For me, one of the most impactful movies in the last decade has been Tomorrowland. The entire movie was about how we relate to the future, and how that relationship creates it. I don't believe optimism is a luxury. We have to hold an image in our head of our ideal future and work to make it.
It's a lot like this pandemic. I read the news, and it conjures images in my head from every pandemic movie ever. Cars abandoned in the street. Trash everywhere. Society reduced to tribalism. Then I go outside to see that the sun is shining and everything appears somewhat normal except people are wearing masks.
I haven't seen the movie but I often contemplate the idea that our current pessimism about the future makes it so.
Media of the past like Star Trek inspired us that our future was hopeful.
There is also media which tends to look at an idealized past and a longing to go back to it. Though I love his world, Tolkien is an example here.
These general narratives show up in a ton of the media we consume and shape our view of the world. Sometimes for the negative and sometimes for the positive.
I posit that they shape our real-world direction more than we suspect. We've lost our vision of the future so what's next is bleak because we make it so.
We must first have a strong, positive narrative of the future in order for that future to follow.
We had the pandemic + smoke from the recent fires in the west coast. It was truly dystopian. Not being able to see the stars for weeks, not being able to breath clean air, not being able to touch things.
This is not a world I’d like to leave behind for my kids. I’m not sure there is much I can do though.
> Only recently did people realize the physical universe could continue — aimlessly — without us ... And, in realizing that the entire fate of human value within the physical universe may rest upon us, we could finally begin to face up to what is at stake in our actions and decisions upon this planet.
This does not compute. In the old paradigm we were at the center of the universe with the creator's undivided attention, and answerable to Him after life, with eternal bliss or torture on the table. In the new one we're trivial beings on a trivial dust mote in a trivial galaxy, answerable to ourselves only, and death is the end. Those stakes seem vastly lower. How does that translate into more responsibility for our actions?
Because there is no second chance. We are not answerable to god, we will not live forever no matter what we do in life. The universe does not care whether or not we exist, so if we care about existing, our sole responsibility is to each other and ourselves. God will not save us, there is no salvation that we do not create.
I’m not sure why you’re asking that. Clearly when we’re just sheep in God’s flock or God’s children (both common wording in Judeo-Christian scripture) you have less responsibility than self-determining agents.
If the world ends with us, there is no worries about what would be after us. There will be nothing, in some sense.
If the universe could continue, it's our responsibility to keep it making aim - in our understanding. That is, if we destroy ourselves, then the rest of history wouldn't make sense from our point of view.
I think the sibling comment is right; the “old” paradigm is one in which an appeal to the powers that be will roll back the transaction so to speak.
Still, the new paradigm isn’t that we’re answerable only to ourselves but that we are the powers that be and there is no way to roll back the transaction.
“ In the ancient mythologies you will not find the idea of a physical universe continuing, in its independent vastness, after the annihilation of humans. “
If humans are the observers that collapse the wave function, then it’s possible nothing exists after humans are gone ;)
I like to imagine that our bodies/brains are merely suitable hardware with which to tune into consciousness. We then are quickly “enculturated” into associating one very narrow band of consciousness with the idea of “me” which immediately and necessarily creates “you”
Thats why I always like the anthropic principal; that its necessary for life to be possible, because if it wasn't then the universe would pass with no entity there to observe it.
We have sound theories for multiple extinction events in the Earth's past, we have the ability to model complex risks involving astronomy, climate, and biology which will occur in the Earth's future... if you're naïve about future risks to an extent that invites comparison with ancient history, perhaps it's because you've chosen not to be well read on these matters.
I would argue that our ability to predict the future is pretty good but our ability to react to/prevent an event from happening is next to nil. Pick any: large solar flare, mega volcanic eruption, climate change, asteroid collision...
As I understand naive, it's a relative term - comparing to something which is considered more mature, reasonable etc. which - and that's important - can be presented as an antitheses. If something different, which is "better", can't be presented, then "naive" becomes "best", which definitely changes the meaning to the degree of non-applicability.
Actually, this has been a fairly widespread theme in most civilizations.
"With Covid-19 afflicting the world, and a climate crisis looming, humanity’s future seems uncertain."
Oh dear. It is only in the last couple of months that I have begun to grasp that our very fundamental human rights and freedoms may cease to exist forever.
> we can only become truly responsible for ourselves when we fully realize what is at stake
We are a long way away from that. People are living their lives as if it's only theirs that matter - while still having kids. The cognitive dissonance is quite impressive.
I'd welcome the establishment of an annihilation watch that monitored the world for extinction level dangers. They could then rate, classify them and have governments take action.
> People are living their lives as if it's only theirs that matter - while still having kids.
This suggests you have a Malthusian worldview which is not backed by evidence.
Please check http://gapminder.org/ - I highly recommend taking https://forms.gapminder.org/s3/test-2018 and see how much you actually know. The population growth of the humanity is a consequence of the societies transitioning out of the poverty:
A hardcoded desire to eat and make kids is pretty much why we're even here to contemplate anything. Many of us who have the means cannot even stop ourselves from overeating. Several leading causes of death are simply connected to people not being able to stop eating.
How do you expect people to take responsibility for the planet's health when so many cannot even stop themselves from harming themselves?
Are they? Birth rates are below replacement everywhere outside of handful of places like Afghanistan. Even with lots of immigration the US faces a Japanese style demographic crisis.
