|
Namarrgon posted:That's not really true. It's not as if you can just open up the fuel hatch in space and have fuel magically pop in, it takes advanced technology to find it and fuel and a shitload of time to reach it, space is almost incomprehensibly big. Planets (Earth at least) also provide atmospheric and magnetic projection from space debris and runaway radiation. Assuming the ultimate solution to the technological problems, space habitats are likely the (relatively) low price, high cost maintenance option and planets the very high price, very low maintenance option. Maintaining large orbitals would be easier than any sort of presence on a non-earth planet. Atmospheres are corrosive and dangerous (and planets without atmospheres have very little to recommend them), being at the bottom of a gravity well makes you more distant in energy/cost terms than actual distance makes it seem and high pressures are much more expensive and dangerous to engineer around than space. The bigger problem that prevents any sort of extraplanetary (or large undersea!) outpost at all is that we have not actually figured out how to run sufficiently complex closed ecological systems yet.
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 14:24 |
|
|
Epitope posted:If spreading earth life to the stars is some moral imperative, I don't see why it has to be human life. Other things would probably survive and adapt out there better. Maybe some extremophile archaea, or maybe ...an AI. How about octopi? Or corvids? The former effectively live in a zero-G environment already, and the latter can fly. Seriously, though, this is another thing that bothers me about "rationalist" discourse-- the way they treat humans as inherently above the rest of the universe. Yudkowsky even seems to have reinvented the Great Chain of Being when he lists human brains as a qualitative advance over animal ones, on the same level as DNA and eukaryotic cells. Why only upload humans and just disregard all other living beings, even those with near-human intelligence?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
SerialKilldeer posted:How about octopi? Or corvids? The former effectively live in a zero-G environment already, and the latter can fly. Because these people seem to primarily only care that they personally get preserved, and they are neither birds nor octopi (I assume).
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
Octopi and corvids can get uploaded when they figure out how to upload themselves. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
Pavlov posted:Because these people seem to primarily only care that they personally get preserved, and they are neither birds nor octopi (I assume).
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
Cardiovorax posted:Which is, honestly, an understandable position. Self-sacrifice is well and good, but you can hardly blame anyone for picking the survival of their own species over that of some random bird.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Right, but how do you rationally defend that? How does that position derive purely from evidence?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
Oh hey, does anyone know the info on this Ben Goertzel guy? From what I gathered he was associated with Yudkowsky's research institution at one point but broke off. Also apparently instead of just talking about AI he's actually been trying to program it? Really I just want to know whether he's full of poo poo or not so I can decide whether to read any of his stuff.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Right, but how do you rationally defend that? How does that position derive purely from evidence?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
Cardiovorax posted:Funny thing about rationality is, most people don't really get what it means. Yudkowsky likes to use the word, but he doesn't really understand it either. It doesn't actually mean evidence-based or scientific, just that there's a reasonable trail of thought from premise to conclusion. I just like people. We're fun to be around. I prefer a world with humans to one without, even if it means that ravens go extinct. Accordingly, it's perfectly rational for me to prefer our survival over that of any other species, when given the chance to only save one or the other. Any psychologist in the world would agree with me that I'm being perfectly rational and acting in my own best interest there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
Sham bam bamina! posted:I think that most people get what "rationality" means, which is why most people would describe themselves as rational and not rationalists.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
Cardiovorax posted:Funny thing about rationality is, most people don't really get what it means. Yudkowsky likes to use the word, but he doesn't really understand it either. It doesn't actually mean evidence-based or scientific, just that there's a reasonable trail of thought from premise to conclusion. I just like people. We're fun to be around. I prefer a world with humans to one without, even if it means that ravens go extinct. Accordingly, it's perfectly rational for me to prefer our survival over that of any other species, when given the chance to only save one or the other. Any psychologist in the world would agree with me that I'm being perfectly rational and acting in my own best interest there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
Sham bam bamina! posted:I don't see any crows donating to Yudkowsky and optimizing the future. All those feathered fools have to look forward to is an eternity in crow-bot hell.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
The one really frustrating thing I find with a lot of tech writers, but Big Yud personifies it to a massive degree, is that they have such a hatred/disgust for philosophy that they refuse to read anything regarding it and as such keep stumbling upon old arguments and issues philosophy has been dealing with for literally hundreds of years and then acting like they've hit upon some great unidentified issue that literally no one has ever heard of before. It's a horrible mixture of self imposed ignorance and self-importance that just makes my blood boil. Nessus posted:This is very true, and I think rationality is important, but "rationalist" is not my personal chosen ideological identity, and I would never call myself "an aspiring rationalist," the way so many of these people do. The internal inconsistency of these people becomes more astounding the more you sit back and just think about all the contradicting opinions and ideas they hold. They have a quasi-religious interpretation of the future, anti-empirical rationalist methodology whilst so self-sure they're the "true" scientists and simplistic re-invented ethics that read like a Calvinist who smashed his head while praying in his hovel circa some bygone age while once again so completely positive they've reinvented the wheel. But the loving things square and just talks about rape a lot. d3c0y2 fucked around with this message at 00:03 on Oct 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
