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

951–960 of 1001 posts

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#951

Post by bm371613 »

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…

The mid-20th century Ford argument misses policies and society. It’s not like the pope can only affect reality by changing the hearts of big tech CEOs. It could go through what voters and workers think is possible, what they tolerate and demand. The middle class is not just Ford having a brilliant idea, it is the workers movement, unions, in many countries in cooperation with the church. If you are looking for sources of large scale and long term effects this might be it, like the 19th century strikes supported by the church and Rerum novarum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1889_London_dock_strike#Church...

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#952

Post by zaneyard »

po1nt wrote: post #849
zaneyard wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the point of this comment? Do you mean to say we should cease the pursuit of DEI because we've "come so far"? Of course that's engaging with you with the assumption that you're not intentionally ignoring the weaponization of the movement in the US to further the goals of the current administration.

That would be a strawman. I am not living in US and don't care about US politics other than they are rising my diesel prices. I'm just pointing out that historically this is the most DEI friendly we have ever been. If americans would be able to see outside a 4 year election cycle and realise there is a whole world outside the TDS zone, we could have a more civilised conversation than throwing strawmans around.

I'm not refuting what you said, I'm asking you to elaborate why you said it.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#953

Post by ndrh »

CalRobert wrote: post #923
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #892

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

As far as I'm aware, until we get carbon emissions to zero (or net zero), temperatures will continue to rise.

For another 50 years after we do stabilize them, yes.

The contrarian throwaway said: "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."

-- this sounds close enough to what I said, simply "We all die." I didn't say the oceans would evaporate. But with that amount of damage, global civilization and culture would probably not survive. Going carbon-neutral is not a "meh, let's do it later, or not" type of thing.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#954

Post by daveguy »

Manuel_D wrote: post #949
daveguy wrote: post #895

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 straig…

What you're describing is a straightforward violation of civil rights laws (assuming you're talking about the United States). Like it or not, "little Johnny" is just as protected from discrimination as these "more diverse groups". But I'll give you credit for your candor. Few DEI advocates are as honest as you about the movement's discriminatory nature.

Little Johnny isn't a protected class and never will be. Little Johnny has had 250+ years of preferential treatment behind him. Boohoo Little Johnny.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#955

Post by zimpenfish »

Aeolun wrote: post #756
girvo wrote: post #702

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a whole thing. The priest at my high school was way into Tolkien and, more interestingly to me as a teenager: the Wolfenstein series of games!

The priest at your high school? This is a set of words I’ve never heard in the same sentence. Where was this? If you don’t mind me asking.

I went to a school run by monks[0]. Technically at least two were also priests (although I wasn't sure of the distinction then and I'm still not sure decades later.)

[0] Alas, a dodgy branch of monks who have since encountered many legal issues around child care, etc., as have at least one of my teachers.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#956

Post by pfannkuchen »

komali2 wrote: post #812
pfannkuchen wrote: post #682

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can someone explain what it even means to seize the means of production? Like if the means of production is land, and you are seizing land, sure that makes sense to me. But most goods are not made by land alone but by machines and factories and transport systems and etc. If you seize those as preexisting entities, what happens after you seize them? If you as a group can operate and expand those things, can’t you just…

If a landlord owns 500 homes and tenants pay off the mortgage, maintain the place, and generate the income stream, who is really taking from whom? "Seizing" kind of sounds like theft. If McDonald's employees at one shop in Pasadena Texas suddenly stopped sending money up the chain, isn't that theft of that particular McDonald's shop? I say no, because the theft has already occurred, but legally: faceless profiteers a…

Too long, did read but replying to a granular supporting point at the beginning not to the whole idea. Which isn’t to say I dismiss the whole idea, this is just how my brain processes arguments. If an argument relies on a certain support, I like to check in on the supports and not just accept or refute the argument.

> If a landlord owns 500 homes and tenants pay off the mortgage

So I agree that this situation feels like a scam, and I think that feeling is based on human instinct and so it is in a way just objectively true (since unfairness is fundamentally defined by that instinct).

But, what is inducing this unfair situation?

Is it the part where someone owns the land and the building and someone else pays them to use it?

Or, is it the part where some third party gets to decide who can use its money, which is to say “who is in the club”, and people outside of that club pay both the third party and the people in the club for basic necessities, without which they will die. In essence they are held hostage and must pay their own ransom. And the reason that’s ostensibly fair under the current moral regime is that club membership is… itself determined by money.

Do we think that part might be the root cause of the unfair feeling in this situation?

Please do respond to my specific point here as I’m curious to engage and I’m not trying to nitpick you. If you just respond with a dismissal such as “the argument doesn’t rest on this point”, then I will conclude your overall argument is not sound (whether due to being insufficiently thought through or whether due to being fundamentally invalid, I don’t know, but I don’t feel it’s my responsibility to figure that out and I can just dismiss the claim until someone comes along with a more well structured argument).

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#957

Post by unitof »

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…

Printing press, depending on your view of taming.

There’s a 1520 encyclical related to the matter: https://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo10/l10exdom.htm

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#958

Post by po1nt »

zaneyard wrote: post #952
po1nt wrote: post #849

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be a strawman. I am not living in US and don't care about US politics other than they are rising my diesel prices. I'm just pointing out that historically this is the most DEI friendly we have ever been. If americans would be able to see outside a 4 year election cycle and realise there is a whole world outside the TDS zone, we could have a more civilised conversation than throwing strawmans around.

I'm not refuting what you said, I'm asking you to elaborate why you said it.

Because I feel like it's unappreciative to act like we didn't make any progress. It's really degrading to people that really did put in an effort (like myself). It's like comming to a celebration of a sport victory with "you could have done better" attitude.

So let's now focus on why you assumed a hidden meaning somehow connected to "current administration"? Why this knee jerk reaction?

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#959

Post by solid_fuel »

amelius wrote: post #704
redfloatplane wrote: post #2

> As Pope Francis warned, we must realistically ask ourselves who holds this power today and how they use it: “It must also be recognized that nuclear energy, biotechnology, information technology, knowledge of our own DNA, and many other abilities which we have acquired… have given those with the knowledge, and especially the economic resources to use them, an impressive dominance over the whole of humanity and the…

The pope can say a lot of things, but not everybody on this planet is Christian. So even if we restrict the power of AI, others may not. And this might turn out to be a mistake. I just hope this is taken into account.

"I have to sin because those non-Christians might sin" is an interesting chain of thought.

Religion is about many things, and a major theme is depriving yourself to demonstrate your faith. Refrain from sin, pray for forgiveness and repent your mistakes. Live as a good example, give aid and charity to others. These are all commands in the Bible.

Concern yourself with your own sins, not those of others. Do all this and you will be rewarded in heaven.

Wonder what Jesus would have to say about your thoughts here - that you have to break the commandments of your God because if you don't, someone following a different god might break them first. It doesn't sound very Christ-like to me.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#960

Post by timeninja »

ndrh wrote: post #807
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…

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.

There is scope for cautious optimism. Certainly the changes in train around the world (and being wound back in the US) are well and truly heading in the right direction, and at pace. It's a matter of perspective.

c.f. https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/reframing-energy-fo...

Post reply on HN