Large populations may be a big problem but shrinking them through low birthrates definitely causes its own problems. The workers-per-retiree is going to fall from 3 today to 2 by 2030. That's a 50% increased retirement tax burden.
>It is only in the last couple of centuries that we have begun to grasp that our existence might one day cease to exist forever
What about all the ancient world religions who wrote books about how the world was going to end one day and everyone is going to die? Surely eschatology already covers this topic, albeit in a manner lacking the citations and p-values which "truth" requires these days.
[+] [-] madrox|5 years ago|reply
It's a lot like this pandemic. I read the news, and it conjures images in my head from every pandemic movie ever. Cars abandoned in the street. Trash everywhere. Society reduced to tribalism. Then I go outside to see that the sun is shining and everything appears somewhat normal except people are wearing masks.
[+] [-] throwaway13337|5 years ago|reply
Media of the past like Star Trek inspired us that our future was hopeful.
There is also media which tends to look at an idealized past and a longing to go back to it. Though I love his world, Tolkien is an example here.
These general narratives show up in a ton of the media we consume and shape our view of the world. Sometimes for the negative and sometimes for the positive.
I posit that they shape our real-world direction more than we suspect. We've lost our vision of the future so what's next is bleak because we make it so.
We must first have a strong, positive narrative of the future in order for that future to follow.
[+] [-] nojvek|5 years ago|reply
This is not a world I’d like to leave behind for my kids. I’m not sure there is much I can do though.
[+] [-] hirundo|5 years ago|reply
This does not compute. In the old paradigm we were at the center of the universe with the creator's undivided attention, and answerable to Him after life, with eternal bliss or torture on the table. In the new one we're trivial beings on a trivial dust mote in a trivial galaxy, answerable to ourselves only, and death is the end. Those stakes seem vastly lower. How does that translate into more responsibility for our actions?
[+] [-] jolux|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tshaddox|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jlokier|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] avmich|5 years ago|reply
If the universe could continue, it's our responsibility to keep it making aim - in our understanding. That is, if we destroy ourselves, then the rest of history wouldn't make sense from our point of view.
[+] [-] marmaduke|5 years ago|reply
Still, the new paradigm isn’t that we’re answerable only to ourselves but that we are the powers that be and there is no way to roll back the transaction.
[+] [-] amelius|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 29athrowaway|5 years ago|reply
Every minute, the bacterium reproduces, eats, and reproduces again.
At minute 58, there's 75% of the test tube left.
At minute 59, there's 50% of the test tube left.
At minute 60, the food is gone and the test tube is filled with a horde of starving bacteria.
[+] [-] Lammy|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mensetmanusman|5 years ago|reply
“ In the ancient mythologies you will not find the idea of a physical universe continuing, in its independent vastness, after the annihilation of humans. “
If humans are the observers that collapse the wave function, then it’s possible nothing exists after humans are gone ;)
[+] [-] aarpmcgee|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] VectorLock|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jeremyjh|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cybertronic|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stephc_int13|5 years ago|reply
We understand so much more about the universe and yet our ability to predict the future is almost nil.
[+] [-] justin66|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sci_prog|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] avmich|5 years ago|reply
As I understand naive, it's a relative term - comparing to something which is considered more mature, reasonable etc. which - and that's important - can be presented as an antitheses. If something different, which is "better", can't be presented, then "naive" becomes "best", which definitely changes the meaning to the degree of non-applicability.
[+] [-] eternalban|5 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypticism
Actually, this has been a fairly widespread theme in most civilizations.
"With Covid-19 afflicting the world, and a climate crisis looming, humanity’s future seems uncertain."
Oh dear. It is only in the last couple of months that I have begun to grasp that our very fundamental human rights and freedoms may cease to exist forever.
[+] [-] LockAndLol|5 years ago|reply
We are a long way away from that. People are living their lives as if it's only theirs that matter - while still having kids. The cognitive dissonance is quite impressive.
I'd welcome the establishment of an annihilation watch that monitored the world for extinction level dangers. They could then rate, classify them and have governments take action.
[+] [-] drivebycomment|5 years ago|reply
This suggests you have a Malthusian worldview which is not backed by evidence.
Please check http://gapminder.org/ - I highly recommend taking https://forms.gapminder.org/s3/test-2018 and see how much you actually know. The population growth of the humanity is a consequence of the societies transitioning out of the poverty:
https://www.gapminder.org/videos/population-growth-explained...
and the only morally justified answer is to continue and accelerate this transition.
[+] [-] lordnacho|5 years ago|reply
How do you expect people to take responsibility for the planet's health when so many cannot even stop themselves from harming themselves?
[+] [-] dmm|5 years ago|reply
Are they? Birth rates are below replacement everywhere outside of handful of places like Afghanistan. Even with lots of immigration the US faces a Japanese style demographic crisis.
Large populations may be a big problem but shrinking them through low birthrates definitely causes its own problems. The workers-per-retiree is going to fall from 3 today to 2 by 2030. That's a 50% increased retirement tax burden.
[+] [-] jacobwilliamroy|5 years ago|reply
What about all the ancient world religions who wrote books about how the world was going to end one day and everyone is going to die? Surely eschatology already covers this topic, albeit in a manner lacking the citations and p-values which "truth" requires these days.
[+] [-] Guy2020|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]