an extra million is the biggest of deals for your happiness.

But once you are rich and you’ve got snowballing wealth, maybe a change of perspective is in order. You won’t find as much meaning in going from $5m to $10m as in 0-$1m for example.

Not that laziness is the answer, but you need a new motivating principle.

Re: Make the future bright again: On building a new philosophy of progress

#100

Post by RandomLensman »

rayiner wrote: post #95
RandomLensman wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why building cities in the Utah desert matters today. The question is much broader, I think: without some of the 1960s hedonism, would we have had some of effects of counterculture that manifested in tech? Would we have had more wars like Vietnam? How would society look like? You can, of course, say you want a different society - but that is a different take, really.

I come from a poor country. I want people back home to act like the Mormons, not like people in San Francisco. And America exports its culture all around the world. Moreover, I don’t think a hedonistic, individualistic culture is prepared to tackle the challenges we face (like climate change) nor to take society to the next level.

The 20th century had some large-scale "experiments" with non-individualistic society models - they were not pretty.
Post reply on HN