- Helping, in Rogaway’s sense, means refusing both neutrality and despair. Collapse is not an excuse for nihilism; there are still objective ways to help, even if they’re costly and uncertain. That looks like rejecting work that accelerates surveillance, extraction, or environmental damage; pushing back inside institutions; redirecting skills toward public-interest, climate, or civic work; and engaging politically rather than hiding behind technical detachment.
The harder question Rogaway implicitly raises is not what should be done but how many of us actually have the disposition to accept the blood, toil, tears, and sweat required to fight, rather than retreating into comfort, irony, or resignation. Technical excellence is abundant; moral endurance is not.
by tomaytotomato
7 subcomments
- I think its a pessimistic outlook and I agree with the sentiment, but then I switch back to objectively how humanity has been historically and how far we have come, I can't stop thinking, "wow".
Being in my 30s I remember Y2K, OZone layer diminishing and a rogue comet coming to wipe out humanity, but it didn't. This is survivor bias just like the examples in the lecture around wildfires and Covid are surely survivor bias too.
My wife does not like when I solve problems instead of just acknowledge the problem and say "that's a shame/sad/terrible", but I can't help it, we as engineers are wired to do solve problems, not just acknowledge them.
Think of the Dog poo dilemma - most people will just point and say, "terrible someone has let their dog poo there". Then proceed to carry on with their day. My engineer brain says lets pick up the poo and then look at solutions to stop it happening again.
So when a crises happens I know there are lots of smarter men and women in my field and other areas, who won't just get sad about an issue and instead will start working their brains on the problem.
The apocalypse is delayed, permanently.
by grunder_advice
18 subcomments
- Pretty much all western countries are experiencing a crisis of democracy. It seems to me that the biggest contributor to this is the vulnerability of the electorate. It seems to me that it has become possible to hijack the minds of individuals with sustained propaganda campaigns.
You have individuals who at best completely a BSc in Business Studies, and you are asking them to decide on COVID or climate change. That by itself is a hard ask. Then you infiltrate their content consumption habits and you bombard them with propaganda. And then these people are asked to decide on the future of the nation. This of course only compounds on the natural divisions that are already present within the electorate.
I'm not immune from this, and neither are you.
I don't know what the solutions should be and how CS graduates in particular can help.
It just seems to me that we haven't developed enough on a social level to deal with these challenges.
- I predict that in 25 years (or 50 or 100):
- human society will be even richer, more prosperous and more technologically advanced
- people will still be desperately worrying that this is a time of crisis and collapse
Let's see.
- I studied computer science and worked in and around software for a good 20+ years. Then I slowly started realizing how apolitical almost everyone around me in software was. I was fortunate to have had other influences and interests beyond CS, but it seemed like others didn't think much about society or politics, beyond how "great" everything could be made with tech.
I started gravitating out of the software bubble. First, I decided not to work for any company that is directly responsible for things like fossil fuel or finances. Then, away from anything that had to do with incentivizing irresponsible consumption. After a while I realized that it was extremely hard to find any job doing software that was not detrimental in general to the people or the planet. It's sad, but most people don't think about the global consequences of their jobs, or don't want to think much about it.
These days I only work in tech-related projects when it's about supporting social organizations get their (digital) shit together, moving to open source alternatives or understanding how to deal with things like LLM/AIs.
It is ethically almost impossible for me to work again for 99% of software companies.
by albertdessaint
0 subcomment
- In time of despair, I like to remember what Albert Camus said about being a rebel What is a rebel? A man who says no, but whose refusal does not imply a renunciation. He is also a man who says yes, from the moment he makes his first gesture of rebellion.
- "We stand today at the brink of civilizational and envi-
ronmental collapse."
No we don't.
End of me reading this paper.
by RugnirViking
1 subcomments
- Excellent paper. I didn't read through the whole thing, but I do wonder what kind of course this is - I can imagine depending on the venue I might be frustrated to sit through a lecture of this type even though i'm sympathetic to the view if it were say my professors last lecture before an exam I were stressed about.
But I think the idea that its good that time is made for reflection in such a place is positive. I also think it assumes a lot of views on behalf of the listener that maybe it doesnt do enough to establish (that we are indeed in such a crisis) - but I also see the apocalpytic imagery such as the annual wildfires that I haven't experienced so maybe where the talk is being given its easier to assume listeners share that view
by 1970-01-01
1 subcomments
- What we needed, and still need, is mandatory time for all working citizens to be directly involved in federal government decisions. Something like jury duty for our national democracy. Yes, this does mean reducing one's freedom, but the benefits far outweigh seeing everything atrophy and collapse.
- > We stand today at the brink of civilizational and environmental collapse.
Could I have that in a smaller size, please?
by morgengold
0 subcomment
- What if we do not fight back because deep down we hate the current state of affairs? So why fighting to preserve this?
- When reading about the multiple civil wars in the modern history of my wife’s native country I was really stumped by the formation of liberal and conservative “camps”. Basically the country was halved by people who detested and feared the other half - despite the foundational difference of opinion being largely invented.
I’m less puzzled now.
by msuniverse2026
0 subcomment
- Sorry but you can't critique the problem using the same mode of consciousness that creates it.
Computer science and university in general trains consciousness to see reality as decomposable into discrete, manipulable units. It's the systematic cultivation of a particular relationship to existence. Students graduate with powerful analytical tools and withered organs for perceiving meaning and life.
- I enjoy a good whine about how it is all going wrong as much as the next person, but this is a piece of academic arrogance. He's way outside his area of specialisation and his advice seems to be either trivial or bad.
If we just go through the suggestions he makes (slide 35 of 34) - some things that jump out is that life has always been "fucked up" for all of history for pretty much everyone. It isn't a pretence that things are normal, for everyone outside a fairly well off privileged class of professionals that is what normal looks like. The anti-innovation points are not being intellectually honest about the vast improvements in quality and quantity of life that have been driven by innovation. And the "pretence of disinterested scholarship" is a just a too controversial. People are allowed - in a moral sense - to figure out what is true without having their motivations cross examined and having to preconceive every possible implication of their work. Truth is a worthy goal in and of itself.
And for heavens sake, getting arrested or heading to the mountains is just crazy advice. That isn't what he did, he got a good job and spent his time teaching people. I'd watch what he does, not what he says on that one.
- The modern alarmist environmentalist projections have even less plausible basis in any kind of science (compared to e.g. IPCC ones [1]) than the Population Bomb et al. Let's hope their moral panic doesn't inspire genocidal policies like Indian forced sterilizations and One Child policy.
We live in the age of unparalleled prosperity, as displayed in part on one of the first slides, human vs wild biomass. Just like with their forebears, framing it as a bad thing in the very beginning really betrays the fundamentally anti-human nature of the modern environmentalists.
"Corporate capitalism" is part of the package that delivered said prosperity; "social media", "surveillance" is just people making choices that old man yelling at cloud disagrees with - like, I am totally with him on privacy, but most people don't care about privacy, and unlike him I do not think I have the right to decide for them.
Just like Paul Ehrlich et al, these people are delusional and truly evil.
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/ipcc-scenarios
- [dead]
- [flagged]
by huge_rank_rat
0 subcomment
- yeah but meta pays me an OBSCENE AMOUNT of money to literally farm the minds of the vulnerable, so I la-la-la can't hearrrr youuuuu
- Nihilistic garbage lecture, that is my first opinion.
On the other hand, he could have intended the exaggerated pessimistic outlook, to spur into action.
But my bias remains, I don’t like his defeatist attitude.
Hacker News