Well, he’s ridiculing the fact that everything we have setup for governance is, in fact, made up. I don’t see why that’s pompous.
I know his tweets tend to be a bit too pedantic for certain topics, but that is his persona. He is one of the few peopeople responsible for this generation finding science cool. He’s allowed that much.
If you close your eyes and imagine a future Star Trek utopia, are you still imagining borders? It’s a pretty standard opinion that borders are an outcropping of our worse natures and should eventually be left behind.
Borders are absolutely in the star Trek utopia. Everything has borders. What we do about those borders is the difference.
Each quadrant, solar system, etc has borders. These are even more arbitrary as the current state, county, and country borders across our world tend to follow natural terrain or longitude and latitude. None of these exist in space. But the quadrant borders are as easy to cross as for me to drive to my next US state. However, the Kardassian border is not so easy to cross, just like it’s not so easy for me to cross into North Korea.
Borders are not the inherent issue here. Conflict is the inherent issue, and borders are how we try to minimize that conflict.
They should really issue some sort of identification showing to which quadrant you belong so that friendly quadrants will accept you as a visitor with open arms.
Agreed he can be pompous but I think since he’s an astronomer he is making the point that if you were in space and looked at earth you would wonder why are there borders
There are heaps of examples of those that aren’t political borders, though. I live between a river and some mountains. The other side of the river is another county but still the same country, and the other side of the nearest mountains isn’t even another county. Egypt is on both sides of the Nile and also on both sides of the Africa-Asia border, Russia is on both sides of the Urals and the Europe-Asia border (wherever you draw it, if you draw it at all), America is on both sides of the Rockies and so on
Part of the other side of the river is Mexico, another part is New Mexico, the nearest mountains have Texas on both sides—it just happened to also fit your description. Kind of wild that there is a part of Scotland that has the same unusual artificial and natural barriers.
Because it turns out sociology, anthropology and politics also exist.
If you were in space and looked at Earth you wouldn’t see any people.
EDIT: Crap, someone is going to point out that you can see lights at night, aren’t they? This thread is for pedants and now I’ve started a conversation about biomarkers you can see from orbit.
The whole point is that it doesn’t have to be this way. We can change it if we wanted to, we are participants of sociology anthropology and politics. Oh well social constructs
Yeah, but that’s my point. There’s a tendency, particularly on STEM people, but also on your average normies, to think that “social constructs” aren’t “real”. This is a very bad take that often causes a lot of problems.
Ofc it’s real. Money is a construct and it’s real.
But what we made creates so much suffering and takes lives away. That’s just not necessary.
And ofc changing it will probably take some power away from the previliged, that’s the point. Ideally we want everyone to be satisfied, but not when there’s still people dying of starvation.
I don’t know that I claimed it’d take power away from the privileged. If I had to make an educated guess, the idea that “it’s a social construct so we can change it” tends to lead to proposing easy solutions to complicated problems that only work if we all agree they work.
They normally don’t work.
And if the people proposing them are powerful enough to get convinced that all they need to do is force everybody to agree with them regardless it often ends in tears.
Hell, catch me in a good day I’ll tell you changing natural realities is easier than changing social constructs. On par at best, and nature at least won’t argue about it.
Proposing easy solution to complicate problems is never my point.
My point is we can stop actively reinforcing the construct that hurts people, or at least be open to be more lenient about it. And see where that leads us to. We don’t want to just drop in a complete new construct and have everyone agree to it, I don’t think that’s even possible. But change in a direction we want to and let the rest develop naturally, just like how we developed the current system.
Obviously it’s not easy, it’s complicated as you said. But the current system requires active reinforcement. Doing a little less is a whole lot better than doing more to hurt.
This dude really is a pompous ass sometimes.
What about this tweet reads as pompous to you?
“If everyone was as wise as me, I wouldn’t suffer this tiresome charade”
Well, he’s ridiculing the fact that everything we have setup for governance is, in fact, made up. I don’t see why that’s pompous. I know his tweets tend to be a bit too pedantic for certain topics, but that is his persona. He is one of the few peopeople responsible for this generation finding science cool. He’s allowed that much.
