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is better” relationship with knowledge which is the foundation of science and our modern civilization is simplistic, outdated and increasingly dangerous.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.
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.