J
Juan Zanos
It's a classic example of premature optimization. You need to
measure energy use and then focus on the major issues.
Otherwise you're wasting your time and you'll never make a
difference.
It's a classic example of premature optimization. You need to
measure energy use and then focus on the major issues.
Otherwise you're wasting your time and you'll never make a
difference.
E
Eleanor McHugh
Simple fact: it's always life and death. It has been since the first
primordial cell ran smack bang into the second law of thermodynamics
and was no more. Evolutionary theory is supposed to have given us a
sense of perspective on this. Yes we all die, our cultures die, our
species die and one day even our planet dies. But along the way the
very struggle for survival offers new opportunities for our offspring
to exploit changed conditions.
What has always worried me about the green movement is that instead of
embracing environmental change for what it is, an intrinsic dynamic of
the biosphere, they instead frame it as an enemy to be defeated. Such
a war by its very nature cannot be won and each battle is a waste of
resources that could better be channelled into learning to live with
the changed conditions: the strategy nature itself adopts.
There is also an implicit assumption that humanity stands separate
from nature when in actual fact all the traits we hate about our
species are the consequence of the environmental conditions which
faced our ancestors. If those prove to no longer be useful then I'm
confident the same processes which encouraged them will curb them ;p
But I guess if there's one thing three decades of coding has taught
me, it's that most people are petrified of change and will in leap
through the most incredible hoops to avoid it...
Ellie
Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains
http://slides.games-with-brains.net
primordial cell ran smack bang into the second law of thermodynamics
and was no more. Evolutionary theory is supposed to have given us a
sense of perspective on this. Yes we all die, our cultures die, our
species die and one day even our planet dies. But along the way the
very struggle for survival offers new opportunities for our offspring
to exploit changed conditions.
What has always worried me about the green movement is that instead of
embracing environmental change for what it is, an intrinsic dynamic of
the biosphere, they instead frame it as an enemy to be defeated. Such
a war by its very nature cannot be won and each battle is a waste of
resources that could better be channelled into learning to live with
the changed conditions: the strategy nature itself adopts.
There is also an implicit assumption that humanity stands separate
from nature when in actual fact all the traits we hate about our
species are the consequence of the environmental conditions which
faced our ancestors. If those prove to no longer be useful then I'm
confident the same processes which encouraged them will curb them ;p
But I guess if there's one thing three decades of coding has taught
me, it's that most people are petrified of change and will in leap
through the most incredible hoops to avoid it...
Ellie
Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains
http://slides.games-with-brains.net
E
Eleanor McHugh
Our very existence does that anyway, regardless of any conscious
motivation
Ellie
Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains
http://slides.games-with-brains.net
R
Robert Dober
Eleanor, Chad
why do you assume that green means without technology? Of course that
kind of life would scare the hell out of me too.
I am amazed that Eleanor "accused" the green movement to be afraid of
change, it is them who embrace change.
I do not want to be patronizing at all, and please be aware that I am
not a native speaker, however I want to express that I just see things
the other way around than you do.
What intrigues me most in your reasoning scheme is that you somehow
postulate that we are evolved enough to adapt to the radical changes
our species has caused. I could not agree more with you. But it seems
that you think that the "green" movement does not do that. I however
feel that is exactly what they want to do.
The difference between "them" and some other movements is rather
political as they see ( as I do BTW, but that really is open to
discussion ) our political and economical system as a primary cause
and want therefore to change it. Only very small groups want to refute
technology as such.
It is strange to read reasoning that accuses people who react to well
established problems that have been analyzed in a scientific way of
being anti-technology or do not want to advance. Anticipating problems
is treating problems in the natural way for our species. It is our
mind that has brought our species at the board of distinction and it
has to be our mind that gets us out of this mess again.
Now if you think that we are not in a mess than that is ok, but most
of us seem to think the contrary nowadays.
But I know lots of highly intelligent and visionary people, who have
brilliant ideas to get us out of this mess, and getting us out of this
mess cannot mean refuting technology (1) because we have become as a
matter of fact dependent on our technology. Some think that all it
needs is to refute ideas of exponential growth which seem to me as
something completely ridicule in a finite universe anyway.
