6 ms·

>The major problems in the world are the result of the difference between how nature works and the way people think If we eradicate nature and replace it with

by mvn9 6y ago

>The major problems in the world are the result of the difference between how nature works and the way people think If we eradicate nature and replace it with technology, will we reach a state without problems? If we turn all planes and forests into photovoltaic power stations and use chemical processes to generate food, and everything becomes an image of our thinking processes, will life be good?

FeepingCreature 6y ago
Yesss, let's do it. Disassemble the earth for material for a Dyson swarm, let's go!
rutherblood 6y ago
the critical question is: is it economical? let's take the example of replacing all plants with something humans made. Let's take one function (among innumerable others we might know or not know of) performed by plants critical to life: photosynthesis to trap energy to organic material & fill the air with oxygen. could we make something cheap enough to do this? the plants currently do this for free for us. they're also self-replicating mostly. could we build something like that? wouldn't we end up making something similar to what plants were and how they worked albeit with all this unneeded effort? let's say we can even do this, wouldn't you end up making something so similar to plants that it could actually be a plant? You can ask the same question for all the other functions that plants perform. most of these functions we might not even know of and only realize once it's missed. in short, it's not economical for us to do. it might not even be possible for us to do fully given all that complexity that millions of years in evolution captures. life on earth can be seen as a huge huge body of knowledge. dont people mourn of loss of ancient libraries or cultures for this very reason? many of the things entrapped in such a culture or body of knowledge are tacit, unknown, maybe even unknowable, it definitely cannot be exactly replicated once it's lost
- mvn9 6y ago
  Unneeded efforts is where all the technology began. Some ape grabbing a stick instead of shoving more leaves into his mouth. Investing time and resources, thinking, that's where technology starts. We use technology to create more food than nature provides voluntarily. Plants have become technology and we will use them as long as their synthesizing processes are more efficient as pure technological ones. But at one point, it will be more efficient to go full synthetic. If you kill all life, all fungi, all bacteria, everything will be dead matter, and like rocks on Mars or frozen seals at the poles, nothing will move in an uncontrolled way and everything will be in line with the way humans think. For sure, we have killed precious knowledge and as you say, we will never get it back. But that's due to humans being short-sighted and acting in a non-technological way. Like guns, it's not technology that is destroying the rain forest and reducing biodiversity. It's humans who follow their natural urges.
  - rutherblood 6y ago
    > Unneeded efforts is where all the technology began. let's say i grant this, but will you employ the said tech unless it is useful for you to do so? the question here is about the purpose of going all synthetic. 1. sure, if say man can devise a way to manufacture a multitude of food "synthetically", that us just one purpose served i.e. food. you can keep replacing these various purposes that plants provide to human life. Let's say at one point all non-human species become extinct by human means or otherwise. after this we discover a purpose through their lack (even without this said discovery, it can be likely that we might not even know what we have lost, that could be or even then might have been useful to us, humans). now isn't that a tragedy? basically even if the "synthetic" means of some purposes to which other species benefit us were to be made economical somehow, that does not justify wiping them out even looking only through the lens of HUMAN benefit. 2. what is "synthetic" and how can synthetic means of achieving these purposes be made economical? first to have such an economy we would have to replicate the chemical efficiencies of photosynthesis etc. basically, copying life. second, we would need the self-replicating capacity too since this goes a long way towards economy, right? again, copying life. we might as well discover something the scale of a cell with self-replicating molecular architecture might be the way to go about it. we could as well end up making something which looks a lot like life actually and take a hell of time to achieve it, even provided we end up copying a whole lot of it (because it would be massively difficult, even this being a huge understatement, without a reference point i.e. existing life). now if all life on earth except humans if wiped out hypothetically through some means, this effort would be justified even if prone to instant failure because of our imminent deaths. but otherwise i don't see a point. I'm not discouraging gaining knowledge about life and how it works, only that the argument of wiping it out to be replaced by everything synthetic, even someday doesn't make sense. do understand there is no such thing humans someday having all the knowledge. that day will never arrive.
    - shoemakersteve 6y ago
      I think you might be underestimating the potential of biological engineering.
      - 6y ago
- walleeee 6y ago
  > You can ask the same question for all the other functions that plants perform. most of these functions we might not even know of and only realize once it's missed. > in short, it's not economical for us to do. it might not even be possible for us to do fully given all that complexity that millions of years in evolution captures. Yes. Human engineering tends to struggle (and eventually fail) against entropy, degradation, and change in order to accomplish one or a very few things. The systems we call life, on the other hand, often play many roles related to the perpetuation of themselves and others, and have (in a collective sense) successfully persisted in the face of highly variable conditions for millions of years.
solitus 6y ago
Unless humans remain for millions of years, nature has the upper hand. Hence humans should get with nature's program, not the other way around. Disclaimer: I am for technological advancements, I'm not saying we should stop and go live in caves. I merely think we should try to connect with nature at a deeper level; we'd probably all be happier for it.
munificent 6y ago
I think you're externalizing "nature", but my guess is that Bateson would include our own biology, impulses, instincts, and cognitive biases in his definition of "nature". We are a flawed biological brain that can also perform some logical computation (in the same way that you can implement a digital computer using analog electronics). The latter often conflicts with the former.
pjmorris 6y ago
Technology is made out of nature. Sooner or later, thermodynamics will have its way.

