[ExI] How to make progress (was Re: Why do political and economic leaders deny Peak Oil and Climate Change?)

Brent Allsop brent.allsop at canonizer.com
Sat Sep 7 21:53:45 UTC 2013

Hi Eugen,

On 9/7/2013 3:00 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 07, 2013 at 02:27:52PM -0600, Brent Allsop wrote:
>> Why is it that people are so willing to put so much time, effort and
>> pain on possibly critically important things like this, when there
>> are better ways to go about this and get something done. Sure, there
>> could be some existential threat out there, but if there is is this
>> the best way to go about it?
> A number of people are seeing a crtical problem ahead, yet the majority
> doesn't. In order to solve the problem it however requires the action of
> the majority. This thing is way too big for people, or municipalities.
> This is nation-state, nay, planet-scale.

Exactly!  And there could be some more terrible existential threat that 
only a few people are now just starting to see.  In fact I feel like one 
of these.  But I'm not giving up on anyone.  I'm working to communicate 
concisely and quantitatively, to build expert consensus amongst experts 
everyone will trust, and I believe we can do something to save the world 
and all of us.

> Therein lies the problem. We are yeast.

Oh puuleese.  Yeast can't communicate, at least like we can.  And there 
are ways to comunicate much more effectively than like this. If there 
truly is a terrible risk, the most effect way to communicate such is to 
start building an expert consensus arround it in an open survey way, 
where you can also survey for why others can't yet accept what you are 
saying, if there are any, and have a concice and quantitative reference 
to that to work with.  Currently, you are just working from your frame 
of reference, having no clue why I so hate what you are saying, or what 
might convince me.  It also would help to find a set of experts that I 
trust, and start to build a consensus amongst them.  That would 
definitely convince me, and I bet most every rational person.  Once 
people understand, I and I believe anyone would go to the end of the 
world to save it, or any loved one.

> Don't hate on
> http://ecoapocalypse.blogspot.nl/2013/09/why-do-political-and-economic-leaders.html
> so much. Try some suspension of disbelief, and as a working
> hypothesis assume it's modelling many aspects that are true.

To bad you have no clue as to why I so desperately truly 'hate' these 
kinds of points of view, and why I feel they are leading to the 
unnecessary eternal damnation of so many of my loved ones, indeed 
possibly most everyone alive today.  Maybe if you had half an idea, you 
could finally find a way to communicate to all of us that feel as I do, 
then I could help you?

> What is the best way to go about it? It seems that we've ran
> out of options but at personal and small community level due
> to the reasons outlined above.

Oh yee of little and mistaken (thinking we are all nothing more than 
yeast...) faith.

> Even knowing that doesn't help much, since most of us are locked
> in a precarious configuration it will hurt to change short-term.
> Yet by acting too late we will not be able to effect that transition.

Once we can communicate, concisely and quantitatively, in an expert 
consensus way, it will amplify the moral wisdom of us all, and enable 
all of us to do whatever is required.  Co-operation only requires 
definitive expert consensus.  Sure, yeast can't achieve that yet, but we 
most certainly can.  You can't expect everyone to be experts in the 
infinite number of existential end of the world threats an infinite 
number of individuals are going on about infinitely.  All we need to do 
is to measure for which of them have the most expert consensus, and 
enable all these experts to comunicate in a definitive and concise, 
nobody can deny way, and rigorously measure for how fast this consensus 
is growing.  And if it isn't growing in certain cercles, finding out 
why, concicely and quantitativedly, and surveying for what might work 
better, from their frame of reference.  Why would the world not follow 
that, on a dime, giving any and all required, if you could do that?

> It seems the best strategy now is to act ruthless, bold and selfish,
As in kill people?  Take away their free agency?  Excommunicate 
nonbelievers? Give up on people? Force everyone to work on what you 
think is the most pressing existential threat, rather than what others 
think is a far more serious and pressing?

> and make your exit while you still can. The exit must involve building
> a mutually supportive rural community. This is an alien concept to
> many.

Exit?  What will any of that do?  So, yes, you hate, or are giving up on 
the rest of us?  You'd leave us behind?

> Here my fortune cookie ends.

Yup, definitely giving up.

> In case yours says something else,
> let's compare notes
What are you saying here?  It sounds like you are almost asking people 
to try to communicate, concisely and quantitatively?

> (please no discussions about how it's all
> unreal; because: nazis wear nice leather uniforms).
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list