In threads like this one, I sometimes mention the parable of the Chinese Farmer as told by Alan Watts.[1] It's easily found on YouTube.
The Coddling of the American Mind.
What if we discover that everyone really can "just get along" because we coddled 300 million people into believing it, and it actually becomes a reality in the US and spreads throughout the globe? Even the Taliban ends up being nice and people don't even get picked on in school anymore. I mean...its possible right?
Re: coddling of the American mind, I was talking about increasing intolerance of opposing views views, decreasing willingness to seek truth, seeing words as violence etc. It's hard to see a path where this type of thinking becomes universal. No matter how strong that movement, it won't completely eradicate those who believe in freedom of thoughts and freedom of speech.
I'm not sure how you can fairly put odds on something as complex as climate change, but say you're right. Even so, its still consistent with the parable. What are the odds if your horse runs away that it returns with 7 wild horses? Probably not that good, but it could happen.
Like in the parable, you are the neighbor saying "climate change, isn't it awful?" and the farmer would say "maybe". And he wouldn't be wrong. Because maybe implies uncertainty, and you seem to agree it's possible something good can come from climate change. So the parable seems to apply to "emergent systemic effects" as well.
But more importantly the real lesson is how that one can chill the fuck out, like the farmer. The neighbors' emotions are ruled by events, but not the farmer because he's not trying to judge these things that are out of his control. It doesn't mean he wouldn't fight climate change. It does mean though he's not gonna be an emotional wreck every time he turns on the news.
It's not solar, wind, hydro or fusion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
I'm not interested in a debate, just observing that people who say (correctly or incorrectly) the world is coming to an end don't believe it, because otherwise they'd stop bickering and do what needs to be done.
The world isn’t coming to an end but our cozy place in it might very well be.
Nuclear power should have been the only thing built by rich countries for the last 5 decades but of course there are real dangers regarding the unreliability of us humans as maintainers and operators.
On the other hand, they may just think there is no political route to stopping it.
I have never been an advocate of nuclear power in general, and I don't think the world needs more conventional fission reactors. I don't believe fusion power will ever be viable either.
But my pop-sci understanding of a fast breeder reactor is it consumes waste and produces more fuel.
Couldn't it be ripe for someone to take up a similar role to SpaceX only with nuclear power? Assuming we do really believe that climate change has to be stopped at any cost.
----------
If you wanted to truly answer such a question you have to:
1. Be able to perceive multiple timelines in their entirety and
2. be able to convert those entire timelines into some comparable values
From where we stand, both of those are impossible, and whatever cascading effects may come from any action are completely invisible. We simply do not know the long term outcomes of our actions, and rarely can prove even short-term causation in the first place.
There's an ocean between:
- "I did x because I thought it was the right thing" and
- "I can tell what's good or bad in the world"
I can not know whether me personally, as a specific individual, buying an electric car to go to work is better or worse for the ecosystem than buying a used fuel efficient ICE.
I can know that all the carbon we dump in the air and the general carelessness with which we treat the planet on a large scale are extremely detrimental to our civilisational wellbeing.
I btw highly recommended Breaking Boundaries on Netflix.
You really, really, really can not. For all you know, the impending doom of climate change could be the chaotic event that stops us from going full nuclear.
Or perhaps humans are bad fruit, and our form of space colonization is filled with rape, torture, and slavery. Perhaps it's better humans die.
One really, really, really can not know.
I really really really can’t know if the sun comes up tomorrow or 100 days from now either, but it is exceedingly likely and the same is true about my previous statement.
Disregard at your own (and all of our) peril.
I am in no way saying we shouldn't pursue it, or do our best. But simply admitting that we could be wrong is the first step to catching our own mistakes.
Being aware of our own ignorance is important. Extremely so. And failing to see it is a far greater source of peril than "depart[ing] into theoretical/philosophical mode"
But when you say: > Much the opposite. Yours is the belief which every war has been fought over: the belief that you know what's good and bad, or right and wrong.
I can also say that the same is true for all progress the world has seen. That some group of people made a decision and acted.
It’s about likelihoods. Everything can be wrong but some things are more likely than others.
Science, art, and creation all tend to be rich with ambiguity and uncertainty.
Most of the time, people hope they can do a thing and stick to it through many ups and downs. And the times when it works out, even the people who believed in it all along appear to be surprised.