This was one of the best discussions I've heard in a while. Really on another level. Thank you so much for making this happen.. THE DEMOCRATIZATION OF INFORMATION, PEOPLE!!!!!
if anyone's read Deutsch's book, the beginning of infinity, and buys into it's premise, then I'm sure they'll find this discussion as frustrating as i did. David is talking about infinite human progress. many of the others are talking about short term parochial issues, more or often than not, with some tedious lefty political bias.
Andy Williams He does more than that. He also discusses the fundamental flaw in assuming that the future is knowable. Or the flaw in assuming that the future will resemble the past
Understood, although those messy 'parochial issues' are often exactly what _stands in the way_ of the Future and Human Progress... becoming what David Deutsch calls "the enemies of Civilization", including the sorta petty Tribalism that _requires_ Ideological and Political enemies (including 'lefties'). "Humans are a Tribal species struggling to become a Global one." -American biologist, naturalist, and writer *_E. O. Wilson_*
6:53 why civilizations going the wrong direction led to us not being in the stars 7:50 why anything is possible with the right knowledge 10:15 enemies of civilization who resist changes in their ideas 31:00 On Deutsch’s optimism principle
The clarity of argument from David compared to the others is levels above. Most of the guests meandered around the same ‘well the truth is usually somewhere in the middle you know?’, and almost all alluded to more government regulation. The only guest speaker with anything interesting to say was Chiara Marletto, who brought the discussion back to the fundamentals of knowledge, and also happens to be a close colleague of David.
+u_dun_goofed Sorry for the delay! You can download the podcast from our Soundcloud account: soundcloud.com/the_rsa/optimism-knowledge-and-the-future-of-enlightenment
42:05 Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos has since been banned by US health regulators from operating in that industry. And have been sued for fraud by regulators, including the US Securities and Exchange Commission. In March 2018 she was barred from serving as an officer or director of a public company for 10 years.
37:30 The pessimist may be the educated optimist, but the enlightened pessimist is a moral pragmatist. «Our virtues are most frequently but vices in disguise» -Francois de La Rochefoucauld, 1678. Put yourself in positions where your vices become virtues.
This is a Note: Now an insetting point about instruction. Is that in a way, we can revers eager the logic of the Genome in such a way that the actuates species can be recreated. 31:00 Islam comment.
I can't help but think about the huge contrast between this conversation, and third world people who live on dirt floors and don't have food to eat. How about if we use all the money to help these people raise from the dirt and teach them skills so we don't have to develop machines to perform the work humans can do. Help them so they can raise and work their own land and grow food to eat.
Deutsch's answer to the question about Islamic terrorism was correct, but evasive. The underlying issue was pretty clear, and it's clear to me why Deutsch's answer makes sense, but that's because I have read his books. His answer wasn't detailed or exhaustive enough.
Martin Rees: We already know what needs to be done we just need the political will to do it. We don’t need to create more wealth, just redistribute the existing wealth. This is the closed minded way of thinking that lead to the most atrocities of the twentieth century.
+Igor Krupitsky Just because communism failed doesnt mean that all attempts to redistribution will be a catatrofic failure. It has come to an extreme point when bailing out banks is more accepted than giving money to the poor. Sweden where I live have historically had very high taxes and wealth distribution compared to other countries and from that we have benefittet from low levels of all the social problems related to high inequality. A littre redistribution of wealth wont atomatically lead to gulags, death camps and fascist dictatorships. Im just talking about a society where you dont become homeless when you lose your job, where your access to education is not limited by how rich your parents are and where healthcare is given to you regardless of how much money you have.
+ItsameAlex After the economic reforms of 1990’s, the economy of Sweden is much freer than those on the political left would lead you to believe. The Heritage Foundation ranks counties by economic freedom. Sweden ranks 23 and Australia ranks 30. Sweden ranks better than US on Property rights, Monetary, Trade, Investment and Financial Freedoms. So becoming more like Sweden for US means: bank deregulation,privatization of social security and more outsourcing. The economy of Sweden is about the size of North Carolina (around $0.5T). The welfare programs do not scale well. So any arguments for Sweden’s welfare state should be applicable at the small state level. Also how many immigrated from US to Sweden (around 20K)? How many emigrated from Sweden to US (over a million)? People immigrate to Sweden mostly because they cannot move to US or Canada.
+Martin Hallén Yes, attempts to redistribution do not always lead to catastrophic failures. Only sometimes. Wealth redistribution undermines the economic incentives. The economic growth and opportunities means more world poor that all of the government welfare programs put together. We should be forward-looking and to do everything possible to expedite human progress not obsess about dividing what we already have.
+Martin Hallén You guys are both correct. Complete wealth redistribution is a recipe for disaster, but most western civilization already have partial wealth redistribution happening. Free markets with taxation to create a minimum floor for all citizens is the direction we've chosen. There is a balance that must be struck. It must work within a nation's means. Anything beyond that is killing the golden goose. With technology advancing and making day to day needs more and more automated and cheap to supply, a society where people work to better themselves instead of just to survive is a realistic goal. Those who wish to accumulate more wealth can do so (while giving some back to society) and those who want to spend their days living modestly but being philosophers or painters can do so as well. As long as none are starving in the street or denied basic needs we're doing alright. The jealous fits of wanting everyone to be the same is an immature road to certain poverty for all.
