Hacker News Reader

Comment by ParameterOne | Hacker News Reader

I read it more than once. Need any more clarification or were you just hoping for a longer answer to start a discussion?

View on HN

I think you're confusing yourself with the terminology, so thank you for bringing this up, I'm referring to a specific likely scenario where the effects brought on by climate change and workforce displacement which I broadly refer to as 'dystopian', not the broadly applied science fiction reference where, in some cases, society itself has collapsed to surreal science fiction like levels.

You're referring to an unknown future world, defining it primarily by a label which literally means "hypothetical world which is bad" and asking us what we think of it. I'm not sure that asking us to compare it with reference to other unknowns like past and future cortisol levels makes it any clearer...

Ultimately, I guess it is possible to have a society which is construed in today's eyes as as "dystopian" in its form of organization and yet has a lot of technology assisted endorphin rushes and very little stress (Aldous Huxley wrote about one in 1932) but I'm not sure what that has to do with predictions that lots of people might not be able to eat from climate induced crop failures or loss of employment opportunities, neither of which would appear to give them less stress or better objective living conditions. If your argument boils down to "is technological progress bad?" I think the answer is, "it depends on how it progresses"

First you didn't beleive I read it, then you tell me I'm confusing myself! I would suggest removing the 'phd' on your username and replace it with something more your speed, like 'sh!t'

EDIT: ok maybe that was a bit harsh but the only way dystopian anything can be a good thing is to people who like dystopia which is then actually utopia and it reverts back to my original answer which is - dystopia = negative.

You are debating nomenclature and not the core argument, which is that in a world 'destroyed' by climate change, are people necessarily worse off? As most arguments say 'yes'

Thanks for the tip, but the PhD refers to a nightclub not the academic title and is actually a typo it should be DigiCat lol. I used the word dystopian to attract interest in the paradox.

I think the problem I'm having here is that all your terminology is open-ended and subjective. Terms like 'better off' 'happier' 'healcare advancements' are not measurable. It may be possible to answer your own question by reversing the thought. Like, will our dystopian future be caused by our attemp to fight climate change and can that dystopia be mitigated with the use of technological advancements?

This is an open ended philosophical question, not an attempt at empirical analysis

Reply on news.ycombinator.com