Comments
DSVhex t1_it74xd7 wrote
Thruth Sayer.... Humans mostly only find a common goal once it threatens everyone. When people can no longer hide in their ivory towers.
As a species we are still seperate by the colour of skin, language and culture/religion. Until we can evolve past this there will only be pockets of humanity working for the good of all.
squanchingonreddit t1_it7grq8 wrote
One race, human race.
DSVhex t1_it7hbni wrote
How glorious would that be? No countries, just earth.
thebodymullet t1_it8dn6q wrote
Imagine all the people sharing all the world.
DSVhex t1_it8fll2 wrote
Utopia.... It nakes me sad to know it might be achieved one day but not in my lifetime...and I am under 40.
Ghost_HTX t1_it9b92f wrote
You-ooo-ooo ooo ooo.
You may say Im a dreamer. But Im not the only one.
jflex13 t1_it9wfqn wrote
Don’t quote that fucking violent wife beating hypocrite. I’m so over it.
My_soliloquy t1_it83x0a wrote
ZSpectre t1_it7bnm1 wrote
Yeah, I tend to boil this down to the age old tug of war between our limbic system (fear, desire, conditioning, etc.) and prefrontal cortex (conscious thought).
Perfect-Top-7555 t1_it774s2 wrote
“If we want to improve the world we cannot do it with scientific knowledge but with ideals. Confucius, Buddha, Jesus and Gandhi have done more for humanity than science has done. We must begin with the heart of man—with his conscience—and the values of conscience can only be manifested by selfless service to mankind. In this respect, I feel that the Churches have much guilt. She has always allied herself with those who rule, who have political power, and more often than not, at the expense of peace and humanity as a whole.” -Einstein and the Poet, third conversation, p. 92
Fantasy_masterMC t1_it8lxy0 wrote
Right, science is the 'how', the heart provides the 'why'. The 'why' must generally be answered before the 'how' becomes relevant.
vorpal_potato t1_itd6cem wrote
Meh. Ideals are great, but they don't count for much when you're stuck in the jaws of the Malthusian trap -- the default state of humanity, which we were only able to escape thanks to a series of incredible scientific and technological improvements that almost nobody bothers to appreciate. It bothers me to see people take abundant food for granted, completely heedless of the technological pillars holding up the sky. Word up to Buddha, of course, but Borlaug was probably much more consequential.
[deleted] t1_it7crqs wrote
[deleted]
QwertzOne t1_it9lppi wrote
I think it's part of current system. You're expected to deliver, sometimes it's hard or impossible and that's when bullshit starts. We prefer to bullshit, because it has less consequences for us than acknowledging problem and spending additional resources to get it right. No one will correlate long term success to your actions, but they will correlate short term failures, because how could your estimations/plans be wrong?
We only want to grow, to win, to prosper, so even slightest failure is not acceptable, so in this system we prefer low risk quick wins, instead of actual improvements that pose risk of failure or going over the budget/time.
Some people don't care about politics, but we live in systems that make us to act in certain way, but we reject everything that's not going according to our plans as irrelevant outliers, so we're currently blind to all mistakes that we make, we play to this system rules.
That's how we end up in situation where maybe half of the humanity or less treats climate changes seriously, but no one actually wants to do anything about it, because it's not profitable. You won't gain support by saying that degrowth has to be considered seriously, that we need to spend money on green energy and do something about oil companies, that we need to stop producing unrecyclable, unrepairable crap, that we need to stop deforestation, because all of that hits interests of some rich companies that want to make profit, so they will convince proper people, spread misinformation and status quo for them is secure, while our environment is dying.
I lost faith in this system, it's just ridiculous that we live in times where self-preservation is considered revolutionary idea.
[deleted] t1_itb9snh wrote
[deleted]
QwertzOne t1_itbcy98 wrote
>Not everything is due to "the system".
It actually is because everyone operates in its limits. Every system penalizes some actions, but incentivizes other kind of actions. Few years ago I was just focused on what this system taught me, so I worked hard, learned, finished university, got my first job and I kept working on my career.
I'm an engineer and it took me 8 years to finally reach the point, where I can save any money at all, during that period I didn't really cared about any long term issues, I laughed at environment issues, because it's unprofitable for companies and I believed that, if company financial situation will be better, I will also benefit, so I worked hard on my promotions.
Today I'm tired. I don't want to sprint anymore, despite all these promotions I'm not getting actually richer, they promised me good life and I'm supposed to work like idiot, while some billionaires just sit on their asses and earn more in one year than I would be able to earn over few lifetimes? No, it's not fair and that's actual issue, because I don't want to work anymore for people that think they deserve 300x my salary and see nothing wrong with it.
This system teaches to be egoistic asshole. You want real money and influence? You're not getting it by ethical choices, you have to abuse as well and then sky is the limit, but don't kid yourself that you can achieve this just by typical 9-5 job and investing money, because you don't have luxury of rich people that can afford risks: http://www.temporarilyembarrassedmillionaires.org/
That's why I think that this system is mainly to be blamed for lack of long term vision. How anyone is supposed to focus on environment, if you have to attend your rat race and you don't have energy or will to care about anything important? We just run daily to survive, who cares what will happen in 50 years, if danger is imminent for majority right now.
stupendousman t1_it8odcj wrote
> That's our greatest weakness.
It's one type of problem solving framework. It's actually the most logical. You can't anticipate every possible serious problem, so some forethought mixed with tech innovation and engineering is the best that can be done.
>We only work for our current selves and not for our future selves.
This is incorrect. Each individual has their own time preferences. These vary over time.
