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.

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.

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.

- 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.

No we don't.

End of me reading this paper.

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

0. https://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/papers/moral.html

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36901885

2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10673055

Could I have that in a smaller size, please?

I’m less puzzled now.

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.

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.

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

But my bias remains, I don’t like his defeatist attitude.