Cardiovorax posted:It's just sort of assumed, because human life is the most important and valuable kind. Also because exploring other worlds would be totally sweet. I mean, sure, we mock Less Wrong-style rationalists (with good reason), but be honest, who in this thread does not want to take a whizz off the peak of Olympus Mons with their three cybernetic dragon-dicks?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:Also because exploring other worlds would be totally sweet. I mean, sure, we mock Less Wrong-style rationalists (with good reason), but be honest, who in this thread does not want to take a whizz off the peak of Olympus Mons with their three cybernetic dragon-dicks?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:Also because exploring other worlds would be totally sweet. I mean, sure, we mock Less Wrong-style rationalists (with good reason), but be honest, who in this thread does not want to take a whizz off the peak of Olympus Mons with their three cybernetic dragon-dicks?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
In the year 2083, we invent cybernetic implants. In the year 2086, we invent ironic cybernetic implants.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
Like a sea urchin. Just a ball of dicks rolling around the landscape of a planetoid orbiting Proxima Centauri. That is the rationalist future friends.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
Revenge of the robo-dick: Harder, better, faster, stronger.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
Cardiovorax posted:Revenge of the robo-dick: Harder, better, faster, stronger. We're talking about Internet rationalists. I think they've already got the 'faster' bit covered.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a giant spinning robot dick, slapping a human face - forever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 10:11
|
|
|
uber_stoat posted:All those feathered fools have to look forward to is an eternity in crow-bot hell. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
So the future is the Federated Commonwealth of Malatora?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
SerialKilldeer posted:How about octopi? Or corvids? The former effectively live in a zero-G environment already, and the latter can fly. Almost all the hardcore rationalists I know IRL are varying degrees of vegetarian and also some are obsessed with the idea of speciesism and fighting it as a form of social justice. I think they care more about speciesism than they do racism or sexism. They're also super into the idea that everybody on the planet is actually, on the aggregate, suffering and that thus killing everybody on the planet is a morally justified act from a utilitarian perspective. I've never asked them why that is moral and taking animals which would otherwise suffer and making them fat, fed, and happy before killing them for food is somehow unjustified. I'm not exaggerating in the slightest.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 10:40
|
|
|
Odds on anyone at Bungie spending too much time around Less Wrong? Because there was something suspiciously familiar about the Ghost Fragment: Vex cards from Destiny:quote:ESI: Maya, I need your help. I don't know how to fix this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 12:31
|
|
|
MinistryofLard posted:They're also super into the idea that everybody on the planet is actually, on the aggregate, suffering and that thus killing everybody on the planet is a morally justified act from a utilitarian perspective. I've never asked them why that is moral and taking animals which would otherwise suffer and making them fat, fed, and happy before killing them for food is somehow unjustified. This piece owns, http://exiledonline.com/feature-story-the-case-for-nuclear-winter/ but anyone who seriously thinks it should be acted upon needs to be locked up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
You'd think real nihilists would believe the subjective suffering is as meaningless as anything else. Seems weird to me to attribute so much importance to it and not pleasure or happiness.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 06:58
|
|
|
Political Whores posted:You'd think real nihilists would believe the subjective suffering is as meaningless as anything else. Seems weird to me to attribute so much importance to it and not pleasure or happiness.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 13:05
|
|
|
Cardiovorax posted:That sort of thing is specifically called negative utilitarianism, not nihilism. Epitope's piece calls it Nihilism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
I used to casually check the blogs of a small internet movement who thought everyone would be better of dead. They all eventually just kinda stopped or turned away from that conclusion, because as it turns out, concentrating on misery as much as they did was exhausting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
Political Whores posted:Epitope's piece calls it Nihilism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
I suppose one nice thing about death cult type things is they are fairly quickly selected against.Political Whores posted:Epitope's piece calls it Nihilism. I feel like this might have just been an excuse to reference the Big Lebowski
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
Where's the fuckin' money, Yudkowsky?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
In which Slate Star Codex continues to be More Rational About Politics Than You Are. I'm starting to believe the real reason for the politics taboo on LW was that they sound like the biggest assholes when they do talk about politics.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 13:45
|
|
|
The use of "politics" dismissively almost always translates to something like "Have no fear, you can put money on my commitment to irrelevancy and impracticality" if the speaker's being honest and "I'll do anything for power. Please? Just a little weensy bit?" if they're lying.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 13:58
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:I'm starting to believe the real reason for the politics taboo on LW was that they sound like the biggest assholes when they do talk about politics.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 14:22
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:In which Slate Star Codex continues to be More Rational About Politics Than You Are. It's pretty impossible to be "rational" about politics otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 14:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 14:24 |
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:I'm starting to believe the real reason for the politics taboo on LW was that they sound like the biggest assholes when they do talk about politics. I'd assume because politics is a topic that even a group of 'rational' people will commonly digress on. LW wouldn't be able to handle that because if everyone there is 'rational' then how could they all come to such different answers? Basically they need an echo chamber if they want to keep their sense of superiority, and you can't have that if people actually have a diverse array of opinions on important topics.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 15:02
|
|