TheRoadsMustRoll t1_it89osv wrote
that hasn't always been true. many medieval cathedrals took generations to build. the people laying the foundations would be dead and buried by the time the cathedral was finished and they knew it. so they were proactively working for the greater good of generations yet to be.
in the modern world (the last 100-200 years) we've been idolizing short term profits and short-sighted individuals to the point where a confluence of very serious issues have built up around us. we're valuing denial instead of action but that's just a modern strategy. it appears to be a fairly unreasonable and unsustainable approach imo.
marsten t1_it8ix35 wrote
Cathedral-building is a good example and it highlights what is different now: We have so much less certainty about the future than we did in medieval times. Back then people could visualize pretty accurately the world their great-grandchildren would be living in. Now? It's bewildering. What will AI be like in 20 years, let alone 200? How will social norms change? What will be the dominant societal problems? In the face of so much uncertainty it's hard to make long-term plans.
TheRoadsMustRoll t1_it8ldg1 wrote
>In the face of so much uncertainty it's hard to make long-term plans.
agreed. we've sped up our lead time (for adopting/using new technologies) exponentially. it's hard to know what the future context is going to be at this rate.
i would argue that we could be a lot more efficient at it if we actively mitigated our denial and greed with some reason and humility.
BoredKen t1_it8t6bw wrote
Not true at all. Just look at the regulations responsible for repairing the ozone hole.
Governments are definitely proactive when they need to be, otherwise they would cease to function pretty quickly.
MithandirsGhost t1_it9n7mc wrote
Even when we are proactive and prevent tragedy people don't understand the necessity. I remember a lot of people complaining about how Y2K was an overblown hoax despite the millions of dollars and years of work that went into Y2K mitigation. "All these millions spent on Y2K and it didn't even happen."
andyman234 t1_ita1yp5 wrote
Our governments are pretty much set up this way. You’re not going to get RE-elected for anything if you spend money solving a problem 5 election cycles from now… you may not be around to take credit.
Vocalscpunk t1_itab32r wrote
Welcome to healthcare
TheRyfe t1_itb2yma wrote
That’s just the nature of the current competitive atmosphere amongst nations. Everyone tries to fuck each other over asap so they have the edge in 5 years. The key is to have some sort of super national authority (which every super power is trying aggressively to be which is fucking with everyone) without ties to any nations. I’d like a unicorn as well tbh
Wild_Sun_1223 t1_ittwrmm wrote
We need to rewire our motivational system so that long term collective risk feels as visceral as short term personal risk. Or where the prospect of long term collective advantage actually emboldens us toward short term personal suffering.
funk_rosin t1_it7v2na wrote
Well for one because our current self is real while our future self remains a hypothetical
alex20_202020 t1_it8420y wrote
Nope. I recently realized we are mostly proactive. I had been telling my mother she does not think about (work for) the future, then realized she does it all the time. E.g. she goes to the supermarket not when she is dying of hunger and does not immediately eats food from the shelves, she brings food home to have food available and eat later when hungry.
Only the future we work for is rather near, not far one. And we tend to continue business as normal/before even if world changes.
KorayRED t1_it992fh wrote
Can confirm. I am human and I am very reactive.
JaggedEdgeRow t1_it9htqv wrote
I agree, but I think this facilitates one of our strengths as well. Humans are incredibly good at adapting to drastic changes in environments. My thought is that even though our horrible habit of pushing existential events off is repugnant, we’ve also developed a habit of being really good at finishing an assignment right before midnight. We are master procrastinators with ADHD, if you will.
halfanothersdozen t1_it7frgl wrote
Realistically society isn't going to "get it" until a severe catastrophe knocks out like, I dunno, 20% of the population or something. SARS 3 or a supervolcano or a really big solar flare.
RestlessAmbivert t1_it8f97t wrote
We've had that happen, though. Bubonic plague, 1918 flu, and a few other instances across the world of mass die-offs. Not that we don't correct some of the issues, but overall we just sit in the same cycles once things somewhat return to normal.
Odds are for that very reason we'll see a resurgence of a very strong Covid strain, more will die, and we'll rinse & repeat.
magnetar_industries t1_it8bsz2 wrote
Just a couple years of heat/drought-induced crop failures in 2 or 3 of the world’s “breadbasket” farming zones will be enough to starve millions of people, and lead to a bunch of knock-on effects like financial markets seizing up, ultra fascism, resource wars. I mean we are having just one small regional war right now and the whole world experiences just how little resilience we have in our global systems.
And it won’t be just a single event that we can bounce back from. Now that human civilization and earth’s ecosystems are so fragile, and the rot is so deep, there will be wave after wave of civilizational and earth collapse.
It’s gonna get ugly but hopefully the rapaciousness of human civilization is strongly and quickly curtailed before the near complete extinction of all life on earth.
Trantor_ablaze t1_it8t2fj wrote
You are right, but thats being "doomer", and we don't like doomers in this quarter to quarter looking society, we like techno-positivism, i only wish people dont realize too soon because I'm not ready to deal with mass hysteria.
magnetar_industries t1_it8vs0x wrote
Maybe this is the premise behind the whole billionaires in the bunkers mentality. No one can bunker down indefinitely. But it might be possible to ride out the initial wave of hysteria, which will be insanely dangerous for any civilian caught out in the open.
I used to be full scale doomer, but now think if nature plus human nature quickly knocks out human CO2 generating capacity, ecosystems and whatever bands of highly resilient hunter gathers remain, might have a shot at rebuilding a decent planet. Even if it takes a mere 200K years to recuperate.
oldnuthammer t1_itcif4m wrote
It will need to be a lot more than millions of people starving before you will see action, millions of people are already starving. 20 million people are food insecure in Yemen. Millions of people are currently food insecure in the U.S. There is a high rate of food insecurity in Europe. Billions of people will have to die from starvation in a short amount of time, in order for humanity to act...and even then it is uncertain that it would.
We are already seeing poor crop production due to climate issues, Instead of addressing these issues we have decided to compound and make these issues worse.
The only real solution is population reduction, which goes against our very biology as a species. Globally as a species we would need to reduce the amount of our offspring, reducing our population by billions.
A lot of people had kids who should not have had kids...Population explosion pretty much doomed the human race, there is no logistical way to solve this issue. The lucky people are going to die before things get bad, If you have any heart at all you will not be having children.
