This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Note that we don't use fossil fuels for "space travel" - the price point for that is well above the level where it's worth synthesizing better fuel. But I think your argument is fine if you just consider the industrial revolution instead, which was deeply dependent on cheap fossil fuels.
This is more of a quibble, but I don't think this is the right way to look at things at all. Suppose, hypothetically, that all intelligent species were guaranteed to produce a spacefaring civilization after some time, following the same exponential rate of improvement as us. Then for any level of technology you could always look back and say "gosh, it took us [X years] to get here and we've only had [technology] for [Y << X years] - the chances we would develop [technology] were minuscule!" When, in fact, the actual probability is 100%.
You really do just have to Do The Work and analyze all the specific factors you brought up. Intelligence level, temperament, access to resources, climate, lifespan, population size - in how many of these respects did we indeed "get lucky"? Also, did we manage to soldier on through despite certain disadvantages? What are the limits of the resourcefulness of an intelligent species determined to claw its way up the tech ladder? e.g. imagine some other civilization thinking "no way could we have reached the space age without our 1,000 year lifespans - trying to condense learning into 30-40 years would make scientific progress impossible!"
More options
Context Copy link