Cosmism — Bret Bernhoft
With that said, there will be resistance to these developments. Entire swaths of the population, including individuals in high leaderships roles, will stop at nothing to prevent this from happening. As they are motivated by rather techno-pessimistic religions and/or worldviews. — Bret Bernhoft
Your concerns are widely held, understandable and must never be merely hand waved away.
It is up to those in the know, and those who 'investigate' and monitor and report, to inform us all, of all clear and present dangers. — universeness
But it is also your responsibility and my responsibility, to be determined, to be as active as we can be, in playing as significant a role as we can, as part of or/and a support for, that hopefully overwhelming, set of checks and balances that our history makes crystal clear, are so absolutely essential to our species becoming a net positive force, on this planet and in this universe. — universeness
How about. We are each either part of the problems or part of the solutions.
I think the human race can become a net positive. Each human can help or hinder that goal.
This is a general statement, yes. — universeness
To give a specific statement, we would need to focus on a single current issue. We have already done so on this thread. I think a techno religion of any form is unwelcome and would be more of a negative that a positive. Do you agree? — universeness
Well, as a general statement I’d generally agree, but ‘part of the problem or the solution’ is a bit absolute (cut and dried) and perhaps authoritarian (?) for my taste. — 0 thru 9
No apology required. Most people will have similar thoughts. For me, the answer is 'we the people,' decide and/or those we democratically elect to represent us, and submit themselves to all checks and balances, that 'we the people' deem necessary, based on the historical databases of examples we have built up, since 'civilisation' began as a human goal. The criteria is whatever 'we the people,' decide it is, but that 'we,'must be a well informed majority of all stakeholders, and not a poorly educated, poorly informed, mostly duped mass of people, who can't even take their basic means of survival for granted.Who decides? What are the criteria?
(Ah, the pesky details… sorry. ) — 0 thru 9
I think we are talking past each other on this point. Yes, I agree, focus on one issue at a time and/or multitask where and when you are able to.But why focus on one issue? This one above all? Or focus on one issue at a time? Ok… — 0 thru 9
I don't think such an approach was ever, or is ever, wise, and I certainly don't advocate for it.To assume an overall ‘tech neutrality’, or technology’s benign character that is ’evolving naturally of its own accord’, is no longer wise or really even an option. — 0 thru 9
Me too, but I also don't advocate for a luddite approach to tech, or initially seeing all tech advances as evil, because of a knee-jerk reaction against probable initial job losses amongst humans, or the idea that AI overlordship is inevitable. Auto systems also have the potential to free humans from certain daily toils, and allow economic parity for all. We just have to stop the nefarious b******* from claiming all its benefits for themselves.I am concerned about a passive, non-skeptical ‘religious’ attitude towards Tech that asks for faith, total belief, and patience. — 0 thru 9
Good, well done! I think that is called being politically and socially aware.I’m even more concerned about who’s driving the chariot?
Who’s in charge, and where are we going, and why? — 0 thru 9
As I mentioned above, tech can be used to control and contain us, but it also makes it harder for the bigshits to hide and operate without criticism and pushback. — 0 thru 9
But religions an spiritualities are already zombifying people anyway. If anything, I see a convergence between what you call "techno-optimistic religion" and existing religions/spiritualities.[image of meditating robot] — Bret Bernhoft
But religions an spiritualities are already zombifying people anyway. — baker
Religious/spiritual people seem to be "free" to you? Free of what? Free to do what?It is just -let's say - a pathway to a free state of mind. — javi2541997
Sure.Whether you like it or not, there will always be the necessity to believe in something. Far away from what we are all able to perceive or understand.
Do you really think that religion or spirituality deprive people from energy? — javi2541997
Whether you like it or not, there will always be the necessity to believe in something. — javi2541997
Well, as a general statement I’d generally agree, but ‘part of the problem or the solution’ is a bit absolute (cut and dried) and perhaps authoritarian (?) for my taste.
— 0 thru 9
Only if you take such a statement as offering a binary choice, and ignore all of the intended range of possibilities, that realpolitik tends to reveal. — universeness
I am concerned about a passive, non-skeptical ‘religious’ attitude towards Tech that asks for faith, total belief, and patience.
— 0 thru 9
Me too, but I also don't advocate for a luddite approach to tech, or initially seeing all tech advances as evil, because of a knee-jerk reaction against probable initial job losses amongst humans, or the idea that AI overlordship is inevitable. Auto systems also have the potential to free humans from certain daily toils, and allow economic parity for all. We just have to stop the nefarious b******* from claiming all its benefits for themselves. — universeness
Who decides? What are the criteria?
(Ah, the pesky details… sorry. )
— 0 thru 9
No apology required. Most people will have similar thoughts. For me, the answer is 'we the people,' decide and/or those we democratically elect to represent us, and submit themselves to all checks and balances, that 'we the people' deem necessary, based on the historical databases of examples we have built up, since 'civilisation' began as a human goal. The criteria is whatever 'we the people,' decide it is, but that 'we,'must be a well informed majority of all stakeholders, and not a poorly educated, poorly informed, mostly duped mass of people, who can't even take their basic means of survival for granted. — universeness
As much as consumerism, alcohol, tobacco, drugs, pornography, or TV do to the youth. Who are we to judge people who want to redeem themselves? I searched for the definition of zombifying, and Google says: Deprive of energy and vitality. She will stare zombified on TV for 20 minutes.
Do you really think that religion or spirituality deprive people from energy? I don't think so. It is just -let's say - a pathway to a free state of mind. Whether you like it or not, there will always be the necessity to believe in something. Far away from what we are all able to perceive or understand. — javi2541997
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.