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 -
You can't take the average argument for a position, you have to engage with the argument in play, because it only takes one good argument for something to be right. I can generate several hundred bad arguments for any position you want right now.
Even further, that wasn't the case this time. TheDag explicitly called out a technology change.
Quoting them:
And when talking about what science is coming, they don't talk about past medical advances, but reference AI, presumably some sort of intelligence explosion.
So what technology has increased the maximum lifetime of humans so far? If the answer is "nothing", than why should we think that future technology will do so? Even if we allow rationalist-fever-dream-AIs, they are not gods -- all concrete science so far indicates that maximum human lifespan is really quite a persistent and narrow range.
It hasn't. But technology obviously can fundamentally change human limitations. Before the airplane, what technology had increased the maximum flight distance of humans?
Because there are several examples of biological immortality in nature (just as there are several examples of flight in nature), and we've gotten pretty good at stealing ideas from evolution. We know it's possible for a biological organism to be immortal.
Now, will the first couple thousand people who try such a genetic alteration probably get some weird form of super-cancer? Sure. Probably. But if we're talking of the elite of the elite pursuing their goals, that's not that many bodies. Elites have thrown way more bodies away in pursuit of mere land.
Without running crazy genetic experiments, sure. Do you have an argument for why we will never run those experiments in the future?
As Nybbler pointed out, the maximum flight distance of humans is the same as it ever was -- inventing machines is much easier than altering human biology.
There are all kinds of weird organisms out there -- can you name some with significant features that we have managed to graft onto the human body in any sort of permanent way? Some kinds of fish are very long lived, but pretty well all of them can breath water -- this has been known for some time and many people would like to be able to do that too -- where are we on gills for humans?
If you want to be taken seriously, you first need to provide some evidence not that such experiments might be run, but rather that they might succeed. "Because I say so" or "anything is possible" are examples of things which are not evidence.
Then imagine a small machine that repairs telomeres or something.
I really don't. If you go look at the thread, TheDag advanced that part of the argument. I'm not responsible for other people's arguments.
I just got annoyed by The_Nybbler's bad shutdown that amounted to "It hasn't happened, yet", which is a completely useless statement during a conversation about future tech, both true by definition but not relevant. I might add, that you also engaged in during your first response to me.
I have advanced plausible interpretations, but I've reached my limit, as I'm not the one that advanced this argument, and so I have no real idea what they were thinking.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link