> Those who criticize so-called “AI doomers” often overlook that there is a broader, intellectually serious tradition of technological doomerism that goes back decades.
Not wanting to be snarky but the “intellectually serious” is the issue here probably. For instance as you look into the mathematical model used by “The limits of Growth” you see the curves are chosen arbitrarily to fit what the authors expect, and are not empirically grounded except in the most vague sense.
Even the word “collapse” is used everywhere in vague and hyperbolic ways, it makes it difficult to have discussion.
myflash13 · 3h ago
> It doesn’t mean the end of a society, necessarily. Rather, it marks a point after which quality of life tends to get ever worse for ever more people.
I feel like this has already happened, in my social circles, in the West. I don’t know anyone from my generation who are better off than their parents at the same age, except for a few who moved out of the West (to Dubai for example).
gweinberg · 3h ago
These are just models, and not necessarily good ones. They seem "robust" in that you can diddle with the parameters all you like and you always get a collapse, it's justa question of when. But the basic assumptions going into them are highly suspect.
gmuslera · 5h ago
So we are all accelerating towards a wall of bricks and no party can slow down because it will be destroyed/damaged by everyone else.
When system dynamics meet the prisoner dilemma you have to redefine what are the rational moves in this situation
rekabis · 1h ago
Throw climate change into the model, especially with the recent massive acceleration of temperature rise that now strongly suggests +3℃ shortly after 2035 and +6℃ by 2100, and human populations trend to zero by some time between 2080 and 2200.
And everyone with the money and power to do something materially to avoid this future is doubling down on BaU (business as usual) because it’s just so profitable in the near term.
vdupras · 6h ago
The human world runs on a gargantuan web of promises. What makes the bus driver sit there and drive is the tip of the promises iceberg. Layers upon layers of promises, leveraging each other.
The future has already been promised many times over and anyone trying to resolve those promises can only come to the conclusion of broken promises on a massive scale. This means a shrinking pie. A shrinking pie means conflict. A big enough conflict means collapse.
Not wanting to be snarky but the “intellectually serious” is the issue here probably. For instance as you look into the mathematical model used by “The limits of Growth” you see the curves are chosen arbitrarily to fit what the authors expect, and are not empirically grounded except in the most vague sense.
Even the word “collapse” is used everywhere in vague and hyperbolic ways, it makes it difficult to have discussion.
I feel like this has already happened, in my social circles, in the West. I don’t know anyone from my generation who are better off than their parents at the same age, except for a few who moved out of the West (to Dubai for example).
When system dynamics meet the prisoner dilemma you have to redefine what are the rational moves in this situation
And everyone with the money and power to do something materially to avoid this future is doubling down on BaU (business as usual) because it’s just so profitable in the near term.
The future has already been promised many times over and anyone trying to resolve those promises can only come to the conclusion of broken promises on a massive scale. This means a shrinking pie. A shrinking pie means conflict. A big enough conflict means collapse.