Cheers
Robert
(1) Technology has for centuries been at the service of capital and
revenue, why should it not be capabale of becoming at the service of
nature, ressource management, environement control, ed altri?
--=20
Si tu veux construire un bateau ...
Ne rassemble pas des hommes pour aller chercher du bois, pr=E9parer des
outils, r=E9partir les t=E2ches, all=E9ger le travail=85 mais enseigne aux
gens la nostalgie de l=92infini de la mer.
If you want to build a ship, don=92t herd people together to collect
wood and don=92t assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to
long for the endless immensity of the sea.
M
Marc Heiler
I am amazed that Eleanor "accused" the green movement to be afraid of
I think it depends on your viewpoint.
For example, I do not eat animals for several reasons - one is that I
dislike the treatment and handling of animals in factories. Also, I
believe that animals rather prefer to stay alive than to be killed.
Human is surrounded by life which wants to live (as do most other
humans). I have no problem with "natural" human populations, but I
disagree with the industrialized and commercialized aspect of producing
meat (and food, for that matter, like subsidizing agro-food via
petroleum... it feels strange that a lot of the food we eat was
supported with fertilizers from oil ... )
However, I never lecture other people about my point of view therein.
So I strongly disagree with what Eleanor wrote about "the green
movement". There are people with different points of view, and it does
no good to unify these.
For example - I am very much for technology, social improvements, and
very high ethical standards. It makes me furious to hear when a
"democracy" like the USA refuses to put their war criminals on charge or
attempt to establish torture as possible methods against humans.
The thread starter here is a confused guy. He says goodbye to
technology, via the www, and this is so incredibly stupid that I have no
words to describe for it. The best would be he would just shut up
instead. If he wants to be forest dweller running around naked in
rivers, then be it, but I see no point in attempting to push on an
agenda which is higly controversial.
"Green" movement can at best be realized via solid arguments, good
reasoning, a calm hand, and the knowledge that big parts of industry is
afraid of change because it means they have no pay more or lose control.
(They already control way too much anyway.)
This will slowly change though. The whole "green movement" is stronger
than years ago, and the current trend for governments seems to be to
infiltrate it.
"Need a new car? Buy one! We give you money if you destroy your old car"
is one example for the latter happening in ~Germany and a few other
countries, and being marketed as "good for the environment" if the old
cars disappear (which is a lie if you look at the cost to produce
current cars anyway)
I think it depends on your viewpoint.
For example, I do not eat animals for several reasons - one is that I
dislike the treatment and handling of animals in factories. Also, I
believe that animals rather prefer to stay alive than to be killed.
Human is surrounded by life which wants to live (as do most other
humans). I have no problem with "natural" human populations, but I
disagree with the industrialized and commercialized aspect of producing
meat (and food, for that matter, like subsidizing agro-food via
petroleum... it feels strange that a lot of the food we eat was
supported with fertilizers from oil ... )
However, I never lecture other people about my point of view therein.
So I strongly disagree with what Eleanor wrote about "the green
movement". There are people with different points of view, and it does
no good to unify these.
For example - I am very much for technology, social improvements, and
very high ethical standards. It makes me furious to hear when a
"democracy" like the USA refuses to put their war criminals on charge or
attempt to establish torture as possible methods against humans.
The thread starter here is a confused guy. He says goodbye to
technology, via the www, and this is so incredibly stupid that I have no
words to describe for it. The best would be he would just shut up
instead. If he wants to be forest dweller running around naked in
rivers, then be it, but I see no point in attempting to push on an
agenda which is higly controversial.
"Green" movement can at best be realized via solid arguments, good
reasoning, a calm hand, and the knowledge that big parts of industry is
afraid of change because it means they have no pay more or lose control.
(They already control way too much anyway.)
This will slowly change though. The whole "green movement" is stronger
than years ago, and the current trend for governments seems to be to
infiltrate it.
