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

981–990 of 1001 posts

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#981

Post by specialist »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #827
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.

> 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…

Sure, some fraction of humanity will survive. Terrific.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#982

Post by Otterly99 »

throw4847285 wrote: post #44
Xenoamorphous wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Scientists are actually preoccupied with accomplishment. So they are focused on whether they can do something. They never stop to ask if they should do something. From Crichton's book Jurassic Park, which like most of his books is about the perils of technological advancements. They used the quote in the movie, slightly tweaked.

I would replace the word scientists with engineers in that quote. People often conflate the two, but in my experience, scientists tend to be more cautious and there are built in checks and balances in the process (however flawed). Engineers/technologists tend to have no such guardrails, and are also usually embedded into entirely profit motivated environments, whatever their own values might be.

Honestly, scientists too. I did 10 years of research after deciding that it was not worth it. There is a vast amount of research with no direct application that gets published under the assumption that more knowledge is always better, but in my experience scientists rarely question the usefulness of their research (because most of the time, they find it interesting, which is motivating enough).

Granted, I am talking about harmless subjects, but there is also the dimension of resource usage that almost no scientist considers (the amount of plastics and chemicals used in biochemistry and cell biology is... concerning).

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#983

Post by waffletower »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #827
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.

> 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…

Arguing over whether we all die or we all don't cheapens the risk of the death of millions if/when wet-bulb temperature limits (> 35C,95F at 100% humidity) become routine in populated geographies.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#984

Post by portmanteur »

hackyhacky wrote: post #965
portmanteur wrote: post #963

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Lord of the Rings is a fundamentally Catholic work, written in English, and one of the most popular works of literature of the past century. So it is not unusual for an English-speaking Pope to quote from it. Further, what shade would be thrown, and why? What criticism of Palantir would the Pope be attempting to make here?

> The Lord of the Rings is a fundamentally Catholic work That's a bit of a stretch. I've read the whole thing and I can't recall any mention of Christianity at all. > So it is not unusual for an English-speaking Pope to quote from it. Interesting. How many other popes have quoted Lord of the Rings in an Encyclical Letter?

It is not a stretch. Tolkien was a devout Catholic. The story has a wide variety of allegorical symbolism pointing to a profound Catholic faith. The ring is a metaphor for sin. In famous scene of Boromir’s death, in telling Aragorn he succumbed to temptation by the ring he says, “I have failed.” To which Aragorn, the rightful King, recognizing Boromir’s atonement, replies, “No, brother, you have won a great victory.” This is a blow-for-blow metaphor of the Sacrament of Reconciliation, aka Confession.

Many writers have written on the vast number of Catholic themes and metaphors in LOTR, but one great example is Frodo’s Journey: https://www.amazon.com/Frodos-Journey-Discover-Hidden-Meanin...

Many of his arguments are summarized in this interview: https://youtu.be/HKqvCRc0wWU?si=CPY3SpvRsZ_ZK-Tw

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#985

Post by hackyhacky »

portmanteur wrote: post #984
hackyhacky wrote: post #965

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Lord of the Rings is a fundamentally Catholic work That's a bit of a stretch. I've read the whole thing and I can't recall any mention of Christianity at all. > So it is not unusual for an English-speaking Pope to quote from it. Interesting. How many other popes have quoted Lord of the Rings in an Encyclical Letter?

It is not a stretch. Tolkien was a devout Catholic. The story has a wide variety of allegorical symbolism pointing to a profound Catholic faith. The ring is a metaphor for sin. In famous scene of Boromir’s death, in telling Aragorn he succumbed to temptation by the ring he says, “I have failed.” To which Aragorn, the rightful King, recognizing Boromir’s atonement, replies, “No, brother, you have won a great victory.”…

> Tolkien was a devout Catholic.

There are many Catholic authors. Not everything they write is necessarily a "Catholic work."

> The ring is a metaphor for sin.

You are welcome to your Catholic interpretation of his work, but Tolkien himself famously said that "There is no 'symbolism' or conscious allegory in my story."

As a piece of symbolism, the ring doesn't make any sense. Is he saying that elves helped make sin? And that it can be destroyed in a volcano? In context, it's incoherent and inconsistent with Catholic dogma.

Even if we buy your view that the ring is a symbol for sin, that hardly makes it specifically Catholic. Many religions have a concept of sin, including other branches of Christianity.

If you were to make a case that LOTR is a Catholic work (not an Evangelical, or Lutheran, or Hindu, or Jewish work) you would need to include some specifically Catholic references, such as that scene where the Orcs worship Sauron's mother. (/s)

> Many of his arguments are summarized in this interview: https://youtu.be/HKqvCRc0wWU?si=CPY3SpvRsZ_ZK-Tw

I was excited until I realized that the interview is not with Tolkien, but with some random bozo pushing a religious-nationalist agenda. What makes his interpretation of Tolkien's work more valid than that of Tolkien himself?

Also, you did say that it's not unusual for popes to cite Tolkien. I'm still waiting for your supporting evidence in this matter.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#986

Post by andrepd »

turing_complete wrote: post #53
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.

True, the note "Antiqua et Nova" from last year showed a deep understanding of AI that many secular commentators lack, and developed an interesting concept of integrated intelligence as opposed to the functional, reductivist view of intelligence that is prevalent in the AI community

Antiqua et Nova was partially written by one of the priests that tempt me to be a catholic.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#987

Post by WorldPeas »

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…

prophets are no match for profits

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#988

Post by CamperBob2 »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #681
Ferret7446 wrote: post #675

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Guns don't kill people. People kill people." The whole idea of "taming technology" starts from a flawed premise. The problem is with people, not the technology.

"Nuclear weapons don't kill people. People kill people". So obviously we should let everyone order their own personal nuke from Amazon and let the market sort it out, or something. Technology concentrates power. Yes, people may be the problem, but "taming technology" is obviously not a "flawed premise". There is a big difference between people having the power to bludgeon their neighbors with sticks and stones compar…

If it were possible to order nuclear weapons from Amazon, laws would not help.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#989

Post by CamperBob2 »

arcanemachiner wrote: post #697
jmyeet wrote: post #669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a frightening number of people in the world who simply don't care about what happens to people they don't know or they simply think they're going to be at the top of the food chain one day so they think they will benefit from the current system. This is captured in the quote where most Americans see themselves as "temporarily embarrassed millionaires", attributed (possibly falsely) to Steinbeck. It's been i…

> All this while we'll likely mint our first trillionaire in our lifetimes. And that means a literal billionaire will be closer to being homeless than being the richest person on Earth. Elon Musk is currently worth ~800 billion dollars. This could happen in a much shorter timeframe.

Elon Musk has ~800 billion dollars. What he's worth is far, far less.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#990

Post by pyuser583 »

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…

Tech involves tradeoffs. Famously, horses attracted vermin, which attracted disease. Cities were unable to keep up population without migration because so many people died from disease.

Cars fixed that. And introduced other problems. But there are always trade offs.

Things have been getting better over time. Good enough for me.

Post reply on HN