[devereaux]

> Using fission as your go-to example of "See? It's OK, we can handle world-ending technologies" is just appallingly wrong, it actually demonstrates precisely the opposite. We can't be trusted

The fact that we are alive seems to demonstrate precisely the opposite. You also conveniently forgot how many countries engaged in bilateral disarming programs (well, maybe Ukraine shouldn't have...) and how it generally makes sense because these nuclear weapons are expansive to maintain.

Still, you consider global atomic war a recurring risk every year, because you do not trust fellow human beings taking the right decision: "we can't be trusted".

This is why I believe this opposition comes from wrapped world views, a lack of trust in the future and future generations.

It seems like a sad way to live. Meanwhile, the world is improving, little by little.

[Analemma_]

> The fact that we are alive seems to demonstrate precisely the opposite.

No, it doesn't. That's the whole thrust of my post. We are alive only because we've gotten extremely lucky so far, not because we're actually smart enough to handle this stuff. Adding new ELE technologies on top of the ones we already have is just pushing that luck.

[antepodius]

You say

People stupid => survival is luck, he says

Survival => people not stupid.

Throwing more arguments at each other won't resolve anything- your arguments are both internally consistent, but they run opposite to each other. You can't refute one just by saying the other, they're rooted different axiomatic takes on the same dataset. You have to attack the axioms.

[devereaux]

The whole point of my post was to look for the root of the disagreement. What you call luck (as you suppose human beings are naturally inclined to do evil), I call that normal as I suppose human beings are naturally inclined to do good, and are looking for ways to continuously improve that.