This is the thinking of someone on the timescales of a single life. If humanity persists another 1000 years on our current trajectory (US/world politics not withstanding), I think nothing is really a fantasy. Rather, it's all possible but maybe just not in our own lifetimes. But it is also terribly difficult for us to plan for tomorrow, let alone for a future where our descendants are at the helm.
I agree, it’s just a failure of imagination. Some folks correctly foresee not being able to continue what we’re doing now in the exact same way in some new context and conclude everything is impossible. Life isn’t this fickle, it’s adapted before and will adapt again. This is why great science fiction is so valuable, as some people are better at imagining new ways of being more than others, and can show the rest of us the possibilities.
The counterargument is a simple opportunity cost calculation:
There will never, ever, ever[1] be a scenario where if you weighed up the options of "expand into some less habitable area of the Earth" versus "expand to Mars", the latter is the better option either 1) financially, or b) quality of life.
Nobody[2] ever picks the dramatically more expensive and dramatically worse option!
Also, people that are desperate enough to even consider living in the least desirable -- but still just barely habitable -- parts of planet Earth are essentially by definition too poor to afford interplanetary travel.
And no, no amount future sci-fi technology can possibly overcome the simple energy costs of this! If someone can afford the hugely energy intensive interplanetary travel, and the up-front investment required to survive incredibly harsh environments, then by definition they could more productively invest that here on Earth! It's the cheaper and better option in every possible way, and always will be.
This will remain true even if it's standing room only on the entire planetary surface -- it'll be cheaper to build levels upwards while digging downwards.
Maybe our atmosphere will become horrifically polluted? Sure, okay, air filters are faaar cheaper than a full vacuum-capable space suit!
Etc, etc, etc...
[1] Okay, fine, maybe in a million years. Whatever ends up preferring Mars at that point will no longer be "human" by any sane classification.
[2] For some values of nobody. There are morons that buy overpriced branded handbags made of literal trash. I doubt idiots like that will make for a successful, self-sustaining colony.
The Madrid Protocol says you can't do anything fun with Antarctica. Can't have a mine, a garbage heap, or a farm. I suppose the world's militaries stand ready to capture any enterprising colonists and destroy their structures.
> If humanity persists another 1000 years on our current trajectory
It's unlikely that we can persist in our current trajectory for another 100 years without catastrophic climate events puttung a stop to all of these endeavours.
Alternatively, how would you suggest content that takes time and effort to make be funded?
I get that it's sad, but I'd gladly pay a monthly sub to use a not enshitified internet, rather than the cluster fuck of ads and data stealing that exists in the modern web. Spending time on the 90s and early 2000s internet and comparing it to this dumpster fire makes me so darn sad.
What's the difference in outcome between passive stalking by having sufficient cameras to capture everyone's actions at all times and active stalking with a film crew?
It is intimidating and threatening to most normal people for their wearabouts to be tracked at all times, regardless of the mode.
Take this opportunity to learn that different people might have different thresholds to feel intimidated and that normal people don't feel comfortable being tracked at all times in real life, regardless of the mechanism by which it's being executed.
In the above example, maybe you feel uncomfortable because the film crew is following you around in broad daylight? Would you feel better if they stayed hidden like the flock cameras in this example?
They're not being tracked at all times in real life. They're potentially being tracked in public.
I get that some people have a desire for privacy in public. And I'm even sympathetic to it. However, with the exception of the EU, privacy in public not is a right, nor is it a thing most people believe they possess. (And even ECHR Article 8 has a carveout for recording public activities for legitimate purposes.)
If you think you should have such privacy rights, by all means, use the political process to achieve it. But note that it's not cost-free, and there will be tradeoffs.
In the film crew example, what is the difference if the crew is sufficiently far away from you such that you won't know? The paparazzi already do it to celebrities, seems reasonable for individuals to just track each other at a distance if we're all okay with your proposed path.
> seems reasonable for individuals to just track each other at a distance if we're all okay with your proposed path.
They often do. What am I gonna do, run up to anyone who's taking cell phone videos that might have me in it and try to force them to stop recording? That would make me look unhinged.
It’s a false equivalence. Passive surveillance cameras aren’t the same as having a bunch of annoying people trailing me, which gives rise to the concern for the personal safety of me and my family. So I reject the comparison.
> Passive surveillance cameras aren’t the same as having a bunch of annoying people trailing me, which gives rise to the concern for the personal safety of me and my family. So I reject the comparison.
Rejecting reality doesn't mean it's not real. The direction passive surveillance is going and is at is already approaching active surveillance in terms of outcomes. The only difference is it's being applied more uniformly, rather than just to a specific individual. But the outcomes in terms of tracking all of our whereabouts are indistinguishable.
This is the entire premise of the post, which you are tiptoeing around and never directly answering the question of "is it fine for everyone to be tracked in public at all times"? A yes or no here would be helpful.
What about if/when those cameras are no longer really passive, and everything they see gets autonomously compiled into a dossier on your activities and movements?
That’s a separate issue. Real time observation is one thing. What happens with the data afterwards is another.
