Recent comments in /f/Futurology

Test19s OP t1_jdiskzk wrote

Reply to comment by jfcarr in What do you see as outlooks for trade, tourism, and immigration in the coming decade? by Test19s

Mass immigration between continents is something I really hope we can make work. I’ll never accept the possibility that national culture/ethnic makeup matters except to the extent that it reflects political and mass-media influences. The last time Western and Northern Europeans were convinced of their superiority, we saw the rise of literally the worst civilization since the fall of the Aztecs.

0

jfcarr t1_jdirjot wrote

Reply to What do you see as outlooks for trade, tourism, and immigration in the coming decade? by Test19s

The pandemic supply chain crisis and the Ukraine conflict are already causing a shift in trade towards local/regional sources when possible. Mexico and parts of the Southern US are posed to take over a lot of mid-level manufacturing from China so far as North American markets go. Closer to home substitute raw materials are being sought out. Then there's the rapid demographic collapse in China and other countries that will also push this trend. Also, the US is trending towards being less inclined, perhaps even less capable, to maintain/enforce the globalization status quo militarily.

Tourism outside of one's immediate region was already becoming a rich persons' game. I do think that we will see an increasing income inequality divide here where "climate taxes" and other similar techniques will be used to restrict tourist travel by low and middle class people while the wealthy continue to fly private jets to Gstaad or Fiji with impunity.

The demographic collapse will drive some immigration that will be needed to fill in worker ranks at all levels of education. Canada and Australia are examples of this trend as are some countries in Europe. Countries, like China, that restrict immigration in the face of demographic collapse will suffer. In the US and Mexico, immigration issues may be resolved by finding equitable and agreeable ways to end the drug and human trafficking trade along the border (ie not a wall or military force).

1

FuturologyBot t1_jdirg7p wrote

Reply to An ESA advisory committee has recommended Europe should independently develop its own space station when the ISS retires, and develop its own lunar base independently of NASA's Artemis plans. by lughnasadh

The following submission statement was provided by /u/lughnasadh:

Submission Statement

"Europe should design and implement a European Space Mission to establish an independent European presence in Earth orbit, lunar orbit, on the Moon, and beyond, including a European Commercial LEO Station, Cargo and Crew Capabilities for the Gateway and the Moon, and sustained presence on the lunar surface."

It's worth noting although this comes from ESA's own self-appointed advisory group, we don't know how much of its recommendations will be followed. However, ESA Director General Josef Aschbacher has been talking lately about the need for big changes at ESA.

The full report is a 21 page PDF, available here.

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/120ro0k/an_esa_advisory_committee_has_recommended_europe/jdimnf3/

1

s1L3nCe_wb OP t1_jdiousi wrote

Reply to comment by El_duderino_33 in Could AI be the key to overcoming ideological polarization? by s1L3nCe_wb

But my point is that the agent that will be doing the effort of genuinely trying to understand your ideas/values/beliefs would not be human in this case; it would be an AI, which is precisely why I think this could work substantially better than the average human exchange of ideas.

When a debate emerges, most people are accustomed to take a confrontational approach to the conversation, where the external agent or agents are trying to disprove your point and you try to defend yourself by either defending your point and/or disproving their point. But when the external agent invests its time in fully understanding the point you are trying to make, the tone of the conversation changes dramatically because the objective is entirely different.

My main point regarding the human aspect of this discussion is that when we show real interest in understanding a point someone is making, the quality of the interaction changes dramatically (in a good way). And, like I said, in my line of work I've seen this happen very often. Maybe that's why I'm more hopeful than the average person when it comes to this subject.

1

wired1984 t1_jdinmu6 wrote

Reply to Could AI be the key to overcoming ideological polarization? by s1L3nCe_wb

One thing I think people keep underestimating with new transformative technologies like this is how they will change people’s relationships with their environments, their peers, and their identities. Rather than trying to smooth pre-existing fault lines, AI seems more likely to create new additional ones as well, and perhaps create need for new public to private social contracts altogether. The politics of that is likely to be chaotic.

2

lughnasadh OP t1_jdimnf3 wrote

Reply to An ESA advisory committee has recommended Europe should independently develop its own space station when the ISS retires, and develop its own lunar base independently of NASA's Artemis plans. by lughnasadh

Submission Statement

"Europe should design and implement a European Space Mission to establish an independent European presence in Earth orbit, lunar orbit, on the Moon, and beyond, including a European Commercial LEO Station, Cargo and Crew Capabilities for the Gateway and the Moon, and sustained presence on the lunar surface."

It's worth noting although this comes from ESA's own self-appointed advisory group, we don't know how much of its recommendations will be followed. However, ESA Director General Josef Aschbacher has been talking lately about the need for big changes at ESA.

The full report is a 21 page PDF, available here.

10

El_duderino_33 t1_jdilzpx wrote

Reply to comment by s1L3nCe_wb in Could AI be the key to overcoming ideological polarization? by s1L3nCe_wb

Yes, your idea is good, the problem would not be the AI model. The problem would be the same as the one we have now, the people.

You're falling to the common misconception that the majority of other people must think in a way similar to you. Unfortunately for society, from your post's description, your willingness to entertain other view points already makes you a fairly rare individual.

This line:

"I chose to make an genuine effort to understand the rationale behind their beliefs"

Good on you, that's wise, but it's not common. The part where you had to make an effort to understand is what's gonna trip up a lot of folks.

tldr; you can lead a horse to water... cliche sums up my post

2