FerociousPancake t1_it8g1yl wrote
If there was a really big solar flare that knocked out the world power grid for a year or so, it would be absolutely chaotic. Even knocking it out for 90 days. Or imagine a virus with a 10% death rate this time? Chaos.
WestguardWK t1_itckllk wrote
I agree that is the most likely type of thing to “galvanize” humanity. But there might be others..
Perhaps first contact?
halfanothersdozen t1_itd5rlp wrote
You're an alien. Are you gonna bother getting in the middle of all of this mess?
WestguardWK t1_itdkbo8 wrote
I mean.... good point
StarChild413 t1_itaofey wrote
What if a supervillain-type engineered that but made it so not as many died as looked like did and any of the 20% that were sympathetic to their cause just got their deaths faked and themselves moved metaphorically and literally underground to assist the effort to make society "get it" from the shadows
halfanothersdozen t1_itaqc8h wrote
um... sure. Go with that.
StarChild413 t1_itav4k0 wrote
I wasn't saying I'd do it, are you saying it'd work
[deleted] t1_itaq8tg wrote
[removed]
AadamAtomic t1_it818xk wrote
#"1ST, we must stop nuclear war and global warming..."
"2ND...."
I know they said it wouldn't be easy...but...
PlebsicleMcgee t1_itbokmg wrote
Step 1: Write a report stating we need to fix all of the world's issues
Step 3: Once all the world's issues have been resolved...
[deleted] t1_it91347 wrote
[removed]
vorpal_potato t1_itd4i5f wrote
If you look at the actual essay, it takes the form "Obviously we need to work on the obvious things like nuclear war and global warming -- but there are some less obvious things that are also really important."
Then it argues that we need to be able to predict what extinction threats are most dangerous/urgent/tractable, with some kind of widely trusted institution doing the predicting. (IMO it would pretty much have to be something like a prediction market or that one superforcasting tournament. Anything more conventional, like the IPCC that the essay mentions as a model, will naturally become so politicized that they become untrusted and unworthy of trust.)
mossadnik OP t1_it73cz3 wrote
Submission Statement:
>Since 1990, the United Nations Development Programme has been tasked with releasing reports every few years on the state of the world. The 2021/2022 report — released earlier this month, and the first one since the Covid-19 pandemic began — is titled “Uncertain Times, Unsettled Lives.”
>“The war in Ukraine reverberates throughout the world,” the report opens, “causing immense human suffering, including a cost-of-living crisis. Climate and ecological disasters threaten the world daily. It is seductively easy to discount crises as one-offs, natural to hope for a return to normal. But dousing the latest fire or booting the latest demagogue will be an unwinnable game of whack-a-mole unless we come to terms with the fact that the world is fundamentally changing. There is no going back.”
>Toby Ord, senior research fellow at Oxford’s Future of Humanity Institute and the author of the existential risk book The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity, explores this question in an essay in the latest UNDP report. He calls it the problem of “existential security”: the challenge not just of preventing each individual prospective catastrophe, but of building a world that stops rolling the dice on possible extinction.
>“To survive,” he writes in the report, “we need to achieve two things. We must first bring the current level of existential risk down — putting out the fires we already face from the threats of nuclear war and climate change. But we cannot always be fighting fires. A defining feature of existential risk is that there are no second chances — a single existential catastrophe would be our permanent undoing. So we must also create the equivalent of fire brigades and fire safety codes — making institutional changes to ensure that existential risk (including that from new technologies and developments) stays low forever.”
>“Existential security” is the state where we are mostly not facing risks in any given year, or decade, or ideally even century, that have a substantial chance of annihilating civilization. For existential security from nuclear risk, for instance, perhaps we reduce nuclear arsenals to the point where even a full nuclear exchange would not pose a risk of collapsing civilization, something the world made significant progress on as countries slashed nuclear arsenal levels after the Cold War. For existential security from pandemics, we could develop PPE that is comfortable to wear and provides approximately total protection against disease, plus a worldwide system to detect diseases early — ensuring that any catastrophic pandemic would be possible to nip in the bud and protect people from.
>The ideal, though, would be existential security from everything — not just from the knowns, but the unknowns. For example, one big worry among experts including Ord is that once we build highly capable artificial intelligences, AI will dramatically hasten the development of new technologies that imperil the world while — because of how modern AI systems are designed — it’ll be incredibly difficult to tell what it’s doing or why.
>So an ideal approach to managing existential risk doesn’t just fight today’s threats but makes policies that will prevent threats from arising in the future too.
alex20_202020 t1_it84rg5 wrote
So long text and to the point of title is only "let's reduce nuclear weapons and develop good face masks". Is whole report of so (IMO) low quality?
AmazingGrace911 t1_it8zxa4 wrote
I disagree. This authors work reads like dark poetry. “Uncertain times, uncertain lives” had me hooked instantly.
whapitah2021 t1_it8wetr wrote
There’s a link to the report the article is based on if that helps….. :)
alex20_202020 t1_itb5for wrote
"reports every few years on the state of the world. The 2021/2022 report ". Looks the report is not devoted to the topic, IMO title is misleading. In similar manner I can say "Mark Twain's Adventures of Huckleberry Finn explores techniques of painting fences." True in fact, but w/out reading the book one might get wrong idea about its contents.
st_j t1_it7g78l wrote
I didn't read it but i'm guessing this means developing some kind of power armour?
fkafkaginstrom t1_it80941 wrote
First step is to build a series of Vaults.
mouringcat t1_it9ggk7 wrote
And a God King to create genetically engineered "sons" to wear them?
StarChild413 t1_itao9w2 wrote
And you in some kind of wish-fulfillment power-fantasy role adequately plot-armored?
datadelivery t1_it7grph wrote
Yeah, I didn't read it either but wondering the same. Can anyone clarify?
[deleted] t1_it8d3yy wrote
[deleted]
OLSAU t1_it75ppj wrote
I know.