by mvn9 6y ago

FeepingCreature 6y ago

Yesss, let's do it. Disassemble the earth for material for a Dyson swarm, let's go!

rutherblood 6y ago

the critical question is: is it economical? let's take the example of replacing all plants with something humans made. Let's take one function (among innumerable others we might know or not know of) performed by plants critical to life: photosynthesis to trap energy to organic material & fill the air with oxygen. could we make something cheap enough to do this? the plants currently do this for free for us. they're also self-replicating mostly. could we build something like that? wouldn't we end up making something similar to what plants were and how they worked albeit with all this unneeded effort? let's say we can even do this, wouldn't you end up making something so similar to plants that it could actually be a plant? You can ask the same question for all the other functions that plants perform. most of these functions we might not even know of and only realize once it's missed. in short, it's not economical for us to do. it might not even be possible for us to do fully given all that complexity that millions of years in evolution captures. life on earth can be seen as a huge huge body of knowledge. dont people mourn of loss of ancient libraries or cultures for this very reason? many of the things entrapped in such a culture or body of knowledge are tacit, unknown, maybe even unknowable, it definitely cannot be exactly replicated once it's lost

mvn9 6y ago
Unneeded efforts is where all the technology began. Some ape grabbing a stick instead of shoving more leaves into his mouth. Investing time and resources, thinking, that's where technology starts. We use technology to create more food than nature provides voluntarily. Plants have become technology and we will use them as long as their synthesizing processes are more efficient as pure technological ones. But at one point, it will be more efficient to go full synthetic. If you kill all life, all fungi, all bacteria, everything will be dead matter, and like rocks on Mars or frozen seals at the poles, nothing will move in an uncontrolled way and everything will be in line with the way humans think. For sure, we have killed precious knowledge and as you say, we will never get it back. But that's due to humans being short-sighted and acting in a non-technological way. Like guns, it's not technology that is destroying the rain forest and reducing biodiversity. It's humans who follow their natural urges.
- rutherblood 6y ago
  > Unneeded efforts is where all the technology began. let's say i grant this, but will you employ the said tech unless it is useful for you to do so? the question here is about the purpose of going all synthetic. 1. sure, if say man can devise a way to manufacture a multitude of food "synthetically", that us just one purpose served i.e. food. you can keep replacing these various purposes that plants provide to human life. Let's say at one point all non-human species become extinct by human means or otherwise. after this we discover a purpose through their lack (even without this said discovery, it can be likely that we might not even know what we have lost, that could be or even then might have been useful to us, humans). now isn't that a tragedy? basically even if the "synthetic" means of some purposes to which other species benefit us were to be made economical somehow, that does not justify wiping them out even looking only through the lens of HUMAN benefit. 2. what is "synthetic" and how can synthetic means of achieving these purposes be made economical? first to have such an economy we would have to replicate the chemical efficiencies of photosynthesis etc. basically, copying life. second, we would need the self-replicating capacity too since this goes a long way towards economy, right? again, copying life. we might as well discover something the scale of a cell with self-replicating molecular architecture might be the way to go about it. we could as well end up making something which looks a lot like life actually and take a hell of time to achieve it, even provided we end up copying a whole lot of it (because it would be massively difficult, even this being a huge understatement, without a reference point i.e. existing life). now if all life on earth except humans if wiped out hypothetically through some means, this effort would be justified even if prone to instant failure because of our imminent deaths. but otherwise i don't see a point. I'm not discouraging gaining knowledge about life and how it works, only that the argument of wiping it out to be replaced by everything synthetic, even someday doesn't make sense. do understand there is no such thing humans someday having all the knowledge. that day will never arrive.
  - shoemakersteve 6y ago
    I think you might be underestimating the potential of biological engineering.
    - 6y ago
walleeee 6y ago
> You can ask the same question for all the other functions that plants perform. most of these functions we might not even know of and only realize once it's missed. > in short, it's not economical for us to do. it might not even be possible for us to do fully given all that complexity that millions of years in evolution captures. Yes. Human engineering tends to struggle (and eventually fail) against entropy, degradation, and change in order to accomplish one or a very few things. The systems we call life, on the other hand, often play many roles related to the perpetuation of themselves and others, and have (in a collective sense) successfully persisted in the face of highly variable conditions for millions of years.

solitus 6y ago

Unless humans remain for millions of years, nature has the upper hand. Hence humans should get with nature's program, not the other way around. Disclaimer: I am for technological advancements, I'm not saying we should stop and go live in caves. I merely think we should try to connect with nature at a deeper level; we'd probably all be happier for it.

munificent 6y ago

I think you're externalizing "nature", but my guess is that Bateson would include our own biology, impulses, instincts, and cognitive biases in his definition of "nature". We are a flawed biological brain that can also perform some logical computation (in the same way that you can implement a digital computer using analog electronics). The latter often conflicts with the former.

pjmorris 6y ago

Technology is made out of nature. Sooner or later, thermodynamics will have its way.