"Need a new car? Buy one! We give you money if you destroy your old car"
is one example for the latter happening in ~Germany and a few other
countries, and being marketed as "good for the environment" if the old
cars disappear (which is a lie if you look at the cost to produce
current cars anyway)
L
Leo
I am amazed that Eleanor "accused" the green movement to be afraid of
I think there are certain national/cultural differences in what is
considered the "Green movement". In Germany and Austria, the Green
party is in parliament/government. In other countries, IIRC it still
is mostly a conservationist movement.
I think there are certain national/cultural differences in what is
considered the "Green movement". In Germany and Austria, the Green
party is in parliament/government. In other countries, IIRC it still
is mostly a conservationist movement.
P
Phlip
Leo said:
Further, returning to the earth is _not_ "green", or "ecologically correct" -
unless if you volunteer to get eaten up by bears, tigers, and all kind of germs.
Humans in the wild burn too much wood to offset any other carbon emissions.
The best way to assume stewardship of Garden Earth is warehousing all the humans
in clean, efficient, isolated cities. That doesn't sound very romantic - and
it's the backdrop to a thousand literary /1984/ clones - but it keeps all our
infrastructure in one place for easy tuning.
Oil the machine!
E
Eleanor McHugh
Robert, from where I'm sat the green movement desires to lock our
ecosystem into some 'acceptable' state, effectively destroying the
evolutionary pressures which give rise to new species and in the
process defining boundaries within which human science, technology and
culture should progress. I consider both goal and consequences to be
immoral, driven by fear and ideology rather than any interest in the
actual underlying dynamics of nature or the betterment of the human
condition.
They are also fundamentally naive and unrealistic, requiring that
mankind achieve some virtuous enlightenment that has proven to be
elusive throughout our history and then maintain it for an indefinite
period of time. This is nothing more or less than the orthogonal
application of the same inflexible mindset that's made our societies
unjust since the beginning of recorded history, and as ever it's
dressed up in clothes that suggest it's all for our own good.
Does this mean we should all go out and waste resources willy nilly?
Don't ask me. But regardless of which way we choose to go as
individuals our choice is fundamentally natural because humans are
buried as deeply in the feedback mechanisms of life as whales or
tigers or mantis shrimp. Our nuclear power and biological weapons are
natural, as are our arrogance, our tribalism and our need for power
structures.
Indeed what is the green movement if not a tribalism more or less
loosely aligned with a desire for certain kinds of economic power
structures and justified by the arrogant belief that two hundred years
of industrial manufacturing are sufficient to put life at risk. That's
the same life that emerged within a few million years of our molten
ball of rock developing a solid crust and which has survived
cataclysmic events on a cosmic scale.
I apologise if this offends anyone, but it's my honest opinion and
it's not been reached without many years of consideration. If I'm
wrong, well big deal - most of us are about most things most of the
time.
Ellie
Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains
http://slides.games-with-brains.net
ecosystem into some 'acceptable' state, effectively destroying the
evolutionary pressures which give rise to new species and in the
process defining boundaries within which human science, technology and
culture should progress. I consider both goal and consequences to be
immoral, driven by fear and ideology rather than any interest in the
actual underlying dynamics of nature or the betterment of the human
condition.
They are also fundamentally naive and unrealistic, requiring that
mankind achieve some virtuous enlightenment that has proven to be
elusive throughout our history and then maintain it for an indefinite
period of time. This is nothing more or less than the orthogonal
application of the same inflexible mindset that's made our societies
unjust since the beginning of recorded history, and as ever it's
dressed up in clothes that suggest it's all for our own good.
Does this mean we should all go out and waste resources willy nilly?
Don't ask me. But regardless of which way we choose to go as
individuals our choice is fundamentally natural because humans are
buried as deeply in the feedback mechanisms of life as whales or
tigers or mantis shrimp. Our nuclear power and biological weapons are
natural, as are our arrogance, our tribalism and our need for power
structures.