I would like to hear Deustch argue against benatar's antinatalism. Deutsch himself seems to be indifferent to this problem, which if Banatar is correct, then Deutsch's optimism is seriously defective, because it includes non-extinction.
The two non-panel speakers got equal time. Why and who are they. Why not just put them on the panel?!!! I fast forward through this. Pretty bad structure. The panelists had no interaction.
Well once thing I disagree with Deutsch in the last bit, that we can just sign up to something other than Facebook, implies that there is a choice in the first place. But the problem is that monopolies don't allow this choice.
Pessimism of the intellect and optimism of the will is a pretentious way of saying plan for the worst hope for the best. He just wanted to plug Gramsci for some reason.
The Bible defines Atheist in a couple ways.. 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. Romans 1:21-22 KJV 14 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. Psalm 14:1 KJV 2 Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts. Proverbs 21:2
I really like Deutsch, but he's wrong..it's not a question of technology but of timing..he mentioned the Athenians and it serves to warn us that although our technology will, if we survive, will permit our salvation, it will only be through the benefit of hindsight..as his example so readily shows
Gringohuevon He said it was a matter of knowledge, not technology. If civilization fails, it will be because they failed to create the knowledge necessary to survive.
Deutsch credits way too much power to knowledge. To achieve his vision we need not just more epistemic speed than the opposers of "civilization" but also WISDOM. Neoliberals have already proven brain power alone does not lead to social stability and sustained prosperity for all, in due measure. We will need compassion, universal justice, attenuation of greed and prejudice, otherwise more knowledge will tend to exacerbate inequalities.
Bijou Smith Wisdom IS a certain kind of knowledge. So is compassion and justice. The problem with your objection to Deutsch is that you have misunderstood his argument.
brilliant David Deutsch, damn
This was one of the best discussions I've heard in a while. Really on another level. Thank you so much for making this happen.. THE DEMOCRATIZATION OF INFORMATION, PEOPLE!!!!!
Is the brain a democratic entity?
if anyone's read Deutsch's book, the beginning of infinity, and buys into it's premise, then I'm sure they'll find this discussion as frustrating as i did. David is talking about infinite human progress. many of the others are talking about short term parochial issues, more or often than not, with some tedious lefty political bias.
Andy Williams absolutely true
Andy Williams absolutely true
Andy Williams absolutely true
Andy Williams He does more than that. He also discusses the fundamental flaw in assuming that the future is knowable. Or the flaw in assuming that the future will resemble the past
Understood, although those messy 'parochial issues' are often exactly what _stands in the way_ of the Future and Human Progress... becoming what David Deutsch calls "the enemies of Civilization", including the sorta petty Tribalism that _requires_ Ideological and Political enemies (including 'lefties').
"Humans are a Tribal species struggling to become a Global one." -American biologist, naturalist, and writer *_E. O. Wilson_*
The best intervention of David Deutsch that I had the partial pleaser to listen to.
6:53 why civilizations going the wrong direction led to us not being in the stars
7:50 why anything is possible with the right knowledge
10:15 enemies of civilization who resist changes in their ideas
31:00 On Deutsch’s optimism principle
Thank you for sharing.
Such a wonderful discussion.
The clarity of argument from David compared to the others is levels above.
Most of the guests meandered around the same ‘well the truth is usually somewhere in the middle you know?’, and almost all alluded to more government regulation.
The only guest speaker with anything interesting to say was Chiara Marletto, who brought the discussion back to the fundamentals of knowledge, and also happens to be a close colleague of David.
This interview reminded my that even experts don't have all the answers.
Is there a podcast version I can listen to on my commute (mp3 format)?
+u_dun_goofed Sorry for the delay! You can download the podcast from our Soundcloud account: soundcloud.com/the_rsa/optimism-knowledge-and-the-future-of-enlightenment
Martin said he’d conclude his opening statement about 5 times before he did.
42:05 Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos has since been banned by US health regulators from operating in that industry. And have been sued for fraud by regulators, including the US Securities and Exchange Commission. In March 2018 she was barred from serving as an officer or director of a public company for 10 years.
26:37
bookmark for myself, please ignore.
37:30 The pessimist may be the educated optimist, but the enlightened pessimist is a moral pragmatist. «Our virtues are most frequently but vices in disguise» -Francois de La Rochefoucauld, 1678. Put yourself in positions where your vices become virtues.
The format for this discussion was immensely frustrating, why not let both of them answer each question?
This is a Note:
Now an insetting point about instruction. Is that in a way, we can revers eager the logic of the Genome in such a way that the actuates species can be recreated.
31:00 Islam comment.
I can't help but think about the huge contrast between this conversation, and third world people who live on dirt floors and don't have food to eat. How about if we use all the money to help these people raise from the dirt and teach them skills so we don't have to develop machines to perform the work humans can do. Help them so they can raise and work their own land and grow food to eat.
