[RD] Pessimism about Mars

[Manfred Belheim]

Who are the most joyful humans? Children of course.

Are they? They don't seem to be able to get through most days without wailing and crying about 12 times.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Are they? They don't seem to be able to get through most days without wailing and crying about 12 times.

But they will have forgotten why and be happy and smiling a few minutes later.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Yeah and then crying again. Overall they're probably as neutral as anyone else, just more bipolar about it.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Yeah and then crying again. Overall they're probably as neutral as anyone else, just more bipolar about it.

Not judging by the ones I work with. They spend most of their time happy, and much happier than the average adult manages in a typical day.

 

[Mouthwash]

If we can get sustainable life going on other planets we can solve this problem as well.

No, it's kind of built in to all ecosystems.

I don't agree with this at all. It's just a failure of imagination to think we need the bad with the good. IMO suffering always degrades happiness. Being slighted by someone rude may help you appreciate kindness but true suffering, having your trust betrayed repeatedly doesn't lead to more joy when people are reliable, it creates a script where true trust is impossible.

Who are the most joyful humans? Children of course. The same ones who have suffered the least. Children who suffer much in childhood generally have a reduced capacity for joy.

A child has the capacity to appreciate a beautiful garden EVERYDAY, you don't have to lock him in the closet to appreciate it, he just appreciates it.

Reducing suffering in the human mind is a technical problem. We didn't evolve to be joyful, we evolved to survive, get laid at least a few times & create offspring. Our default state is anxious, craving, etc.

Really terraforming our minds is where it's at. Designer humans won't be about getting a baby blue eyes or brown hair but humans with increased resilience, focus & confidence, better brains in short.

People with a higher default happiness state will be more productive, they won't be susceptible to fear mongering politicians, they'll suffer less addcition. Life with joy turned up & suffering turned down is the goal of any human endevour anyway.

Your modern outlook is why you don't see the importance of suffering. Which isn't your fault, because modern suffering really is pointless. Most people these days probably never experience healthy pain.

Yeah, just tweak evolution so creatures don't always maximize reproduction when the coast is clear of predators.

You... understand how evolution works, don't you? Even if we could, there would be a million other side-effects of our meddling to contend with in our, not ecosystem, but gargantuan breeding pen.

Reality is wack, we need to better it.

Prime example of why I find modernist optimism so distasteful. You build a new mythology and project it into the future, which leaves you unable to see the relevance of all the millions who've already died for your ideas (it was Marx's fault, or Oppenheimer's). You literally think we are gods by virtue of our ruling the future.

Humans will *never* be able to control the systems that made us. We might be able to affect them, but always to our detriment. Increasing control over things like community and habitation have made them far worse.

You don't even need to get rid of predators. I'm not worried about the food web below certain thresholds of sentience. Insects can do a lot

Replacing the biomass of large animals with insects doesn't seem like it would create a very human-friendly environment. Plus, it would take a yuge amount of regulation to stop some from evolving to fill that niche.

 

[El_Machinae]

... you think that insects will evolve to sentience? Just to fill the niche of 'animal suffering'?

 

[Mouthwash]

Grow, rather.

 

[El_Machinae]

What does that have to do with my underlying concern?

 

[Mouthwash]

I took from your statement that smaller animals, such as insects, experience much less pain than larger ones.

 

[El_Machinae]

You've completely lost me.

My concern about building new ecosystems is that we're tempted to design ecosystems which don't factor in animal suffering. And we're doing this in order to further human flourishing. My position is that we needn't be callous about it, and that we should re-think whether we create ecosystems that rely on a certain portion of its inhabitants suffering more than they need to. Further, I think that we should remember the 'zero suffering' is a viable target. There's currently zero suffering on Mars, and there are oodles of ecosystem tools available that would make Mars 'better' without violating the 'zero'.

Also, I'm warning about the modern heuristic. That an ecology with the same amount of suffering as Earth's is an 'acceptable' level, so people's baseline is centred around what's currently 'natural'.