It’s sophomoric.
If you close your eyes and imagine a future Star Trek utopia, are you still imagining borders? It’s a pretty standard opinion that borders are an outcropping of our worse natures and should eventually be left behind.
Borders are absolutely in the star Trek utopia. Everything has borders. What we do about those borders is the difference.
Each quadrant, solar system, etc has borders. These are even more arbitrary as the current state, county, and country borders across our world tend to follow natural terrain or longitude and latitude. None of these exist in space. But the quadrant borders are as easy to cross as for me to drive to my next US state. However, the Kardassian border is not so easy to cross, just like it’s not so easy for me to cross into North Korea.
Borders are not the inherent issue here. Conflict is the inherent issue, and borders are how we try to minimize that conflict.
They should really issue some sort of identification showing to which quadrant you belong so that friendly quadrants will accept you as a visitor with open arms.
Agreed he can be pompous but I think since he’s an astronomer he is making the point that if you were in space and looked at earth you would wonder why are there borders
You know continents, rivers and mountain ranges exist?
Your point is?
Earth is beautiful!
There are heaps of examples of those that aren’t political borders, though. I live between a river and some mountains. The other side of the river is another county but still the same country, and the other side of the nearest mountains isn’t even another county. Egypt is on both sides of the Nile and also on both sides of the Africa-Asia border, Russia is on both sides of the Urals and the Europe-Asia border (wherever you draw it, if you draw it at all), America is on both sides of the Rockies and so on
El Paso?
No, I’m in Scotland. Isn’t the other side of the river from El Paso across the Mexican border anyway?
Part of the other side of the river is Mexico, another part is New Mexico, the nearest mountains have Texas on both sides—it just happened to also fit your description. Kind of wild that there is a part of Scotland that has the same unusual artificial and natural barriers.
Because it turns out sociology, anthropology and politics also exist.
If you were in space and looked at Earth you wouldn’t see any people.
EDIT: Crap, someone is going to point out that you can see lights at night, aren’t they? This thread is for pedants and now I’ve started a conversation about biomarkers you can see from orbit.
You probably would though, there are no single manned space missions far as I know.
I’m going to point out that you edited without editing.
Next level pedantry.
The whole point is that it doesn’t have to be this way. We can change it if we wanted to, we are participants of sociology anthropology and politics. Oh well social constructs
Yeah, but that’s my point. There’s a tendency, particularly on STEM people, but also on your average normies, to think that “social constructs” aren’t “real”. This is a very bad take that often causes a lot of problems.
Ofc it’s real. Money is a construct and it’s real.
But what we made creates so much suffering and takes lives away. That’s just not necessary. And ofc changing it will probably take some power away from the previliged, that’s the point. Ideally we want everyone to be satisfied, but not when there’s still people dying of starvation.
I don’t know that I claimed it’d take power away from the privileged. If I had to make an educated guess, the idea that “it’s a social construct so we can change it” tends to lead to proposing easy solutions to complicated problems that only work if we all agree they work.
They normally don’t work.
And if the people proposing them are powerful enough to get convinced that all they need to do is force everybody to agree with them regardless it often ends in tears.
Hell, catch me in a good day I’ll tell you changing natural realities is easier than changing social constructs. On par at best, and nature at least won’t argue about it.
Proposing easy solution to complicate problems is never my point.
My point is we can stop actively reinforcing the construct that hurts people, or at least be open to be more lenient about it. And see where that leads us to. We don’t want to just drop in a complete new construct and have everyone agree to it, I don’t think that’s even possible. But change in a direction we want to and let the rest develop naturally, just like how we developed the current system.
Obviously it’s not easy, it’s complicated as you said. But the current system requires active reinforcement. Doing a little less is a whole lot better than doing more to hurt.
But you can see lights on the dark side!!
To judge others so, you must be the personification of kindness and benevolence. Surely?