Recent comments in /f/Futurology

Electron_genius OP t1_jae16vz wrote

Reply to comment by MRSN4P in Popularization of Optimism by Electron_genius

Remarkable analysis u/MRSN4P! Thank you for the input. I had a similar train of thought, the content that is "educational" is often not fun to watch. Mathematics, for example, is very objective, there is no story other than the one you create around it...

What I am working on right now is a whole platform separate from the noise, that way people have a single place to go to and to some extent escape. I can link to a more detailed description of the project if you are interested.

2

Codydw12 t1_jadz3du wrote

Reply to comment by timetravel_inc in We Need Moon Standard Time by goodfaithtreaty

And I can understand the apprehension after decades of being told it's happening only to never happen. But given the Artemis Program plans on having people back on the moon as well as a lunar base by decades end (might have timeline off) I think writing everything off as more hopium is pointlessly pessimistic particuarly seeing as other nations are ramping up their own space programs and the interest driven by private groups.

1

RealisticOption9295 t1_jadynul wrote

Reply to comment by mhornberger in Either we're past the great filter, or ASI IS the great filter by Shoddy-Motor

I agree this is a legitimate possibility. The developed world is all declining when you exclude immigration, and the whole human population should peak in the next 20 years.

The Fermi paradox assumes the pre industrialized human history of a person averavjng around 7 children. As we ended many causes of early death over the past century, the population exploded. Then increasing contraception availability, education and career ambition led to a higher opportunity cost of having children. Now financial constraint is keeping many from deciding to.

It’s reasonable that past 2100 the human population is significantly less than it is now, and continued economic growth eliminates resource scarcity. We won’t have any need to grow to a K1 civilization beyond insane levels of resource abundance and computing power per person.

I think we may start growing again if/when financial constraints or the need to work don’t impact people’s decision to have children.

3

MRSN4P t1_jadycxk wrote

Reply to Popularization of Optimism by Electron_genius

Large viewership on various platforms is attainable. It sounds like you’ve come to the quandary of mass appeal that public broadcasting has struggling with for decades. Despite having quality content about important issues, public broadcasting is widely viewed as tepid/boring. So, this might sound peculiar, but consider examples of media that have talked up to their audience and succeeded with mass appeal. If you are appealing, viewers will get others to watch the content through word of mouth. I think it might be worthwhile to ponder the appeal of (bear with me)

  • “Tough Jobs” which are fundamentally about learning how some jobs are done and sometimes offer segments of these people explaining the impact of what they do(but in my opinion, not deeply enough);

  • late night comedy shows which have educational segments (John Oliver just did a decent introduction to various forms of “AI” and the controversies around each;

  • Star Trek:TNG, which did not go deep but presented moral and ethical struggles, and I would argue was encouraging the audience to think in a more sophisticated manner (I’m talking average high school educated citizen of the 80s here);

  • Solarpunk as a genre: it involves both struggle, appreciation for small moments in life, and making the best of what you’ve got. It has an implied hope for the future, and does involve some escapism from our present through imagining that future hope, but also subtly acknowledges that our systems are broken and the way we do things are causing catastrophe and must change. The flavor of this genre could be a guideline for an aesthetic/atmosphere that integrates such elements.

6

just-a-dreamer- t1_jadxilu wrote

Reply to Racial stereotypes vary in digital interactions: Study shows racial stereotypes of Black AI can lead to more positive outcomes in negotiations by universityofga

Man, people bitch about everything, you can't win.

When AI terminates people based on mere performance metrics and efficiency, people bitch about cold machines.

When humans instruct AI to fire based on their opinions and preferences, it is considered racist for somebody eventually will get the short end of the stick.

Can't win.

3

Surur t1_jadw8bl wrote

Reply to comment by Electron_genius in Popularization of Optimism by Electron_genius

> Chances are that big organizations will not make any changes, even though they have huge potential for something great.

That is where lobbying and pressure groups come in.

> What is something we can do?

Well, if you don't mind breaking the rules, you could game the algorithm by creating brigading discord groups that mass upvote good news stories and give them initial momentum, which may help them go viral.

1

SixteenthRiver06 t1_jadvvsk wrote

Reply to Scientists unveil plan to create biocomputers powered by human brain cells - Now, scientists unveil a revolutionary path to drive computing forward: organoid intelligence, where lab-grown brain organoids act as biological hardware by Gari_305

Shit, y’all think this is cool, should check out Servitors in Warhammer 40k. It’s not lab-grown though, more like punishment for criminals or heretics. Same concept haha

10

Electron_genius OP t1_jadvseu wrote

Reply to comment by Surur in Popularization of Optimism by Electron_genius

Very good! Chances are that big organizations will not make any changes, even though they have huge potential for something great. What is something we can do? Think out of the box, how can we put more people on the path to progress? Even though doom sells, people are still inherently looking for hope.

0

mhornberger t1_jadv3nt wrote

Reply to comment by SomeoneSomewhere1984 in Either we're past the great filter, or ASI IS the great filter by Shoddy-Motor

> Do you have any clue how much kids cost?

I wasn't going off my own assessment or gut feeling. I'm just pointing out what demographers trace the decline in birthrates to.

> affordable family housing doesn't exist in many places.

Yes, our standards have gone up with our wealth, but faster than our wealth. In the US, new houses are much larger than houses built in previous generations. Plus construction safety code (wiring, etc) have gone up. Plus we've allowed homeowners to restrict the building of density to protect their equity value. We could throw up shacks, but people want proper housing. But our view of what constitutes proper housing has gotten a lot more expensive. That goes with being in a wealthier society.

> If the next generation is much smaller, that will free up a lot of housing

Unless people continue to migrate. The cities have been gaining population, and the losses in population have been in rural areas. Even for moves between countries, it's usually the poorer rural areas where people are fleeing to find better economic opportunity. That there are empty houses in Appalachia, or somewhere in rural Guatemala, doesn't help people who are moving to Houston.

>Population change may look exponential, either up or down, but it really isn't.

Fertility rates do have a cumulatively exponential impact on population size. You are assuming they'll bounce back, but demographers have seen no indication of this. I'm not dropping my own intuitions on you, just deferring to what people who study this professionally have found. Some countries have increased from their nadir, but still stabilized at around 1.4-1.7, i.e. still below the replacement rate.

>There are a lot of constraints people respond to that affect population growth, like availability of resources, pathogens, and biological desires that we affect this.

A lot of things do go into birthrates. The things demographers have found most track with birthrate declines are here:

Poverty correlates with higher birthrates, not lower. Universal healthcare or lower income inequality also don't correlate with higher birthrates. Even the Scandinavian countries have low birthrates.

0

idea-man t1_jadusps wrote

Reply to Popularization of Optimism by Electron_genius

Forced tacky optimism dominated a large chunk of the 2010’s (“I Fucking LOVE Science!”) and it’s not clear it benefited anyone besides algorithm-gaming weirdos. Wariness of cynicism is a good thing, but I don’t think the problem is as dire as you’re describing it or that any kind of top-down solution will ever be very successful when it comes to cultural changes.

20