We should test everyone for Psychopathy/Sociopathy/Machiavellianism, find the circa 2% with high scores, and prevent all of them in ever obtaining any position of power/finance/influence.
Problem solved.
x31b t1_it8n7o7 wrote
Or just eliminate anyone who actually wants the job from consideration.
StarChild413 t1_itaopdj wrote
Then you'd need people in power-in-the-shadows to do the forcing-people-into-the-job who'd need A. a similar-but-not-so-similar-it's-an-infinite-regress check on their own power and B. some form of "thought police"/"mind-reading machine"/whatever to distinguish those who actually don't want it from those who want to sneak their way into power by either keeping their intentions to themselves so no one hears them want it or metaphorically yell from the rooftops lip service about how much they'd hate the job
erf456 t1_it8ii1v wrote
Only if you add some measure of selfishness to that. Being in power means sometimes you have to Trolley Problem some people for the greater good, and that’s okay so long as it’s done without any self-interest
StarChild413 t1_itaoyl3 wrote
who tests the testers, also the test (as in the most common assessment used, that's another wrinkle, what to use) is highly prone to inflating scores of takers on the autism spectrum who e.g. might justify what seems like an immoral answer through either having interpreted it literally or finding a scenario where it would be good to do that and also some autistic people might over-literally interpret the narcissism questions and just treat it as common-sense evaluation of actually having a positive self-concept (believe it or not I may be autistic but I'm not speaking from my experience but some of my friends')
Wild_Sun_1223 t1_ittxjvh wrote
So then why not just make it so a diagnosis of autism confirmed for that candidate counterbalances the test? Also, because of the manipulative nature of NMP, usually you don't give someone you suspect of having it the trst for them to fill out. A professional would observe them and fill it out.
Where to get the testers from? Draw them at random from the qualified ones in general practice during each election year. Can't be worse than our "every dumb Tom and Harry votes" system - at least these people are likely a bit smarter.
Elianasanalnasal t1_it860sp wrote
There are al lot of friendly psychopaths though, maybe even a majority. Seems kind of unfair for them.
OLSAU t1_it8atz2 wrote
You should study how dark triad personalities work. It is called "anti-social" for good reason.
ReturnOfSeq t1_it7eqc3 wrote
Hey now not all sociopaths are bad
OLSAU t1_it7fxl3 wrote
I didn't say that ... just that humanity can't afford them in leadership ... anywhere!
Jetjones t1_it7nxv0 wrote
Lack of empathy can help you take decisions based on facts instead of emotion.
OLSAU t1_it7oq8a wrote
No. That is nothing but cope.
onyxengine t1_it7taym wrote
Nothing is black and white, the varying gradients of empathy and psychopathy allow humans to operate effectively in large numbers. Being out of balance in either direction probably makes for poor decisions.
EmperorGeek t1_it7mlp9 wrote
If they were “bad” then they would need to be sterilized or eliminated. Not sure society is ready for that.
ReturnOfSeq t1_it7s85z wrote
I’m no historian but I think eugenics is typically frowned upon
Temporary-House304 t1_it8sbaz wrote
Why? having a sociopath do something mild like filling out forms all day seems pretty risk less. I feel like jumping to genocide/eugenics is insane when there is such a huge middle ground of solutions to consider.
EmperorGeek t1_it9lg0y wrote
Did you miss the “bad” part?
Sociopathy is not necessarily a “bad” condition. I watches a documentary where a researcher was testing to see if it could be detected with an FMRI. He was sorting through test results and realized that one of the ones he flagged was his own. He asked his family and friends and they all agreed he was a mild sociopath. They all knew not to play competitive games with him.
AceSevenFive t1_it7h713 wrote
I wonder how well you would fare seeing as you think it's a good idea to exclude people from power purely based on personality traits.
EDIT: The above user has blocked me, so I'm guessing they themselves would be barred from power under their standards.
mechaMayhem t1_it7iddu wrote
Sociopathy is a legitimate disability, not simply a personality trait.
OLSAU t1_it7hsg6 wrote
I'm not interested in power.
copswithguns t1_it75ksl wrote
Step 1: Russia shouldn’t be on the permanent security council. Oh wait.
FinancialAd6213 t1_it872yy wrote
No country should be in the permanent security council, this system is inherently destructive
BossLoaf1472 t1_it97f61 wrote
BRING BACK THE LEAUGE OF NATIONS
richochet12 t1_itakuso wrote
Well that does seem like a good way to speed up a demise of the UN
LazyLich t1_it88mzs wrote
"Guys! I know how to make the species destruction/extinction-proof!
We just have to fix the problems we currently have, and prevent the future problems we may have(even the unknown ones)!
Big brain amirite?"
cecilmeyer t1_it89x1v wrote
Maybe if psychopaths were not running the worlds governments this would not be an issue.
stikky t1_it8v58y wrote
Modern humanity wont even make their populations starvation-proof. Extinction-proof sure isn't going to include us wage slaves
OkBlackberry6668 t1_itbyj3q wrote
And it sucks that while everything is happening, we just have to continue on our work weeks like theres nothing going on.
Tiny_Kurgan t1_it7rfc0 wrote
I recommend building huge underground Vaults (for protection and definitely not for some nefarious social experimentation program). - Vault-Tec spokesperson
Sidoplanka t1_it8hmf0 wrote
When they figure out how to take the greed out of humanity, then we might have a chance.
StarChild413 t1_itao2jv wrote
If it's as simple as removing greed, how do you do that without making us so altruistic we have no sense of self-preservation and e.g. would rather give away our food to others we perceive as needing it more than eat it to live even if that's how we received the food so we all starve to death
Wild_Sun_1223 t1_ittxlhq wrote
You don't have to get rid of greed absolutely, just nudge the ratio of greed and moderation.
fredandlunchbox t1_it7yv3m wrote
Raw numbers is one way. 7 billion people could die tomorrow and there’d still be a billion people left.
jsseven777 t1_it9xzdu wrote
Are you volunteering?
fredandlunchbox t1_ita7crn wrote
I’m not saying 7 billion should. I’m saying even in the case of such a catastrophe, raw numbers would give humanity a fair chance at survival.