Now, the obvious response to that is “if you’re not watching, it can’t be recorded in the first place.” But we have legitimate reasons for wanting to observe public activities. The question is, how do we strike the right balance between legitimate use and abuse?
there are many democrats who would block such a thing as well.
historically there is always the one or two who (perhaps too conveniently?) block or water down legislation: joe lieberman against public option [0], two democrats block student debt relief [1], the dynamic duo of manchin and sinema blocking voting rights legislation and build back better [2] [3]...
you don't need to blame republicans for democrats sabotaging themselves over and over.
Lieberman and Sinema are great examples of quixotic people who weren't even representing their constituents' wishes. They're legitimate targets of criticism and intra-party competition through being primaried or losing access to fund raising.
Manchin also didn't represent his constituents' wishes, but in the other direction on the political axis. The Democratic caucus won many votes it otherwise would not have, if a Republican was occupying the seat. If the Democratic party is serious about gaining and holding power, it needs to accept that some seats are tenuously held. Legislators in those seats need to be able to break with the party line to satisfy their constituents.
Ironically, Manchin attempted to include permitting reform, which would allow renewables and utility projects the same latitude that oil & gas projects enjoy. However, Democratic party stalwarts blocked the proposal.
The US Democratic party is a mix of conservatives, liberals and socialists, so of course it's bound to happen in scenarios where one or two votes can decide whether something gets passed.
You are publicly proposing “throwing all Republicans through a window to their death”.
This isn’t normal, and it isn’t right. If we allow anyone to call for political violence, then we become numb to it. Worse still, your call to violence against Republicans gives them a call to defence, and then a call to preemptive action.
“It was ok for us to shutdown HackerNews because they called for our deaths.”
We shouldn’t tolerate calls to political violence from anyone. Be better.
The why might be valid, but it's not excusable. If you author a product that can so easily help people cause harm, you probably should own some responsibility of the outcomes. OAI does not like this, hence the bill.
The US already messed this up with guns. Do they want to go the same path again? Answer: "probably, yes".
You'd be surprised how easy it is for people to compartmentalize their principles. Many do it day to day every time they purchase something online that was probably made using less than ideal labour practices.
Still, I'd advocate to leave social media in general. And certainly to get off twitter.
Hmm, I'd argue what you call "compartmentalize their principles" is in fact, NOT having principles.
Correct me if I'm wrong: I'm asserting that having a principle is an inalienable belief that actually guides behavior, not selectively applies to behavior.
Though generally: yes, I agree: get off twitter, and I'd go a step further and say..minimize all social media involvement.
I would assert that a principle is a belief which guides behavior, yes, but with the understanding that the weight of the guidance and the weight of the conviction varies.
I don't mean that in a fully negative way, since belief and choices are rarely atomic.
Take, for example, someone who believes animals shouldn't suffer unnecessarily. That can manifest anywhere from veganism to just avoiding factory farmed meat. I wouldn't point at any one position on that spectrum and say they don't believe their own stated principle, but I would say that some have weaker convictions than others.
Yeah this is an interesting relationship between interconnected concepts: principles, beliefs and convictions.
I agree with your assertion regarding the degree to which a principle guides behavior. And id probably walk back my original position somewhat, because having a principle and adhering to it absolutely and fanatically is untenable at most and inconvenient at least.
Still, I'd argue there's value in a human engaging in some sort of periodic "principles audit" to take stock of their past behaviors/actions and recalibrate future behavior.
> Still, I'd argue there's value in a human engaging in some sort of periodic "principles audit" to take stock of their past behaviors/actions and recalibrate future behavior.
I do agree with this. I would call it "introspection" and a healthy person should be fairly introspective in general, either taking dedicated time to consider their actions and beliefs, or continually keeping them in mind when making decisions.
All large systems are inherently weak when one individual has an outsized influence on their outcomes. The solution is not to hope Magnus is altruistic, but to not allow Magnus (or any individual) to drive meaningful outcomes directly or through their combined influence/followings.
Magnus "drives meaningful outcomes" because he's really good at chess and members of the public enjoy watching him play, so various chess-related businesses will pay him money for sponsorship. How do you propose to "not allow him" that influence? Ban all use of people's names in marketing and products?
My commentary goes above and beyond just Magnus. Re: Magnus. Sponsorships are fine. Him making money is fine. He shouldn't be able to dictate the rules of the game or the platforms by which it is played. IMO.
He's not the first person to be "really good at chess".
It's a broad statement meant to mean "celebrities have too big of a platform and too much influence over the average joe".
Magnus doesn't "dictate the rules of the game or the platforms by which it is played", so I'm not sure what your point is.
You think Magnus should be forced to participate in chess events he doesn't enjoy / doesn't like the format of? Or you think organizations like FIDE or chess.com should be blocked from trying to entice Magnus to participate in their events?
Thank you being a rare sensible voice on this topic. The fanboyism of chess fans is insane these days. I get that the average age of chess fans these days is very low, probably 14 or so, but it’s still pretty annoying.
reply