[ExI] Evolving conservatism

[Rafal Smigrodzki]

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 7:41 PM, Eric Messick <eric at m056832107.syzygy.com>wrote:

> Rafal writes:
> > [about space based solar power]
> >### Some of us evolved to see it's not an obviously good idea.
>
> and later:
>
> >> Is there a better way to get people to accept change?
> >### Don't suggest useless or actively destructive ideas?
>
> You seem to be saying here that SBSP is a useless or actively
> destructive idea, and at least one which you are not convinced is
> good.  I'd be curious to hear why you think it is not a good idea.
>

### Too many orders of magnitude difference between reasonable assessments
of expected cost and the expected return on investment to make it obviously
good, although not enough information to make it obviously useless.
-------------------


>
> >> Past ice ages may have altered the balance. [...]
> >
> >### The timespans are incommensurate, climate change has no bearing on the
> >evolution of psychological traits, where pressures operating over much
> >shorter timespans are predominant. [...]
>
> I don't think we can know that for sure.
>
>
### I do think we can say that for sure. Evolution of psychological traits
is very fast, with large differences in allele frequency and phenotype seen
in 300 - 400 years, much faster than climate change which generally takes
place over thousands of years, occasional cold snaps notwithstanding.

------------------

>
> Environmentalists are conservative about the environment.  I think
> they would be against SBSP for one simple reason:  it would support
> more humans on the planet.  I think they ignore that it would also
> help get more humans *off* the planet.  I'm not sure exactly how they
> would react to that prospect.
>

### Indeed, environmentalists are enemies of humanity, not just selectively
conservative folks. "Conservatives" in the commonly used political usage at
least have some human well-being in mind, environmentalists want our death.
----------------


>
> I'd also include Thorium reactors among the obviously good ideas (from
> an engineering perspective) which seem to get little political
> traction.  I do have a good explanation for why Thorium has
> traditionally gotten little support:  we wanted bombs, and Thorium
> reactors wouldn't help with that.  Now that we don't want as many
> bombs, Thorium should be popular, but it isn't.  The status quo bias
> that Anders brought up surely covers this, as well as the other things
> we are talking about here.


### Once an industry is afflicted by a bureaucracy (the NRC, led by men who
openly admit they want to destroy nuclear power), progress is impeded by
something much more pernicious than mere intellectual conservatism.

Rafal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140115/4653e203/attachment.html>