 

[Mouthwash]

My concern about building new ecosystems is that we're tempted to design ecosystems which don't factor in animal suffering. And we're doing this in order to further human flourishing. My position is that we needn't be callous about it, and that we should re-think whether we create ecosystems that rely on a certain portion of its inhabitants suffering more than they need to.

Then why did you bring up insects?

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm not worried about the food web below certain thresholds of sentience. Replace insects with 'viruses and fungus', or whatever makes my point.

I'm doubtful that insects are sentient, even. Compare that to the certainty of (say) field mice.

 

[Estebonrober]

No, it's kind of built in to all ecosystems.



Your modern outlook is why you don't see the importance of suffering. Which isn't your fault, because modern suffering really is pointless. Most people these days probably never experience healthy pain.



You... understand how evolution works, don't you? Even if we could, there would be a million other side-effects of our meddling to contend with in our, not ecosystem, but gargantuan breeding pen.



Prime example of why I find modernist optimism so distasteful. You build a new mythology and project it into the future, which leaves you unable to see the relevance of all the millions who've already died for your ideas (it was Marx's fault, or Oppenheimer's). You literally think we are gods by virtue of our ruling the future.

Humans will *never* be able to control the systems that made us. We might be able to affect them, but always to our detriment. Increasing control over things like community and habitation have made them far worse.



Replacing the biomass of large animals with insects doesn't seem like it would create a very human-friendly environment. Plus, it would take a yuge amount of regulation to stop some from evolving to fill that niche.

This is such reactionary garbage I can’t even.

 

[Mouthwash]

I'm not worried about the food web below certain thresholds of sentience. Replace insects with 'viruses and fungus', or whatever makes my point.

I'm doubtful that insects are sentient, even. Compare that to the certainty of (say) field mice.

But large insects, like the size of a raccoon?

This is such reactionary garbage I can’t even.

How modernists smear everyone who doesn't accept their lunatic agenda to rewrite reality (starting with the human race).

 

[El_Machinae]

As I said, replace insects with 'viruses and fungus', or whatever makes my point.

If you think that your ecosystem will eventually evolve insects the size of basketballs that then experience suffering, it's time to be reminded that the current baseline is zero suffering

 

[Lexicus]

As I said, replace insects with 'viruses and fungus', or whatever makes my point.

If you think that your ecosystem will eventually evolve insects the size of basketballs that then experience suffering, it's time to be reminded that the current baseline is zero suffering

Terrestrial arthropod size mostly appears to be correlated with amount of oxygen in the atmosphere afaik

 

[El_Machinae]

Additionally, ganglion size will correlate to the size of the arthropod, but does not selectively rearrange in order to change the type of processing it undergoes. But instead of arguing that, I was just discussing the underlying premise of my original concern

 

[Mouthwash]

If you think that your ecosystem will eventually evolve insects the size of basketballs that then experience suffering, it's time to be reminded that the current baseline is zero suffering

Once, again, a complete non-sequitur.

Terrestrial arthropod size mostly appears to be correlated with amount of oxygen in the atmosphere afaik

That's because other animals filled that niche. If they were to disappear, there's nothing stopping the creepy-crawlies from refilling it.

 

[Lexicus]

That's because other animals filled that niche. If they were to disappear, there's nothing stopping the creepy-crawlies from refilling it.

Except the fact that oxygen makes up only 21% of today's atmosphere and the giant insects that existed hundreds of millions of years ago needed a 30%-oxygen atmosphere.

 

[Narz]

@ Mouthwash, I never said we'd be able to control everything but playing god is the main goal of humankind.

The point or human life is to make reality better than it is "naturally"..

Humans will *never* be able to control the systems that made us. We might be able to affect them, but always to our detriment. Increasing control over things like community and habitation have made them far worse.

Depressing dude, why even get out of bed?

I agree we've f-ed up the world pretty bad but that's because our goals are short term gain not utopia.