Comment by saganus | Hacker News Reader

Comment by saganus | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I think the issue is more with own human nature, as usual.

Terraforming another planet is an engineering problem (of course, not only an engineering problem), and in the end it's something that in theory can be accomplished as long as we "work it out".

Changing the human nature however, is not trivial by any measure.

It's very hard for individuals to change, and even more so for groups and even more so for societies. There are even those that say change in a person is impossible.

Whereas an engineering problem can (probably) be solved regardless of whether humans change or not.

One could even argue that advancing our technology has helped us change as humans (for the better hopefully), but the other way around doesn't necessarily hold.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love for us to be able to realize the damage we are doing to this planet, whether or not we colonize other ones (ideally I'd like both). However improving our engineering skills seems much more likely than improving our nature does.

Many problems caused by human nature can be classed as engineering problems too and could make human nature moot (within that context). Reducing emissions, reversing climate change, artificial meats, safe nuclear power, efficient transportation.

I don't think the issues that are putting Earth in danger are the result of some immutable, unfortunate human nature. I think they are the result of a system that could be changed as easily as it was put in place. Many of the pathologies of the modern society were consciously manufactured (c.f. "Propaganda" by Edward Bernays), and all we need to do is to realize this, and start changing things. Luckily, the young generation is far less bought into the current system, and I believe we will see a move to a saner way of life over the coming decades.

"Luckily, the young generation is far less bought into the current system, and I believe we will see a move to a saner way of life over the coming decades."

I hope you're right, and don't want to say that we're doomed. But look at the 1960's and '70s: the young people of that time were far more committed to a radically different life than the young people of today -- and were so on a much larger scale, with the sense of the immanent revolutionary overthrow of society being in the air.

While their dedication was not fruitless (bringing us the likes of environmentalism and feminism, both of which are very much in the mainstream today) we still wound up where we are today -- very far from their vision of a radically free, non-hierarchical, loving, and "back to the earth" society.

The changes that young people seek aren't always necessarily positive either. Just because it's different doesn't mean it's good. Witness Pol Pot, China's Cultural Revolution, the Hitler Youth, etc. Radical changes are often very bloody, and result in a system worse than what it replaced.

Actually, the overwhelming majority of Baby Boomers were never hippies in the first place.

I hope I did not imply that they were.

I only meant to say that the social movements that youth were involved in during the 60's and 70's were far more widespread (and much more radical) than those of today.

Because of that, I really don't hold much hope in today's youth having much more of a transformative aspect on society than the youth of the 60's and 70's did, and even that was quite limited.

My greatest hope for social change is in the legalization of marijuana and the so-called "psychedelic renaissance". As more people are exposed to these substances, their world view and conception of what is possible could radically change. These substances were powerful catalysts of social change in the 60's and 70's (and were one of the main reasons for their violent repression), and could become so again.

> the social movements that youth were involved in during the 60's and 70's were far more widespread (and much more radical) than those of today

I am not sure that is the case. Contrast popular opposition to the Vietnam war, which didn't become widespread until many years into the conflict, with the opposition to the war in Iraq, where protests drew hundreds of thousands of people even before the actual invasion.

>Changing the human nature however, is not trivial by any measure...

We don't have to change human nature. We just need to change human behaviour.

Changing human behaviour is very easy. Just replace every Ad currently in use with an eco friendly message.

Make eco damaging behaviours "uncool" and there goes our young generations eco damaging behaviours.

Facebook and google can do this in an year, if they put their minds to it...

> Make eco damaging behaviours "uncool"

As 2016 had shown, we're well past the point where it was possible for a centralized (or even moderately stratified) entity to declare certain behaviors "uncool". Changing human culture without changing human nature introduces huge arbitrage opportunities for malicious actors and demagogues and increases overall existential risk.

>s 2016 had shown, we're well past the point where it was possible for a centralized (or even moderately stratified) entity to declare certain behaviors "uncool".

Which event has shown?

> Changing human culture without changing human nature introduces huge arbitrage opportunitie...

What has "culture" to do with this? Behaviour is not the same as culture. Some one might have a habit of throwing garbage on the roads/public places. That is not his culture, that is behaviour, and is easily changed once he find himself in a place where that behaviour is frowned upon.

That is what I am talking about. It is easy to accomplish, but it is not going to happen. Because that means less consumption, and everything about todays world is about pushing towards more and more consumption. Imagine the impossibility of seeing a billboard that says "Do you really need that new SUV?".

>s 2016 had shown, we're well past the point where it was possible for a centralized (or even moderately stratified) entity to declare certain behaviors "uncool".

Which event has shown?

I imagine they're talking about the recent US election, for one. For pretty much the whole campaign, including primaries, everyone pointed out all the ways in which Trump was a terrible, completely unsuitable candidate, and he won anyway.

I guessed that much. But that does not prove anything. US election cannot be compared to this. That is completely ridiculous.

Electing your leader is a very subjective, personal thing. Throwing your garbage out and driving an SUV is not. People does not actually care about doing any of those things.

They care about fitting in and looking cool. Change that and you can change everything.

> What has "culture" to do with this? Behaviour is not the same as culture.

Correct, but the comment I made about culture applies doubly so to behavior. Yes, you can change behavior. Yes, you can make people ashamed of doing X. That is, until certain Mr. Y comes along and shows them how to feel better about themselves, how to improve their self-esteem and show the world a middle finger---by doing precisely X. You will be completely powerless to stop Mr. Y. Powerless. You will be laughed at, and the fingers you thought would point at them will turn upon you.

> That is what I am talking about. It is easy to accomplish, but it is not going to happen. Because that means less consumption

Oh sweet naive innocent child. You think consumerist capitalism is to blame. You're almost right... Almost.

>That is, until certain Mr. Y comes along and shows them how to feel better about themselves, how to improve their self-esteem and show the world a middle finger---by doing precisely X.

Exactly. Thanks for proving my point.

>Oh sweet naive innocent child. You think consumerist capitalism is to blame. You're almost right... Almost.

I think you give me too much credit. My comment didn't not imply anything that deep.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com