Neospecial t1_it80zi1 wrote
"but it won't be easy" okay that's enough read right there. 100% not happening then.
Only way anything gets done despite if it's hard is if there's big money to be made for the top.
TheLastSamurai t1_it82w9s wrote
I have commented about how nuclear non-proliferation needs to keep going and even accelerate on this sub and /News and it’s met with many downvotes lol
x31b t1_it8n0js wrote
The world would be a lot safer if the UN actually got their act together and took out Putin.
xXSpaceturdXx t1_it85spt wrote
The world has all these nukes but we also have Murphy’s Law. That’s not a good thing…..
Zireael07 t1_it8nwgo wrote
Bull#$@#%.
We're only one big asteroid hit away from extinction. This article doesn't even mention that. Yes, what it DID mention are also potential causes of extinction, but even if we solve those there's always an asteroid waiting...
penguinmagnetwater t1_itc34lz wrote
Asteroids are one of the few existential threats that we're actually working on, DART was successful in redirecting that asteroid it hit.
Zireael07 t1_itc3bfx wrote
Point. But this article doesn't mention that AT ALL - not the risk, and not the measures we're (finally) taking.
stupendousman t1_it8p35a wrote
Translation:
Civilization is when the UN control everything.
KorayRED t1_it98zs4 wrote
My question is: if they are going to make humanity extinct proof, am I also part of the plan or do I go extinct for humanity’s sake?
StarChild413 t1_itanoqa wrote
no matter how our society changes, immortality is the key, society is extinction-proof if its people can't die
jayoho1978 t1_it8f2bo wrote
Move everybody into a huge metal box with defenses? Ha
n3w4cc01_1nt t1_it8ib89 wrote
the planet needs better psychopath management services and a global food bank system.
Drewafx t1_it8jedv wrote
it's very tempting to just make a law and enforce it
cause bad thing is still bad no matter what
but core problem is not resolved that way
world's living condition has to be better for everyone over time
if it gets worse who's gonna just say 'it is what it is'
people are going to fight to make it 'better' for themselves
even if it doesn't make sense
data & tech driven standard of living improvement > ruthless competition overworking people as if they're machines
so nothing is worth throwing their lives away in battlefield/etc
injustice so miniscule not worth facing consequences for standing up with conscience
rules actually made for benefit of all so everyone follows it by heart/don't even have to second guess it
Italiancrazybread1 t1_it8r2qn wrote
>Anything that changed the international order enough to support international institutions with real authority with respect to existential risk would likely have to be a devastating catastrophe in its own right. It seems unlikely we’ll make it to the path of “existential security” without taking some serious risks — which hopefully we survive to learn from.
This is exactly what's going to happen
Hal-Har-Infigar t1_it8u39x wrote
Yay more nonsense fearmongering propaganda from the UN. Do they do anything else nowadays or just try to push this bullshit narrative?
sasuke325669 t1_it8zqfg wrote
Let me guess all the peasants live in pods and eat bugs and pay massive taxes
Routine_Ad_6855 t1_it9hxwd wrote
Misleading title naturally from Vox… of course we can’t be extinction proof. What a ridiculous statement.
Darkhorseman81 t1_itadvn4 wrote
Use a transmissible vaccine to overwrite the dopamine receptor and transport genes involved in Narcissistic and Psychopathic behaviors.
This would assure humanity becoming a type 1 civilization.
Every problem we face stems from Dark Triads in positions of power.
StarChild413 t1_itanybz wrote
It'd need trials to avoid unintended consequences (like, for the first sci-fi-level one that comes to mind (be mindful of extremes even if they aren't likely bad outcomes), so much selflessness/self-denial that we die out anyway because we'd rather give away resources to others than use them to ensure our continued existence even if that's how we got those resources)
[deleted] t1_it7419i wrote
[removed]
FuturologyBot t1_it78eyl wrote
The following submission statement was provided by /u/mossadnik:
Submission Statement:
>Since 1990, the United Nations Development Programme has been tasked with releasing reports every few years on the state of the world. The 2021/2022 report — released earlier this month, and the first one since the Covid-19 pandemic began — is titled “Uncertain Times, Unsettled Lives.”
>“The war in Ukraine reverberates throughout the world,” the report opens, “causing immense human suffering, including a cost-of-living crisis. Climate and ecological disasters threaten the world daily. It is seductively easy to discount crises as one-offs, natural to hope for a return to normal. But dousing the latest fire or booting the latest demagogue will be an unwinnable game of whack-a-mole unless we come to terms with the fact that the world is fundamentally changing. There is no going back.”
>Toby Ord, senior research fellow at Oxford’s Future of Humanity Institute and the author of the existential risk book The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity, explores this question in an essay in the latest UNDP report. He calls it the problem of “existential security”: the challenge not just of preventing each individual prospective catastrophe, but of building a world that stops rolling the dice on possible extinction.
>“To survive,” he writes in the report, “we need to achieve two things. We must first bring the current level of existential risk down — putting out the fires we already face from the threats of nuclear war and climate change. But we cannot always be fighting fires. A defining feature of existential risk is that there are no second chances — a single existential catastrophe would be our permanent undoing. So we must also create the equivalent of fire brigades and fire safety codes — making institutional changes to ensure that existential risk (including that from new technologies and developments) stays low forever.”
>“Existential security” is the state where we are mostly not facing risks in any given year, or decade, or ideally even century, that have a substantial chance of annihilating civilization. For existential security from nuclear risk, for instance, perhaps we reduce nuclear arsenals to the point where even a full nuclear exchange would not pose a risk of collapsing civilization, something the world made significant progress on as countries slashed nuclear arsenal levels after the Cold War. For existential security from pandemics, we could develop PPE that is comfortable to wear and provides approximately total protection against disease, plus a worldwide system to detect diseases early — ensuring that any catastrophic pandemic would be possible to nip in the bud and protect people from.
