That’s harsh. But I understand your point of view. No, I don’t want to get rid of facts, I want to attach human subjectivity to them as a “preface” or “prelude” before they are presented. It’s the same as doing a “disclosure of conflict of interest” when joining an organisation. In English, you have a saying: “where you sit is where you stand”. That is more profound then it sounds.
In other words, first you disclose what you are afraid of, what are your motives for waving around a fact or another, and then you present said fact. It puts it into a human context and informs the public why you chose to pull out or focus on that fact and not another.
Like I said, there are an infinite number of facts, the reason why we focus on some and not others makes all the difference.
I think what is really sad, in this debate, is that I almost feel as if you want to strip humans from their humanity and transform them into robots. From your point of view, there should be no reason why an Artificial Intelligence which gains self awareness takes the decision, “all things considered in all objectivity, based on all the facts”, to get rid of all of humanity. For instance, it could calculate that since there is a 78,3% probability that humans will end up destroying themselves and take the entire planet’s ecosystem with them, they may as well be killed now.
Don’t forget that we are not machines, we are humans. We have feelings, emotions, we are irrational, it is an inherent part of us. Contrary to you, I can relate to both the climate change activists and the pro-Trump climate deniers, simply because I understand their human motivations and feelings, regardless of how “irrational” they are. It allows to conceive of solutions which are more consensual, like proceeding with a transition to getting rid of fossil fuels, but without pointing fingers, calling people irresponsible, evil idiots, when many of them are simple minded honest workers who have devoted their entire careers to a certain job and are only trying to make ends meet, feed their families, in a political/economic system which offers them no way out (unemployment with no benefits or retraining). Who are you to judge someone who started working in the mid 1970s in the oil industry, when the very concept of climate change didn’t even exist?
Anyways, I invite you, on your own time, to develop a human trait which is more important than rationality: compassion. This does not mean that you necessarily have to approve or agree with a course of action, but that you understand on a deeper level, the reasons for human behaviour, and adapt your argumentation and recommended course of action accordingly. Right now, you are still trying to win. “I’m right, you’re wrong”. You don’t try to find solutions, you point fingers first and call people names: “post-modern” this, “anti-vaccine” that.
I will hand you the “winners” trophy any day. Here. Congratulations. You win. And? What have you gained except to infuriate half of the population which does not reason in the same manner as you? From my side, I understand you, I understand that your intentions are pure. But that comprehension extends to those whom you criticize.
