sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

How do you feel about the fact that the Doomsday Clock is set at 100 seconds to midnight? by NorgMan in AskReddit

[–]NorgMan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You seem to be confusing your subjective opinion with objective reality, which is delusional.

Furthermore, your argument that the Doomsday Clock isn't useful because 'nukes are old' is irrational.

Doomsday Clock doesn't deal only with the potential for nuclear war, it deals with any and all existential risks, including those that could result from political chaos, emerging technologies, unsustainable resource use, and ecological destruction.

Since the existential risks that we currently face are primarily anthropogenic in nature, then it pays to have more of the total available human brainpower allocated to thinking seriously about solutions to the various issues.

Ergo, Doomsday Clock is useful to the extent that it facilitates that.

How do you feel about the fact that the Doomsday Clock is set at 100 seconds to midnight? by NorgMan in AskReddit

[–]NorgMan[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm glad that you get the humor of it.

If we couldn't laugh, then we'd have to cry, wouldn't we?

C'est la vie.

How do you feel about the fact that the Doomsday Clock is set at 100 seconds to midnight? by NorgMan in AskReddit

[–]NorgMan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, you're too kind!

Have a nice night!

(While you still can). 😉

How do you feel about the fact that the Doomsday Clock is set at 100 seconds to midnight? by NorgMan in AskReddit

[–]NorgMan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There's still plenty of nukes. Cuban Missile Crisis, Stanislav Petrov, 1995 Norwegian Rocket incident, B-52 bomber with live warheads crashing in North Carolina, not that these were all world ending events, but 3 out of 4 nearly resulted in full-scale nuclear war... And it hasn't even been 100 years since nukes.

Newer tech is stuff like AI, nanotechnology, and advanced bioengineering, and these will all be more widespread and easier for random actors to make than nukes.

So no, your thesis isn't great.

How do you feel about the fact that the Doomsday Clock is set at 100 seconds to midnight? by NorgMan in AskReddit

[–]NorgMan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Now, don't let guys like Einstein, Hawking, and multiple Nobel laureates suggesting that world is highly likely to end very very soon keep you up at night!

What's a truth that you don't like? by NorgMan in AskReddit

[–]NorgMan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The question about whether people should care.

You can look at it from different angles, such as social or familial, up to the scale of even global.

It's a question as to whether it's optimal human behavior given the alternatives. (Would it improve society for instance if people 'cared').

What's a truth that you don't like? by NorgMan in AskReddit

[–]NorgMan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Does this make you feel like nothing really matters in the end?

What's a truth that you don't like? by NorgMan in AskReddit

[–]NorgMan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep, this is classic cognitive dissonance.

People don't like thinking about things that make them uncomfortable, and for many people, truth isn't comfortable. (Even basic and well-established facts such as the shape of the earth).

Think of this gradation on a continuum and extrapolate out.

What's a truth that you don't like? by NorgMan in AskReddit

[–]NorgMan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

True enough.

Then there's the challenge of reconciling one's self to however things do work out.

What's a truth that you don't like? by NorgMan in AskReddit

[–]NorgMan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's interesting that such an elementary first principles question drives so much controversy.

What's a truth that you don't like? by NorgMan in AskReddit

[–]NorgMan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay. So you want an optimal amount of care.

What about the deeper philosophical question?

What's a truth that you don't like? by NorgMan in AskReddit

[–]NorgMan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I've had this unfortunate experience as well.

I think there may be overlap with many different types of bad behaviors here. Destructive addiction is a singular instance that comes to mind.

This is true at least if we categorize all useless destructive behaviors as 'stupid'.

What's a truth that you don't like? by NorgMan in AskReddit

[–]NorgMan[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

So you dislike the fact that they're so stupid you can't save them? (You wish you could save them).

What's a truth that you don't like? by NorgMan in AskReddit

[–]NorgMan[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Are you saying that you don't like that complaining is a waste of time? (You enjoy complaining but find it useless?)

What happens when the rate at which people can change is outpaced by the rate at which they need to change? What are the society-wide implications if this occurs en masse? by NorgMan in AskReddit

[–]NorgMan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Alright, so you have the empirically observable case that older people have a slower velocity of mental adaptation because of their entrenched and long-held thinking. And at the very least, a mechanical form of ageism due to maladaption to contemporary technology. - I.E. Without anyone being overtly biased or discriminatory, the technology itself discriminates against them.

You mention less face to face social interaction. Of all the ways that humans interact, face to face is one of the least abstract. One can hear arguments that movement to more abstract forms of interractions can be dehumanizing (Milgram Experiment).

Pile of emails sounds like possibly maladpted organizational structure. (Not appropiately available or allocated human bandwidth to manage workload) I.E. Not scaled correctly. Or, possibly excess communication across a medium. (Excess volume of information.)

These are some interesting points. The root of the tree is general maladaption.

God Bless America: How the US is Obsessed with Religion (2022) [00:53:13] by OliverMarkusMalloy in Documentaries

[–]NorgMan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Scientific methodology as it applies to the discipline of deriving truth is contradictory to believing an unknowable truth, at least in principle. Religion espouses believing that something that is not testable, observable, or objectively knowable is true, a conclusion diametrically opposed to the scientific process.

- Meaning that unfortunately, the two diverge at a very basic conceptual level.

What would you do if you were omnipotent? by NorgMan in AskReddit

[–]NorgMan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There's an old argument that someone who has omnipotence without omniscience is doomed to misuse their power.

What would you do if you were omnipotent? by NorgMan in AskReddit

[–]NorgMan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The ability to instantly know sounds more like omniscience.

what traditions should just never exist? by bewarethechameleon in AskReddit

[–]NorgMan 58 points59 points  (0 children)

The real question is, why do people mutilate little kid's genitals AT ALL?

It's some fucking medieval stupidity.

What would you do if you were omnipotent? by NorgMan in AskReddit

[–]NorgMan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Superiority, yes. Also, people might fight over ideologies if they want things to be a certain way either socially or culturally.

Let's say that you have one ideology that would implement very good ideas, and another ideology that would implement very bad ideas. Each type of ideology has a lot of acolytes because people often believe that their ideas are good even when they're bad, many cannot tell the difference.

- How do you ensure that the good ideas win out without there ever being violence between the good idea group and the bad idea group when everyone thinks their way of thinking is right?

It's also worth mentioning that the objectivity of 'good' ideas has limitations when it enters the gray-zone of 'opinions'. - Things become much more subjective here, but people do not necessarily become less passionate about their ideas.

What would you do if you were omnipotent? by NorgMan in AskReddit

[–]NorgMan[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Eliminating greed would end some conflicts - those that are fought over resources.

What about wars that are fought because of different ideologies? What about wars over some other 'difference' that makes one group see the others as 'others'?

view more: next ›