I’m really skeptical of the idea of “dead ideas”. This was recently discussed on the IRC, in the context of Eugenics. Embryo selection and soon direct genetic modification will be possible. But eugenics has a really bad reputation because it’s associated with Nazism. “It’s been tried!” It’s now one of those dead ideas.
Another example might be messing with the environment. Including eliminating mosquito’s or engineering the climate to lessen the damage of climate change. “It’s been tried!” After all there are many examples of humans interfering with the environment and screwing it up.
Nuclear power is basically a taboo issue because a few previous generation plants have failed in the past. New ones might be much safer, but it doesn’t matter, the subject is off the table.
In general there are very few ideas which “have been proven false by incontrovertible evidence”. The real world is complex and has a lot of variables, and drawing strong conclusions from single historical examples is not rational. Having “dead ideas” is not a desirable thing.
The article’s main beef seems to be with populist politicians. Which I think we can all agree are terrible. Whether or not they happen to support dead ideas is really irrelevant.
Then when the article gets to politicians supporting dead ideas, the examples they give are not dead at all. Not that they are correct, just that they are far from “definitely proven wrong” like nuclear power. E.g. the example of a temporary ban on Muslim immigrants. Now I think you can dispute this morally, but how is this a thing that has been tried and failed before? When has it been tried before, and how did it fail? The article certainly doesn’t provide any citations. The other examples are similarly weak and weakly argued.
Then when the article gets to politicians supporting dead ideas, the examples they give are not dead at all. Not that they are correct, just that they are far from “definitely proven wrong” like nuclear power.
Right, the author makes no effort whatsoever to actually argue these points—he only needs to call them “dead” i.e. unfashionable.
Including eliminating mosquito’s or engineering the climate to lessen the damage of climate change. “It’s been tried!”
Um. Deliberate climate engineering hasn’t been tried, to the best of my knowledge. As to eliminating malaria mosquitos, yes, it has been tried and it was very successful. That’s why Florida is America’s resort and not a tropical swamp unfit for human habitation.
The examples usually given are more general “messing with the environment”, e.g. Australia’s introduction of Cane Toads, China’s campaigns to eradicate certain pests, or various silly things the Soviet Union did.
As for mosquitos, I don’t mean not just controlling their populations. I’m talking about eradicating them to extinction, e.g. spreading engineered self destruct genes through the population. That is extremely controversial for some reason.
That’s the point of the article: agriculture allowed the Earth to support a vastly larger human population than it could have otherwise, but at a cost.
Personally I’m more optimistic than the author of the article I linked that the median quality of life of a human on Planet Earth will ultimately exceed the median quality of life of a human on an Earth where agriculture had never been developed—in fact I think there’s a good chance that that’s already the case. But I don’t think it’s completely obvious, for reasons the author describes in detail.
Your claim was that it “remains to be seen” (whether agriculture turned out pretty well). I don’t think it stands. Everything has a cost.
I am aware of the Jared Diamond arguments, but note that they are based on comparison between ancient hunter-gatherers and ancient farmers. Contemporary agriculture is a wee bit different—in particular, note the diversity of food it provides, as well as its ability to deliver food out of local season.
On the obsession with dead ideas.
I’m really skeptical of the idea of “dead ideas”. This was recently discussed on the IRC, in the context of Eugenics. Embryo selection and soon direct genetic modification will be possible. But eugenics has a really bad reputation because it’s associated with Nazism. “It’s been tried!” It’s now one of those dead ideas.
Another example might be messing with the environment. Including eliminating mosquito’s or engineering the climate to lessen the damage of climate change. “It’s been tried!” After all there are many examples of humans interfering with the environment and screwing it up.
Nuclear power is basically a taboo issue because a few previous generation plants have failed in the past. New ones might be much safer, but it doesn’t matter, the subject is off the table.
In general there are very few ideas which “have been proven false by incontrovertible evidence”. The real world is complex and has a lot of variables, and drawing strong conclusions from single historical examples is not rational. Having “dead ideas” is not a desirable thing.
The article’s main beef seems to be with populist politicians. Which I think we can all agree are terrible. Whether or not they happen to support dead ideas is really irrelevant.
Then when the article gets to politicians supporting dead ideas, the examples they give are not dead at all. Not that they are correct, just that they are far from “definitely proven wrong” like nuclear power. E.g. the example of a temporary ban on Muslim immigrants. Now I think you can dispute this morally, but how is this a thing that has been tried and failed before? When has it been tried before, and how did it fail? The article certainly doesn’t provide any citations. The other examples are similarly weak and weakly argued.
Right, the author makes no effort whatsoever to actually argue these points—he only needs to call them “dead” i.e. unfashionable.
Um. Deliberate climate engineering hasn’t been tried, to the best of my knowledge. As to eliminating malaria mosquitos, yes, it has been tried and it was very successful. That’s why Florida is America’s resort and not a tropical swamp unfit for human habitation.
The examples usually given are more general “messing with the environment”, e.g. Australia’s introduction of Cane Toads, China’s campaigns to eradicate certain pests, or various silly things the Soviet Union did.
As for mosquitos, I don’t mean not just controlling their populations. I’m talking about eradicating them to extinction, e.g. spreading engineered self destruct genes through the population. That is extremely controversial for some reason.
You know what’s the most radical “messing with the environment” thing that humans ever did?
It’s called agriculture.
I think it turned out pretty well.
And that reason is unclear to you?
Well, that remains to be seen.
No, I don’t think it remains to be seen.
How large a human population can Earth support without agriculture, do you think?
That’s the point of the article: agriculture allowed the Earth to support a vastly larger human population than it could have otherwise, but at a cost.
Personally I’m more optimistic than the author of the article I linked that the median quality of life of a human on Planet Earth will ultimately exceed the median quality of life of a human on an Earth where agriculture had never been developed—in fact I think there’s a good chance that that’s already the case. But I don’t think it’s completely obvious, for reasons the author describes in detail.
Your claim was that it “remains to be seen” (whether agriculture turned out pretty well). I don’t think it stands. Everything has a cost.
I am aware of the Jared Diamond arguments, but note that they are based on comparison between ancient hunter-gatherers and ancient farmers. Contemporary agriculture is a wee bit different—in particular, note the diversity of food it provides, as well as its ability to deliver food out of local season.