James Lovelock at 100: the Gaia saga continues

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01969-y

by sohkamyung • 7 years ago

49 26 7 years ago

ThalesX• 7 years ago

I dislike being the pessimist but it seems overly optimist to imagine this singularity coming and undoing all of mankind’s harm... and I can imagine how someome at his age would embrace this view that surely, soon, automagically everything will be in order.

How long till we attain singularity? I believe another of his liftime and we’ll still be far away from true self-replicating GAI. I also believe climate change will transform our way of living long before that.

What will be it’s primary purpose? I don’t know, it’s definitely not going to be built to enrich mankind.

I like his view and I hope he is right but I believe the ‘singularity’ will solve how to further enrich its makes long before it solves the planet’s ailments.

ptah3• 7 years ago

yes, i think the singularity would be in mankind's image i.e. post-industrial capitalist consumerist

zeristor3• 7 years ago

Singularity is becoming a religion, like the say The Rapture for nerds.

Technology is seldom the bottleneck, that seemingly is down to social acceptance.

Things used to progress by people dying out, however enhanced lifespan makes this even more of a problem.

Emigration to new societies helped, but there’s no where left to go with a clean sheet.

Whilst a fan of space colonies, that looks to be even more complex than when life moved from the sea to land.

So herding rabid cats seems to be the core skill.

zeristor3• 7 years ago

The rabid cats herding was a bit glib in my part, consensus is hard to come by, but valuable. With so many different points of contention though it’s almost to get agreement across the board; a statespace explosion.

Several hundred years ago the main question was which crop to grow.

eb3c90• 7 years ago

So herding rabid cats seems to be the core skill.

Cat herding only makes sense if you have an idea of what should be done. Herding for the sake of keeping everyone 'on the same page' can be harmful. If you are trying to get a consensus this will squash small ideas before they have had a chance to prove themselves. Sometimes space and non-management is needed for things to sprout.

mehh• 7 years ago

"The Rapture for nerds" class!

carapace• 7 years ago

Technologically the singularity has already happened. It's not evenly distributed yet.

We have artificial nitrogen fertilizer. Since it's invention we have been converting oil into human biomass. As a side-effect there has been an acceleration of science and technology.

We have split the atom, we have automated thought, we read and write DNA, our words and images circle the globe in an instant. The singularity has already happened.

We just have to notice and calm down. We actually have all the answers and solutions we need already, the issue is purely psychological or spiritual now.

sien• 7 years ago

His views on nuclear power are interesting. He thinks that nuclear is the only real solution to climate change.

http://www.jameslovelock.org/nuclear-power-is-the-only-green...

DennisP2• 7 years ago

James Hansen agrees. In his book Storms of My Grandchildren he advocates two solutions: fee-and-dividend, and advanced nuclear power. Various other climate scientists are on board too.

mac01021• 7 years ago

I agree too, but I'm not sure I'm comfortable holding expertise in climate science up as evidence that one knows best when it comes to such policy decisions.

I'm an expert at automation. That means I have an excellent sense of what tasks can be automated and how soon, and of a lot of the societal consequences of technological progress, but that doesn't automatically qualify me to choose the best public policy to prevent the associated loss of jobs or help the people who get unemployed as a result.

davidgl• 7 years ago

I've always found the xkcd log scale picture very compelling when it comes to nuclear power - https://www.xkcd.com/1162/

ptah3• 7 years ago

that makes me doubt him as he obviously doesn't factor in the enormous difficulty of nuclear waste. nuclear energy is not green at all. EDIT: Also that was in 2004 and things have moved on massively since then

johnr2• 7 years ago

"he obviously doesn't factor in the enormous difficulty of nuclear waste"

Scientist that he is, I very much doubt that he didn't factor it in. (You may disagree with his conclusions).

acidburnNSA• 7 years ago

Nuclear engineer here. What specifically do you consider the enormous difficulty of nuclear waste to actually be? Technical issues? Political? Both?

I see it as a well-understood technical problem with well-reasoned technical solutions. But the politics of "what so we do with the waste?" are basically self-sustaining now.

Sahhaese• 7 years ago

That was published 2004, I'd be interested to hear if that's still the case given the 10x cost decrease in photovoltaic panels since then.

vbuwivbiu• 7 years ago

Everyone of his generation loves nuclear. It was the hottest thing back then. Makes me wonder what todays generations will be advocating which their children will have to deal with

olivermarks• 7 years ago

Intersting how far his position has changed since the romantic Gaia ideas

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/09/james-lovelock-on-voting...

James Lovelock at 100: the Gaia saga continues

Related Stories