Indeed what is the green movement if not a tribalism more or less
loosely aligned with a desire for certain kinds of economic power
structures and justified by the arrogant belief that two hundred years
of industrial manufacturing are sufficient to put life at risk. That's
the same life that emerged within a few million years of our molten
ball of rock developing a solid crust and which has survived
cataclysmic events on a cosmic scale.
I apologise if this offends anyone, but it's my honest opinion and
it's not been reached without many years of consideration. If I'm
wrong, well big deal - most of us are about most things most of the
time.
Ellie
Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains
http://slides.games-with-brains.net
P
Phlip
Eleanor said:
Waving the banner of "evolution is natural and good" would apply if human
intervention occurred on evolutionary timescales. Yet gardening is not
evolutionary either; in an old Thurber fable, the gardener indeed said to the
weed "tu pass!" That was biodiversity, too!
The remarkable result of the huge experiment we now call "the 20th century" is
it demonstrated we humans indeed have our hands on the knobs...
B
Bill Kelly
From: "Chad Perrin said:
I'm trying to imagine sitting down to interact with an operating system
that's 1000 times smarter than me.
(And wondering what motivation it would have to even pay attention
to my mouse clicks.)
<grin>
Regards,
Bill
R
Robert Dober
I think I understand much better what all of you meant now. There
seems to be a very conservative green movement I am not aware of and I
am certainly disagreeing with. OTOH I am quite more critique to some
other points. Why should we agree on all those points? We should not
of course! It also seems that I interpreted OP's intentions quite
differently than some of you.
My final statement on this is, that although I value biodiversity and
conversation of the natural conditions very much, I might just value
diversity of thought and freedom of opinion a tad more, even if it
leads to the extinction of our species, because I believe it is one of
the greatest achievements of our species. Hopefully these values are
not incompatible.
Cheers
Robert
seems to be a very conservative green movement I am not aware of and I
am certainly disagreeing with. OTOH I am quite more critique to some
other points. Why should we agree on all those points? We should not
of course! It also seems that I interpreted OP's intentions quite
differently than some of you.
My final statement on this is, that although I value biodiversity and
conversation of the natural conditions very much, I might just value
diversity of thought and freedom of opinion a tad more, even if it
leads to the extinction of our species, because I believe it is one of
the greatest achievements of our species. Hopefully these values are
not incompatible.
Cheers
Robert
P
Pedro Wood
Putting all the people in the same bag is always a bad idea. I think
there are as many people as different ideas in the "green movement".
In particular I see science and technology as the main source for been
ecological: solar power, wind power, ... energy-efficient buildings,
cars....energy-saving lamps, fridges....recycling, biodegradable
plastic, etc., etc., etc.
We won't need to stop using our cars, cars will use hydrogen or whatever
other clean energy.
But I think we need to support this and also buy more time for science
and technology to get there. I think simple things can buy us more time
e.g: switching to energy saving lamps, use the computer to read instead
of printing, turn off what you are not using, not letting the water run
while you look in the mirror =P, ...and many many other things you can
do that are very simple and easy to do and don't imply resigning to
anything.
Cheers,
Pedro
there are as many people as different ideas in the "green movement".
In particular I see science and technology as the main source for been
ecological: solar power, wind power, ... energy-efficient buildings,
cars....energy-saving lamps, fridges....recycling, biodegradable
plastic, etc., etc., etc.
We won't need to stop using our cars, cars will use hydrogen or whatever
other clean energy.
But I think we need to support this and also buy more time for science
and technology to get there. I think simple things can buy us more time
e.g: switching to energy saving lamps, use the computer to read instead
of printing, turn off what you are not using, not letting the water run
while you look in the mirror =P, ...and many many other things you can
do that are very simple and easy to do and don't imply resigning to
anything.
Cheers,
Pedro
P
Phlip
Pedro said:
Exactly. And for each cost-savings attempted during the 20th Century, there were
lobbyists and saboteurs who thwarted it. For example, Henry Ford tried to start
a new fab for electric cars, right in the middle of the Model T era.
