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 -
What I mean by without evidence is that generally when these kinds of arguments come up (and to your credit, you have given some evidence from the theories you work with) it’s done in a completely hand-waving fashion in which someone points out that the proposed mechanism for aliens coming here is in violation of well understood physics, and the other person simply replies with a variation on the theme of “we don’t know absolutely everything, and they’re a billion years ahead of us, so of course they can violate that law of physics.”
And this is why I especially as a layman think that speculative ideas that aliens or far future human civilizations will do things that violate known principles of physics are often just dressed up fantasy. We don’t yet know that other universes exist. Putting this in the end game of the Kardeshev scale as something that a trillion year old civilization can do isn’t scientific in the least. Saying that we’ll definitely have transporter beams with no real mechanism isn’t science. I’m not opposed to physicists who know what they’re talking about saying that we suspect there are things about our current theories are wrong. They can often given very good reasons to think that they’re wrong and likely have at least an inkling about what’s going wrong, and if they’re going to posit a violation of the laws would at least have a plausible way to go about it.
And I think especially for aliens this is something to be careful about because first of all, we’re obviously biased in the sense of wanting them to not only exist but wanting contact with them. We’re also biased in favor of the kinds of fantasies shown in books, tv shows and films about what this future is supposed to look like. We’ve been treated to thousands of hours of tv that feature FTL travel, laser guns and reversing the polarity as solution to all that ails a spaceship. These things color what we assume would be true about space travel. Even alien hybrid speculation is often colored by the idea that our DNA could mix with an alien’s with no issues. Except that you’re actually much more closely related to a brain eating amoeba in a lake than an intelligent alien. We’re just used to bumpy headed aliens with an alien half and a human half.
More options
Context Copy link