This article will argue that the “more is better” relationship with knowledge which is the foundation of science and our modern civilization is simplistic, outdated and increasingly dangerous.
Are you serious here on this site? It's hard to tell for me (not particularly here on this page, but the whole story about creating world peace by creating a society of only women). There is a wild variation in what people are convinced of and this is in the realm of where I can no longer discern spoofs from serious convictions. Too far out.
The politics section is a silly spoof, with a few serious points woven in here and there. I'm completely serious about the nukes and world peace sections of the blog.
Yes, the "world without men" idea is far beyond the current status quo, agreed. I'm exploring such controversial ideas because conventional, normal "realistic" thinking is not working in making this a safe planet for us to live on. Those ideas which everyone considers reasonable don't work, as proven by the thousands of massive hydrogen bombs aimed down our throats.
Should you choose to read through the world peace articles and have any questions, please let me know. Have a good one!
What I think needs to happen is that we all come to grips that humans aren't really that intelligent in an absolute sense, and what one can hope for / work at is to see if we can culturally accept this so we can create a society based on our limitations. The chances of that happening are close to zilch, though. See also https://ea.rna.nl/2022/10/24/on-the-psychology-of-architecture-and-the-architecture-of-psychology/
Okay Phil, you are two for two. This is your 2nd essay I read and enjoyed this also. My take on what you are discussing comes down to asymmetry. I am a lover of sci-fi. If I imagine the evolution of a top of the food chain animal elsewhere, what might we have in common? I imagine using the analogy of Earth, things like religion, Kings and hierarchies allow the top of food chain animal to accumulate knowledge and not broadly distributed the fruits as has occurred here. What the information explosion does is create asymmetry. One serf could never rise up. The availability of incredibly powerful technology becomes cheaper and cheaper and drives to zero cost. Think of the Vegas shooter. Think of the IED. Think of a world where the most impoverished of places like North Korea deploys nuclear weapons. The price to entry for an individual to disrupt a way of life also shifts exponentially. Perhaps this is the ultimate challenge of an advanced technology society. Once advanced technology that can be applied to harm exists, that society needs to change to more equitably distribute its goods out of survival. This might be the hardest of things for an inherently selfish animal programmed to survive in times of scarcity to do. One contrarian explanation of why it is hard for an ultra-advanced society to survive.
You make good points Mark. Yes, individuals and small actors are increasingly empowered to do damage to the larger society.
You write, "This might be the hardest of things for an inherently selfish animal programmed to survive in times of scarcity to do."
Well said. Yes, the drivers of these behaviors goes back to before we were even human.
As best I can tell, we're going to need some tragic real world event(s) to make any real progress on this. We experience all the above as an abstraction now, and that just isn't sufficient to generate real change.
Thanks for your kind words Phil. I worked for a scientific company for part of my career. Even in the 1980s there was the beginning of the awareness of how difficult asymmetry could be to an organized society. The challenge mostly is those near the top are unwilling to change. Exponential growth and its consequences lend belief that even once it becomes obvious change must occur, the growth rate will have made such an action too late.
It is estimated the 9/11 plot was executed for $500K at the absolute high limit. The costs incurred are estimated around 35B$. Economically this is 70,000 times the damage. Asymmetry has been rising for a long time. It may just be a property of a top of food-chain selfish animal. We live in a UNIQUE PERIOD as knowledge accumulation now has technical underpinnings that allow exponential growth. The problem with exponentials is our hierarchical structured thought processes cannot grasp them.
Are you serious here on this site? It's hard to tell for me (not particularly here on this page, but the whole story about creating world peace by creating a society of only women). There is a wild variation in what people are convinced of and this is in the realm of where I can no longer discern spoofs from serious convictions. Too far out.
Hi Gerben, thanks for stopping by.
The politics section is a silly spoof, with a few serious points woven in here and there. I'm completely serious about the nukes and world peace sections of the blog.
Yes, the "world without men" idea is far beyond the current status quo, agreed. I'm exploring such controversial ideas because conventional, normal "realistic" thinking is not working in making this a safe planet for us to live on. Those ideas which everyone considers reasonable don't work, as proven by the thousands of massive hydrogen bombs aimed down our throats.
Should you choose to read through the world peace articles and have any questions, please let me know. Have a good one!
What I think needs to happen is that we all come to grips that humans aren't really that intelligent in an absolute sense, and what one can hope for / work at is to see if we can culturally accept this so we can create a society based on our limitations. The chances of that happening are close to zilch, though. See also https://ea.rna.nl/2022/10/24/on-the-psychology-of-architecture-and-the-architecture-of-psychology/
Good comment! Completely agree, we need a society which sees our limitations realistically. Here's one attempt:
https://www.tannytalk.com/p/our-relationship-with-knowledge
I also agree the chances of this happening are currently zilch. But today's status quo can change very rapidly in response to real world events.
I do not think limiting knowledge is the answer (apart from there being no humane way to do this).
We face a choice between violent men and the knowledge explosion. We can have either, but not both.
Okay Phil, you are two for two. This is your 2nd essay I read and enjoyed this also. My take on what you are discussing comes down to asymmetry. I am a lover of sci-fi. If I imagine the evolution of a top of the food chain animal elsewhere, what might we have in common? I imagine using the analogy of Earth, things like religion, Kings and hierarchies allow the top of food chain animal to accumulate knowledge and not broadly distributed the fruits as has occurred here. What the information explosion does is create asymmetry. One serf could never rise up. The availability of incredibly powerful technology becomes cheaper and cheaper and drives to zero cost. Think of the Vegas shooter. Think of the IED. Think of a world where the most impoverished of places like North Korea deploys nuclear weapons. The price to entry for an individual to disrupt a way of life also shifts exponentially. Perhaps this is the ultimate challenge of an advanced technology society. Once advanced technology that can be applied to harm exists, that society needs to change to more equitably distribute its goods out of survival. This might be the hardest of things for an inherently selfish animal programmed to survive in times of scarcity to do. One contrarian explanation of why it is hard for an ultra-advanced society to survive.
You make good points Mark. Yes, individuals and small actors are increasingly empowered to do damage to the larger society.
You write, "This might be the hardest of things for an inherently selfish animal programmed to survive in times of scarcity to do."
Well said. Yes, the drivers of these behaviors goes back to before we were even human.
As best I can tell, we're going to need some tragic real world event(s) to make any real progress on this. We experience all the above as an abstraction now, and that just isn't sufficient to generate real change.
Thanks for your kind words Phil. I worked for a scientific company for part of my career. Even in the 1980s there was the beginning of the awareness of how difficult asymmetry could be to an organized society. The challenge mostly is those near the top are unwilling to change. Exponential growth and its consequences lend belief that even once it becomes obvious change must occur, the growth rate will have made such an action too late.
It is estimated the 9/11 plot was executed for $500K at the absolute high limit. The costs incurred are estimated around 35B$. Economically this is 70,000 times the damage. Asymmetry has been rising for a long time. It may just be a property of a top of food-chain selfish animal. We live in a UNIQUE PERIOD as knowledge accumulation now has technical underpinnings that allow exponential growth. The problem with exponentials is our hierarchical structured thought processes cannot grasp them.