Deutsch's answer to the question about Islamic terrorism was correct, but evasive. The underlying issue was pretty clear, and it's clear to me why Deutsch's answer makes sense, but that's because I have read his books. His answer wasn't detailed or exhaustive enough.
All religions are but a glitch in human evolution.
Martin Rees: We already know what needs to be done we just need the political will to do it. We don’t need to create more wealth, just redistribute the existing wealth. This is the closed minded way of thinking that lead to the most atrocities of the twentieth century.
+Igor Krupitsky Just because communism failed doesnt mean that all attempts to redistribution will be a catatrofic failure. It has come to an extreme point when bailing out banks is more accepted than giving money to the poor.
Sweden where I live have historically had very high taxes and wealth distribution compared to other countries and from that we have benefittet from low levels of all the social problems related to high inequality.
A littre redistribution of wealth wont atomatically lead to gulags, death camps and fascist dictatorships. Im just talking about a society where you dont become homeless when you lose your job, where your access to education is not limited by how rich your parents are and where healthcare is given to you regardless of how much money you have.
+Igor Krupitsky Sweden?
+ItsameAlex After the economic reforms of 1990’s, the economy of Sweden is much freer than those on the political left would lead you to believe. The Heritage Foundation ranks counties by economic freedom. Sweden ranks 23 and Australia ranks 30. Sweden ranks better than US on Property rights, Monetary, Trade, Investment and Financial Freedoms. So becoming more like Sweden for US means: bank deregulation,privatization of social security and more outsourcing.
The economy of Sweden is about the size of North Carolina (around $0.5T). The welfare programs do not scale well. So any arguments for Sweden’s welfare state should be applicable at the small state level.
Also how many immigrated from US to Sweden (around 20K)? How many emigrated from Sweden to US (over a million)? People immigrate to Sweden mostly because they cannot move to US or Canada.
+Martin Hallén Yes, attempts to redistribution do not always lead to catastrophic failures. Only sometimes.
Wealth redistribution undermines the economic incentives. The economic growth and opportunities means more world poor that all of the government welfare programs put together. We should be forward-looking and to do everything possible to expedite human progress not obsess about dividing what we already have.
+Martin Hallén You guys are both correct. Complete wealth redistribution is a recipe for disaster, but most western civilization already have partial wealth redistribution happening. Free markets with taxation to create a minimum floor for all citizens is the direction we've chosen. There is a balance that must be struck. It must work within a nation's means. Anything beyond that is killing the golden goose.
With technology advancing and making day to day needs more and more automated and cheap to supply, a society where people work to better themselves instead of just to survive is a realistic goal. Those who wish to accumulate more wealth can do so (while giving some back to society) and those who want to spend their days living modestly but being philosophers or painters can do so as well. As long as none are starving in the street or denied basic needs we're doing alright.
The jealous fits of wanting everyone to be the same is an immature road to certain poverty for all.
I would like to hear Deustch argue against benatar's antinatalism. Deutsch himself seems to be indifferent to this problem, which if Banatar is correct, then Deutsch's optimism is seriously defective, because it includes non-extinction.
The two non-panel speakers got equal time. Why and who are they. Why not just put them on the panel?!!! I fast forward through this.
Pretty bad structure. The panelists had no interaction.
Don’t understand why they keep bringing on random people to share their opinions. I just want to hear David destroy Martin
Well once thing I disagree with Deutsch in the last bit, that we can just sign up to something other than Facebook, implies that there is a choice in the first place. But the problem is that monopolies don't allow this choice.
Is facebook a necessity?
How about blockchains then, and going trustless 🤔?
Theranos....
Русский
Pessimism of the intellect and optimism of the will is a pretentious way of saying plan for the worst hope for the best. He just wanted to plug Gramsci for some reason.
The Bible defines Atheist in a couple ways..
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.
Romans 1:21-22 KJV
14 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14:1 KJV
2 Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts.
Proverbs 21:2
A bunch of nonsense that was written by fools.
David and Martin look like aliens disguising themselves under human skin. It's like they got it 99% right, but that 1% makes it obvious.
Reza Asslan = A pathological liar = A turd in the punch bowl
This moderator is a classic butterface.
I really like Deutsch, but he's wrong..it's not a question of technology but of timing..he mentioned the Athenians and it serves to warn us that although our technology will, if we survive, will permit our salvation, it will only be through the benefit of hindsight..as his example so readily shows
Gringohuevon He said it was a matter of knowledge, not technology. If civilization fails, it will be because they failed to create the knowledge necessary to survive.
Deutsch credits way too much power to knowledge. To achieve his vision we need not just more epistemic speed than the opposers of "civilization" but also WISDOM. Neoliberals have already proven brain power alone does not lead to social stability and sustained prosperity for all, in due measure. We will need compassion, universal justice, attenuation of greed and prejudice, otherwise more knowledge will tend to exacerbate inequalities.
Bijou Smith Wisdom IS a certain kind of knowledge. So is compassion and justice. The problem with your objection to Deutsch is that you have misunderstood his argument.
Neil Mcintosh you cm be wise without knowing anything? Good luck with that