[augment001]

Clinging to dogma isn't a strategy either.

If we're trading catchphrases, here's one I prefer:

"In times of change learners inherit the earth while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists." - Eric Hoffer.

That said, I'd prefer it if someone addressed the point, which is that the analysis of what's possible dates from an earlier technological era.

If the contention is that technology doesn't change what's possible in society and that society will always be the way it is was for most of the 20th century, I think we can safely ignore that.

[than3]

Nice try, dogma has nothing to do with studying outcomes, and dogma isn't what we're talking about.

The contention is if history has gone through multiple and innumerable cycles and has ended up at the same outcome multiple times before, given an infinite number of potential outcomes, there must be common principles that led to the clustering at that outcome.

If you choose to ignore what those conveniently documented outcomes were and by extension what led to them, can you exercise any reasonable control over something you have no knowledge of?

Would the statement, "This time will be different, have any credibility if you have no control or knowledge of the issues?

Everyone at some point will say anyone, anything, and nothing, and what is said will likely be less true than not true when it is not backed with support.

Rational and rigorous approaches from first principles lend credibility to something being potentially more true than not, and by the law of approximation we can improve these approches over time until we eventually get to the point of it being true.

Wouldn't you say its better to be true, than not true if you want to succeed and live?

[augment001]

> The contention is if history has gone through multiple and innumerable cycles and has ended up at the same outcome multiple times before.

The first problem is that this is simply a false premise. Very few people would make such a claim, and none can back it up with evidence.

The second is that you still seem to think that technological change has no impact on history.

[than3]

Its not a false premise, there has been many anthropological studies that form the basis for catastrophism, extinction and a changing earth, they have been backed up with evidence for hundreds of years.

To claim otherwise is simply discounting a large body of scientific work which is highly credible and supported, how can you claim doing so is credible in any way?

The second is just putting words in my mouth, I have no idea how you could possibly come to that conclusion about what I think based off our short conversation here.

I never said it, I never inferred it, it looks to me simply like a psychological projection you've made of something you think, Largely because I don't believe that in the slightest. Not in the slightest, and no rational person would.

So can you clarify 'specifically' what I said that made you think that?

[augment001]

> Its not a false premise, there has been many anthropological studies that form the basis for catastrophism, extinction and a changing earth, they have been backed up with evidence for hundreds of years.

Did these past catastrophes involve AI and computers?