>The ideal, though, would be existential security from everything — not just from the knowns, but the unknowns. For example, one big worry among experts including Ord is that once we build highly capable artificial intelligences, AI will dramatically hasten the development of new technologies that imperil the world while — because of how modern AI systems are designed — it’ll be incredibly difficult to tell what it’s doing or why.
>So an ideal approach to managing existential risk doesn’t just fight today’s threats but makes policies that will prevent threats from arising in the future too.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/y9sj8u/a_new_un_report_explores_how_to_make_human/it73cz3/
[deleted] t1_it7fuyw wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_it7i639 wrote
[deleted]
Zacpod t1_it7j1xm wrote
I, for one, would welcome an AI overlord. Gotta be better than the self serving, bribe taking, pandering, lying, egotistical, power-hungry sociopaths we have as leaders right now.
sewser t1_it7nb7z wrote
Well, for one, let’s get our heads out of our asses with Ukraine, retire our pride for the night, and pray this doesn’t end in nuclear war.
cuteman t1_it7srz0 wrote
It's getting worse not better and with Ukrainian allies providing increasing amounts of money and weapons, it continues to escalate. Escalation with a nuclear power used to be seen as a very risky thing to do but now people are actively encouraging it.
sewser t1_it7yjhk wrote
Exactly. Absolutely preposterous.
Xandervern t1_it8kmc1 wrote
well, the west can't allow putin to reestablish the soviet union, they would be operating on the principle that if russia gains enough critical mass, then the other satellite states will fall in to line and Voilà mini soviet union 2.0.
cuteman t1_it8lbog wrote
So escalation with a nuclear power is OK?
Xandervern t1_it8o42b wrote
what do you suggest? all non nuclear nations should either join a nuclear umbrella or start developing their own nukes? cause thats the message it would send. if america leaves, then what assurance does any of its allies in the pacific rim have that it would assist if china presses its claims. that would mean, japan, south korea, east indies, saudhi arabia, anyone capable would build their own nukes.
cuteman t1_it8ugcf wrote
>what do you suggest?
Not escalating with a nuclear power nor pushing them to desperation.
>all non nuclear nations should either join a nuclear umbrella or start developing their own nukes? cause thats the message it would send. if america leaves, then what assurance does any of its allies in the pacific rim have that it would assist if china presses its claims. that would mean, japan, south korea, east indies, saudhi arabia, anyone capable would build their own nukes.
Ukraine doesn't have the same ally status as Korea or Japan.
[deleted] t1_it7u9ba wrote
[removed]
WeeunWhitechin t1_it80pl3 wrote
We're doomed because it's just like Sid Meier's Civilization video games where you have to advance technologically faster than anyone else then take over the world militarily to form one world government but you have to do it fast enough before too much moral progress has been made otherwise you just get riots and productivity nose-dives. There needed to be colonialism and wars until one country emerged as the winner. It's too late now. Too much moral progress has occurred.
StarChild413 t1_itao4zc wrote
AKA you're just a gamer
DamonFields t1_it81rsh wrote
Humans will genetically modify themselves, so the question is not can we survive, but what will survive?
[deleted] t1_it85le6 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_it8euxn wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_it8niha wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_it8tkxh wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_it8uu43 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_it8w4zm wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_it8ysdk wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_it93nsl wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_it944ku wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_it99dlp wrote
[removed]
CelestineCrystal t1_it9upys wrote
320 pages and not one mention of switching to plant-based diets and away from all forms of animal exploitation, which put civilization at risk…
[deleted] t1_itao49u wrote
[removed]
HappyGrapeMonke t1_itb7nvu wrote
If we fuck the planet up enough to the point where we risk extinction. I kinda think we should just let it happen. Like, we had our run, we fucked up, and we have to take the L.
For56 t1_itbasml wrote
Human civilization kinda deserves to end. Let it be.
Carbonga t1_itbd3c1 wrote
That does not sound like fun. Other species want to have a go, too. Personally, I'm rooting for the planet to throw us off and press the shuffle buttonany again in a few dozen years.
letsgeditmedia t1_itbj05p wrote
Abolish NATO, dismantle the US government, establish global socialism
[deleted] t1_itbx8xy wrote
[removed]
NorthMaster5324 t1_itc8y8v wrote
There is a problem that many of the challenges we face today are not solved on a national level, but we insist on doing so.
Hustler-1 t1_itcsz5j wrote
The only way to avoid extinction is to colonize other worlds. Earth could be utopia and still be wiped out by a cosmological event.
herbw t1_itm7l1t wrote
Tsiolkovsky said it best. The earth is our womb, but we cannot stay there forever.
Extinction can ONLY be avoided by creating first an interplanetary and then interstellar settlements.
The rest is sheerest conjecture and likely as a snowball in hell. we get hit by a full ice age, that's the end. And it's coming.
Or a big asteroid, which we have neither the power nor the tech to divert, or block.
OR TN war which Putin is threatening now.
Get real. We get to the moon, set up manufacturing, self sustaining and growin habitats; and then we settle our system and then our spiral arm of the galaxy. It'd take about 25 yrs, well within the lives or most living today.
ShadowPooper t1_it8imyi wrote
...and we're gonna need Elon Musk to do it.
Take that haters!
medieval_mosey t1_it9o5l4 wrote
It won’t be easy, or profitable… so it won’t happen.
StarChild413 t1_itanvgo wrote
So make it easy and/or profitable
GReaperEx t1_it7li1c wrote
Abolish Capitalism. That may not fix all of our problems, but it will certainly go a long way.
cuteman t1_it7sjtn wrote
And replace it with what?
marsten t1_it7zegz wrote
As long as we live in a world where many of the economic activities people care about require resources to be invested up-front (in factories, stores, real estate, etc.), the question is who makes those investment decisions. Capitalism's answer is: Those with the most skin in the game. It's hard to argue with that logic.