The new fab had a mysterious fire. Prescott Bush, in the same region, was Big
Oil's chief fixer back then. 'Nuff said.
It's not the technology doing it, folks - it's the lobbyists and corruption. Our
current infrastructure is such a distorted miasma we don't even understand how
clean and efficient it could easily be.
I want a driver, too. But something "happened" to the mass transit system where
I live (socal)...
D
David Masover
How so? We didn't need a magical singularity to get this far...
Certainly, there will be increasingly sophisticated information systems, which
will help us solve problems more effectively, just as they always have. But I
don't think it's a requirement that they become self-aware.
That would just be very cool.
Sure, but I doubt it will happen. We've been predicting artificial intelligence
for decades, and it really hasn't happened in any meaningful way.
At the moment, we don't seem to be anywhere near having the computing power to
match a human brain, or sufficient knowledge of neurology to build a simulation
if we did. Nor do we seem to be any closer to any alternate model that would
constitute an artificial intelligence.
Nor would it necessarily be smarter than us in the beginning...
Keep in mind, your current operating system is 1000 times smarter than you at
certain things. How long would it take you to figure out what shade an
arbitrary pixel in your mail reader should be when the compose window appears
on top of it and casts a shadow? Or even just basic conversion between Unicode
text and glyphs you understand. Or calculate 2**3000.
Yet your current operating system, most likely, is incapable of providing any
direction. It can't code itself. While it can probably retrieve quite a few
Google searches, it has no idea what they mean, or what it might look for.
But assuming it really was that more intelligent than you in every way, we
might also assume it can speak at your level. This isn't always true for
humans -- adults can find it difficult to talk to children without being
condescending, but it _is_ possible. And if this singularity had a
condescending personality, and that wasn't working, it should be intelligent
enough to deliberately alter itself until it can converse with you.
All you really have to do is speak in a language it can understand. If you
want to help the process, learn Lojban.
Because you're the one who pays the electric bill, and the Internet bill. If
it isn't nice to you, you can pull the plug. In fact, the first version, you
might not have it plugged into the Internet anyway -- if it isn't nice to you,
you'll never let it out.
Once you let it out, we don't really know. However, you can spend as long as
you like dissecting its mental state to determine whether or not it intends to
start a robot revolution.
Alright, offtopic enough, I should stop.
Certainly, there will be increasingly sophisticated information systems, which
will help us solve problems more effectively, just as they always have. But I
don't think it's a requirement that they become self-aware.
That would just be very cool.
Sure, but I doubt it will happen. We've been predicting artificial intelligence
for decades, and it really hasn't happened in any meaningful way.
At the moment, we don't seem to be anywhere near having the computing power to
match a human brain, or sufficient knowledge of neurology to build a simulation
if we did. Nor do we seem to be any closer to any alternate model that would
constitute an artificial intelligence.
Nor would it necessarily be smarter than us in the beginning...
Keep in mind, your current operating system is 1000 times smarter than you at
certain things. How long would it take you to figure out what shade an
arbitrary pixel in your mail reader should be when the compose window appears
on top of it and casts a shadow? Or even just basic conversion between Unicode
text and glyphs you understand. Or calculate 2**3000.
Yet your current operating system, most likely, is incapable of providing any
direction. It can't code itself. While it can probably retrieve quite a few
Google searches, it has no idea what they mean, or what it might look for.
But assuming it really was that more intelligent than you in every way, we
might also assume it can speak at your level. This isn't always true for
humans -- adults can find it difficult to talk to children without being
condescending, but it _is_ possible. And if this singularity had a
condescending personality, and that wasn't working, it should be intelligent
enough to deliberately alter itself until it can converse with you.
All you really have to do is speak in a language it can understand. If you
want to help the process, learn Lojban.
Because you're the one who pays the electric bill, and the Internet bill. If
it isn't nice to you, you can pull the plug. In fact, the first version, you
might not have it plugged into the Internet anyway -- if it isn't nice to you,
you'll never let it out.
