IBM produce the next step of AI overlording

[Aquaplant]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

Objectivity is often a good goal, but in many cases it cannot be achieved and in others it is not the main basis for decisions. Especially, objectivity is often assumed when actually the matter is subjective on a larger level. For example it may be very much an objective concept that to bring some indigenous people elelctricity, TVs and western medicine will make their lives better because they can live longer and have more fun. We assume it is objective but in fact that assessment is just a subjective one, just one that is shared by a large majority.

Personal preferences are not something that can be objectively discussed, because they simply don't derive from the fundamental needs that we all share, such as need for food, warmth and so on.

Science can produce objective statements though.

That is, you have issues with opinions, not science, but you sound like you are having issues with both.

But still, even if something is objective, still the subjective considerations of people involved cannot be ignored. If people are afraid of lets say cellphone radiation and science finds only few evidence of it causeing cancer, people will still be afraid. You can try to convince them otherwise, show them studies and all that, but in the end I think one has to accept that these people do not want to have a transmitter installed across the road.

Fear is the enemy of mankind, of us all, because it makes us do terrible things. To be somewhat cliched, we fear the things we don't understand. Fear is the primitive safeguard reaction designed to keep us safe, but it can no longer serve its intended purpose, considering how "unnatural" our lives have become.

At that point one can act in two ways - not build it because one respects the fear of these people and building it would cause them to be unhappy, fearful and maybe develop psychologically induced illness. Or one can - and sadly this is all too often the case - just ignore their concerns out of the reasoning that their subjectiveness is irrelevant in the face of the own (perceived or real) objectivity. And at that point objectivity can be used in the wrong way - and it does all the time.

Technology is here to serve us, and if some people do not want said technology, then it's their prerogative to refuse from it, but those of us who want the conveniencies provided by technological advancements, we are willing to accept the possible repercussions.

Another example for this is the inability to objectively determine the value of a species, the scent of a flower, the beautiy of a butterfly or the feeling of being at home. Thus for someone, a certain flower or a beloved tree can be extremely valuable while for someone else it is a temporary decoration or a couple of meters of 2x4s. Objectivity just does not have the ability to cover every aspect of human and nonhuman life.

This is true, and that is why I said that personal preferences can't be subjected to objective discussions, because objectivity means sharing a common denominator. Then again we mostly place too much from too little value for personal preferences in many regard, but I'm not about to go there now because I'm not about to write a book about this particular subject.

My signature says it - I think its the relationship between them, not some "flawed human nature" or a inherent "evilness of technology". However I think that a lot of modern technology is based on a lack of relationship or the wrong kind of relationship, hence it is destructive and that cannot easily be mitigated because if something is born out of a bad relationship it is extremely hard to set it right.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by lack of or wrong kind of relationship? Can you elaborate?

From what I know for example about the Mayans (littele do I know yet), it seems they did have certain rituals involving respect, consideration, thankfulness and thoughfulness when they took something from the Earth, like a lump of metal to make objects. This technological act to use something from the Earth and make it into something useful or beautiful for humans was given proper consideration - it was thought of what it will do to the place that it is taken from, determined if something has to be done to heal it and there was of course also spiritual rituals involved that made such an act one that was only done when it is "worth it". In contrast at present day, the minerals are ripped off the Earth, considered to be free of charge, "undeveloped resources" and therelike.

Just like we must eat the fruits of a tree to stay healthy, we must use other materials that are available. Then again this particular subject can be expanded too much to handle on my own, but suffice to say that I want to differentiate between what is needed for handy stuff, and what is done just for profit, but because in our society these things are so intertwined, it's rather difficult to keep them apart so to speak.

Little consideration is given to the place that it is taken from unless demanded by regulators and the materials gained are sold as cheaply as possible. I think there is a fundamental discrepancy here in the relationship and I think a positive relationship is possibly incompatible with the technologies of mining that we use today (with huge open pits, tailings, toxic chemicals and acidic mine drainage).
I took mining just as an illustrative example here - please dont make this thread one about mining...

All in all, I think we should have a more efficient way of having this conversation, mostly because I tire at typing, and even more so I tire of thinking, which is rare in itself because that's the only thing I always like to do, but now my mind is beginning to slow down due to sleep deprivation or something.

In summation, I want to advocate such technology that can allow us to stop abusing nature as we do, while still retaining most of modern comforts we enjoy today. Technology is a tool to solve problems, and while the people in the mining industry don't see their destructive behaviour as a problem, and thus aren't interested investing in developing technologies that are more resource efficient, or don't require physical materials to begin with.

I think I need lots of sugar or something to wake my brain up, because I feel like zombie or something...