My_soliloquy t1_it85q2n wrote
Only as long as you're one of the 'winners' in the game. Those without resources or benefits or equal footing, are the losers in the capitalism game. They're just 'resources' to be used up and discarded. They get forfeit before they even start playing. The problem is, most don't even know how stacked it's become.
Gini-coefficient and wealth inequality are prime examples if you want to understand why capitalism is not a good system or think its better than all the other failures, like communism.
marsten t1_it8hbyg wrote
I think we need to separate out two things: How to maximize wealth creation for society overall, and how to distribute that wealth within society.
Capitalism is unequivocally the best answer to the first question. There are no counterexamples.
The second question is distinct and has to do with taxation, regulation, education, and so on. This is where the real discussion should be.
"Tax the rich" I get. "Destroy capitalism" makes no sense, it's the only system that works.
My_soliloquy t1_it8ltwb wrote
End stage capitalism is where we're headed, where the rich have gamed the system to the point they aren't taxed and the rest of us fund everything. They've practically captured our government with "Citizens United" and the "Patriot Act." It's exacerbated since the 1970's. Even Warren Buffet acknowledged that his secretary pays more per capita, than he does. So if we went back to the tax rates under Eisenhower, or better yet 90% above 1 million in personal income, then capitalism might be viable. But that isn't what happened. And we're headed back towards kings controlling countries and the serfs they own; with the current wealth levels of oligarchs and CEO pay disparity vs their employees. We can't even get reasonable health care and costs under control in "the richest country on earth." Medical bankruptcy is a real thing where most citizens don't even have $400 in emergency funds.
So NO, capitalism is not the best example. Only people lucky enough not to have been destroyed by it yet, might think it's still viable.
marsten t1_it8qq5r wrote
I think what you're calling out aren't problems with capitalism per se, but outcomes of the US's political system and cultural values. You could look at for example the Nordic countries for a different model of how to distribute the benefits of capitalism.
keviscount t1_itavd7j wrote
> Only as long as you're one of the 'winners' in the game. Those without resources or benefits or equal footing, are the losers in the capitalism game.
You're right that capitalism produces an outcome of winners and losers. All other systems tried have produced nothing but losers (lest they be corrupted and start incorporating some elements of capitalism, inevitably with a ruling class forming of effectively authoritarian capitalists ruling over the serfs who have been tricked).
You can pretend that other systems work, even on a small scale. But humanity doesn't work on a small scale anymore.
stupendousman t1_it8p02h wrote
> Only as long as you're one of the 'winners' in the game.
Translation:
I'm afraid I won't win according to my own subjective values in a situation where I need to provide value to others.
>Those without resources or benefits or equal footing, are the losers in the capitalism game.
First, people are individuals, there is no way to make them all equal. Second, there are many people who start with nothing and become wealthy. Third, again, you're afraid you can't do so.
>The problem is, most don't even know how stacked it's become.
Almost all market interventions which affect competition is from state organizations. My guess is you want those same states to intervene to support you.
My_soliloquy t1_it8sj14 wrote
Nope, I retired 12 years ago at 43, I already "won" at life, and yes it was state organization's that enabled me to do so. Transportation, communication, manufacturing and government among others, still use them and pay my taxes and try to get along with neighbors. Also encourage resonable competition inside of industries unless the state needed to step in to reduce monopolies and price gouging.
But I can acknowledge how fortunate I am, and how the deck is so currently stacked against others.
stupendousman t1_it8zu8w wrote
> and yes it was state organization's that enabled me to do so.
So you happily used ill-gotten resources to benefit yourself, and then turn around and critique people who didn't but succeeded without doing what you did.
> Also encourage resonable competition
You types are always wannabe dictators. You'll define reasonable, as it should be huh?
>price gouging
Sophistic political term, like union busting, X-phobia, etc.
>But I can acknowledge how fortunate I am, and how the deck is so currently stacked against others.
The deck is stacked due to people like you. Aren't you grand having concern for the little people?
I've had successes and failure, large and small. I've never lied, cheated, used ill-gotten gains, etc.
I'm far more suited to critical analysis than you are.
My_soliloquy t1_it9jeox wrote
Nice try, but I don't lie, cheat or steal either, always fully worked for a wage or if I made investment gains, I still pay more than my fair share of taxes, never taken more than I needed and I cooperate with my neighbors and contribute to my local economy. The state enabled the roads, the emergency services and other services I (and you) use, that's what I mean by the state enabled me.
Capitalism eventually consolidates, that's where it fails.
djmakcim t1_it8585j wrote
Honestly? No one would accept such a fundamental change to our livelihoods. The dreamers want to believe that altruism would prevail and no one would need to “work” any longer because we would all aim to help everyone out.
Making sure that we all get ours, but there isn’t incentive without money is there? Money buys goods, but it also buys power. The thing people forget in the d*ck waving contest that is the ultra wealthy (Billionaires), is the power being the richest person holds. You gain influence with enough money and if you have more money than the next guy, then you hold more weight than they do.
Plus when you have so much wealth it literally doesn’t matter what you do with it, well what feels like the ultimate feeling? Giving it away? Or holding as much money as possibly to gain control over others?
Especially if you’re a sociopath or psychopath like it’s shown many in those high positions of power and wealth are.
So I don’t know what the solution is, but we are headed towards a cliff. There isn’t enough resources to last forever and we as humans have terrible abilities to predict our futures. It likely will come to a point where we no longer can just get by, when resources begin to diminish, when homelessness runs rampant and hunger grows. Eventually we will have some sort of dystopian future or collapse because the way we are chugging along pretty well guarantees it at some point.
So what would you replace it with?
keviscount t1_itaw6mq wrote
Our dystopian future, worst case scenario, is that we start mass-executing or mass-enslaving the poor.
That's a humanitarian crisis, but not a human race crisis. The human race will be fine.
cuteman t1_it85ta4 wrote
I'm not the one saying we should abolish capitalism.