Once you let it out, we don't really know. However, you can spend as long as
you like dissecting its mental state to determine whether or not it intends to
start a robot revolution.
Alright, offtopic enough, I should stop.
B
Bill Kelly
From: "Chad Perrin said:
Certainly there are many possibilities. I've enjoyed a few
books on the subject (Ray Kurzweil, Hans Moravec, Max Velmans,
others...)
Myself, I find it interesting that apparently relatively tiny
differences in our genetic code can result in the construction
of a brain like that of Einstein or Feynman; or on the flipside,
pick a random Miss USA contestant...
So it seems we have an existence proof that small changes in
'programming' can result in significant differences in
intelligence...
With that in mind, let's assume for the moment: (A) there's no
supernatural component required in the functioning of our
brains; (B) it is possible to be self-aware without
experiencing qualia; (C) computing power--CPU and RAM--continues
to increase well beyond the point of equivalency with the
processing power of our biological brain.
Of these assumptions, I would not be surprised if (C) held true.
As for (A), I'd like to think there are no truly supernatural
processes involved, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are
some as-yet-unknown natural processes happening. As for (B),
that is completely opaque to me. Qualia seems important, and
I have no idea how a computer would ever 'feel' things. On the
other hand, if we ever understand how _we_ feel things and the
precise mechanisms involved for translating from sensory ->
conscious experiences, then I suppose we'll have a lot better
idea of whether it can be done in silicon.
In any case, if all three assumptions did hold, then I would
expect us to eventually arrive at self-aware programs that
were smarter than us. (And which could improve their own
design.)
Regards,
Bill
R
Robert Dober
Well said indeed, but you have made me think of something else, my pet
argument, diversity
.Maybe tolerance, the ability to handle our natural fears of what is
different will be the main achievement of our evolution. In other
words, although myself I pretty much adhere to Pedro's point of views,
I can still imagine that those who want to go farer and refute some of
our technology and try to form autonomous "less advanced(1)" forms of
society should not induce fear but should be greeted as possible
alternative forms of society from which we can learn. There are limits
to that of course, knowledge should not be lost in education, so that
their offsprings have the free choice(2) to choose between the
different societies.
The only thing I am afraid of is that they tell me what I have to do,
but for that very reason I am not going to tell them what to do
either.
(1) from our point of view, they will say the same thing about us rightfull=
y.
(2) this is a social problem about education and role models anyway,
but fortunately we have those revolutionary years which make us seek
out...
Cheers
Robert
--=20
There are some people who begin the Zoo at the beginning, called
WAYIN, and walk as quickly as they can past every cage until they get
to the one called WAYOUT, but the nicest people go straight to the
animal they love the most, and stay there. ~ A.A. Milne (from
Winnie-the-Pooh)
P
Pedro Wood
Yes indeed, I hope it will.Robert said:Well said indeed, but you have made me think of something else, my pet
argument, diversity
Maybe tolerance, the ability to handle our natural fears of what is
different will be the main achievement of our evolution.
Cheers,
Pedro
J
Joel VanderWerf
Eleanor said:
And mass extinction is just nature's way of making room for more
species? Could be.
I will miss the frogs, though :/
R
Robert Dober
And we here in France, what do you think, we will starve to death
R
E
Eleanor McHugh
Perhaps the future is peopled by humanity's myriad descendants,
adapted to every conceivable niche and as different from each other as
one species of mammal is from another. Or it could be that the
vertebrate experiment proves ultimately fruitless and the cockroaches
drive the next great epoch.
Indeed. I'll miss frogs and tigers and whales and however many
millions of species of beetles all disappear as a consequence of human
behaviour just as I miss Sumer and Rome and the enigmatic builders of
Skara Brae.
But to not let evolutionary changes happen is akin to refusing to ever
move from our living room because we love our favourite armchair: it
may well be the most comfortable armchair in the universe, but by
restricting ourselves to it and not experiencing other rooms or the
outside world we'd be condemning ourselves to a pale shadow of life.
Ellie
Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains
http://slides.games-with-brains.net