You know, the system that isn't perfect but has pulled more people out of poverty than any other before it.
bathwizard01 t1_it7uokr wrote
Communism was not good for the environment. Pollution is not about how wealth is distributed, the problem in this case is about demand for resources exceeding care for the environment, whether by a capitalist corporation or government-owned industry.
EgielPBR t1_it88vmo wrote
With socialism, of course, it worked for the Aral Sea, China is also very environment-friendly, it isn't a violent system either, no concentration camps, genocide, censorship or anything like that.
cuteman t1_it8hp46 wrote
The problem with marxism, socialism and communism is that they always seems to end in famine and genocide.
I might be open to them if there was a single successful example.
Temporary-House304 t1_it8sv8x wrote
well really they have just been susceptible to dictatorship and u.s. intervention. I don’t think there is an example of communism that hasn’t fallen to either of those. Personally i’d hedge my bets more on social democracy working, much more palatable for the west and much more within reality without a bunch of people dying needlessly.
cuteman t1_it8twdx wrote
Social democracy is still capitalism
The issue is that socialism or communism isn't self sustaining.
The only way models like scandinavian countries work is because of significant subsidy via capitalism.
Petal_Chatoyance t1_it92lvt wrote
The problem with capitalism is that it always seems to end in a very small 1% owning everything, and everyone else starving, ending up homeless and destitute, no middle class, and those not homeless essentially abused serfs working for a cruel and uncaring oligarchy.
How's your paycheck lately, cuteman? You paying off that lovely home okay? Got that new car this year? You enjoying your vacation days? Got the required minimum million in the bank to begin a reasonable retirement savings?
cuteman t1_it9aumf wrote
>The problem with capitalism is that it always seems to end in a very small 1% owning everything, and everyone else starving, ending up homeless and destitute, no middle class, and those not homeless essentially abused serfs working for a cruel and uncaring oligarchy.
You think that's any different in any other system?
Whether it's communism or feudalism it's the same.
>How's your paycheck lately, cuteman? You paying off that lovely home okay? Got that new car this year? You enjoying your vacation days? Got the required minimum million in the bank to begin a reasonable retirement savings?
I do very well because I've worked hard and built it from nothing.
harrry46 t1_it9e298 wrote
You are, in all probability, arguing with an edgy teenager that frequents r/antiwork or any other of the chaos and anarchy forums. Save your breath. It's a lost cause.
cuteman t1_it9yz7a wrote
This being reddit that's more the rule than the exception these days unfortunately.
keviscount t1_itax5ow wrote
> The problem with capitalism is that it always seems to end in a very small 1% owning everything
Eh closer to top 20% owning 80% of things, most of the time.
> Got the required minimum million in the bank to begin a reasonable retirement savings?
If you think you need $1mil to begin saving for retirement then I suggest you stop posting online and get back to studying hard in school. Learn to code and don't piss away your teenage years being a doomer.
Petal_Chatoyance t1_ite08hi wrote
I'm 62, and I have seen things and lived things you cannot even imagine.
Petal_Chatoyance t1_it922vv wrote
Unless you are an Uyghur in 2022, in which case massive genocide and concentration camps. Or you say anything negative against Xi, in which case you will be disappeared. Or you support democracy, where you will be censored, and if necessary, killed. Or you protest, in which case you will be killed. Or you do anything the government of China does not approve of, in which case your Social Credit will tank and you will be unable to work, live, or travel.
But, other than that, China is a happy place.
EgielPBR t1_it96jpf wrote
Sorry, I think you misinterpreted my comment lol That's on my tho, I forgot the /s
Petal_Chatoyance t1_ita0m6r wrote
Oh, god, I'm an idiot. I should have instantly realized. Sorry.
stupendousman t1_it8oi65 wrote
> Abolish Capitalism.
You don't have a coherent concept of what that is.
nyayylmeow t1_it87q2z wrote
It's actually pretty easy: demilitarize every country north of the equator since they're always the ones starting bullshit
Glacecakes t1_it85lnh wrote
Degrowth, abolish capitalism. Especially the former.
herscher12 t1_it8orob wrote
Ive never heard of anything that could end humanity that wasnt extraterrestrial.
Petal_Chatoyance t1_it917yf wrote
Wow - you never heard of incurable disease or nuclear weapons in your entire life?
You must be very, very young. And sheltered.
herscher12 t1_it9pn1t wrote
You must be undereducated if you think these two could wipe us out. Or you just never really thought about it.
There will always be survivors to repopulate.
Petal_Chatoyance t1_ita1m34 wrote
And what if there are? We have passed peak, essentially, everything. All of the easily-obtainable metals, fuel, and other unrenewable resources have been used up. That is why we have to make use of fracking, deep drilling, and high tech to acquire more.
Any survivors of a cataclysm are going to be unable to ever begin another industrial revolution. They will never be able to jumpstart a technological civilization again. The industrial revolution was one-shot because we literally had coal and metal laying about in streams or just under the dirt of a hill. That's all used now.
That means living like Amish, farmers, and nothing more, until the sun expands and devours the earth, sterilizing it forever. No space, no colonies off-world, no more computers, no more televisions, no more video games. Just hard work, short lives, and early deaths, for however long Man exists. No future beyond just being an agricultural animal who can only curse your generation for the end of all hope.
The 13th century, for the rest of the human experience. Serfs tilling soil, and nothing more, not ever, period, amen.
That is not worth surviving for. That is literally a dead end.
herscher12 t1_it9t09l wrote
Tell me how, there are not nearly enought nukes and nuclear winter is manageable. An incurable disease could only exist as a really stupid bio weapon. It also couldnt reach everyone.
Any better ideas?
491010 t1_it746jb wrote
Humans are much more reactive than proactive because we don't see it as a legitimate use of current resources when there are already existing problems that haven't been addressed. That's our greatest weakness. We only work for our current selves and not for our future selves.