Yes, I'm against it, for physical and psychological reasons.

Entropy is a fundamental law of the universe, so ultimately any non world-denying spirituality can only be tragic.

And psychologically a techno-utopia wouldn't even be desirable. We can only thrive if we have some challenges to overcome... this is how we grow as people.

It's the latest incarnation of plain old gnosticism, that promisses that the material world can be overcome for some truer ideal world. And that's a pernicious lie, because mind does in fact not rule over matter... faith in it could eventually destroy the natural world in an impossible attempt to attain its ideal.

It's fantasy. That robot meditation image is grotesque. Here's an anecdote - Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha, pursued an arduous form of ascetic meditation for six years in the wilderness. During this time, he nearly starved to death =- there's a class of Buddhist iconography which depicts him in this form, practically skeletal.




According to legend, he was at death's door on the bank of a river when a milk-maiden noticed his emaciated condition and provided him with curdled milk (yoghurt) which, to all intents, prevented him dying. It was after that episode that he realised the futility of extreme asceticism and went on to realise Nirvāṇa to free to himself from continual re-birth in saṃsāra, which is what he went on to teach for 45 years.

Gnosticism was also a severly ascetic movement in the early Christian period. The Gnostics saw the world as a prison, created by an evil demiurge, which they identified with the God of the Old Testament. They believed that through severing all desires and renouncing all human relationships, they could escape the prison of worldly existence and return to the Pleroma.

Neither would be of much interest to the technofuturist, I imagine. But what that kind of tech will provide is endless variety of imagery, synthetic experiences, and sensual pleasure, including incredible sexual adventures. Just don't confuse it with anything spiritual.

"I have no idea" because what you describe, Bret, does not make any sense to me. Post-singularity ubiquitous smart nanotech seems more likely to transform planetary civilization into a Global Experience Machine^ (à la "The Matrix" or wireheading^^) than to enable hedonic beings to somehow "transcend" (or to religiously seek "transcendence from") being hedonic.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_machine ^

https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/wireheading ^^

No no no no no! No more woo woo! I personally, assign a high credence level, to the idea that AGI will 'eventually,' prove to be more supportive and symbiotic to the flourishing, enhancement and growth of the human species, than possibly any other scientific breakthrough we have hitherto made. We will need at least AGI, to become a viable extraterrestrial species, but we don't need to further infect our species with new variants of theistic twaddle.

:100:

Like money, technology is good servant. Like domesticated animals, technology can be a good teammate. Neither would make a suitable master, let alone object of awe and reverence.
On the whole, I think reason is a better guide to living well than spirituality.

:fire:

There seem to be too many religions already. The world doesn't need any more new religions.

Cosmism — Bret Bernhoft

I don’t find the idea of a techno-optimistic religion either realistic or enticing, but I’m glad you started this discussion, because it prompted me to look into Russian cosmism, a weird spiritual-philosophical-scientific movement from the 19th and early 20th centuries. Some argue that it was cosmism that influenced the use of cosmonaut instead of astronaut (although there’s no particular reason why they should have chosen astro- anyway).

One cosmist was Alexander Bogdanov, a Bolshevik revolutionary who later formed a breakaway party independent of Lenin’s governing faction in the 1920s. He was a physician who experimented with rejuvenation by means of blood transfusions, hoping to attain eternal life, participated in politics, developed an early version of systems theory, and wrote a science fiction novel about a communist utopia on Mars, Red Star, which heavily influenced Kim Stanley Robinson’s Mars trilogy.

The tone of some cosmism seems to be similar to your modern techno-optimism, though of course the technological focus has changed.

I thought that technology worship (technophilia?) has been the prevalent worldview for years, no?
It’s not a religion, but that’s exactly its appeal: being so casual, unstuffy, and accessible.
Anyone can be a fanboy, drooling over the latest gadget that will make onlookers fall to their knees in ecstasy.

Even the ordinary person can bow their head in communion with their smartphone and hear the wisdom sent directly to their ears via earbuds.
In high towers, the elite consult cryptic pages to foretell if the new phone should have 5 cameras, or only 4; while in a dusty basement, a believer sacrifices a old HP desktop computer for good fortune.

And all over the planet, the huddled and hungry masses await the guidance that AI will lead us into the promised land called “The Future”, where we can finally enjoy simply being alive.

I think the big difference is that a technophile does not consider technology to be supernatural.

They also don't 'worship' such, in the ways demonstrated by religions, nor do they suggest that tech demonstrates or will ever demonstrate any of the 4 omnis.

A technophile also does not dictate moral edicts, regarding how humans must live, based on the claimed revealed word of tech (as compared to god), dictated to ancient or current prophets of tech (as compared to god) and then further warn all humans that they will burn in hell for eternity, if they don't comply with such tech (as opposed to god) dictated moral law.

The post was meant to be satire, sorry if it was too broad or amateurish.
But anyway the point of my post is that Tech is the dominant ‘worldview’ (NOT a religion :snicker: ).

Some may play the victim (martyr?) and say that Science is in actual danger from religious zealots.
Science may get some bruises, but Tech rules uber all… it even rules over the religious mob, except for the dwindling few still living in the desert eating locusts and using snail mail.

One could list differences of Tech to Religion for days, of course, just as one could imagine some humorous or interesting similarities.

:up: Thanks for your clarifications.

:victory: :smile:

But to elaborate on my techno-skepticism…
The sheer physical fact of the living planet being turned into ‘stuff’ at an exponentially increasing (and unsustainable) rate is reason enough for pause and wondering if science can discover a more efficient way…

The suspicion that the Billionaires view and use Tech as the ultimate way to control, contain, monitor, and sedate the mob of people unofficially under their power is sometimes difficult to avoid for some cynics.

As a rule of thumb I am generally against any kind of institutional organisation.

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

There's a lot of techno-pessimism, as in The Lord of the Rings, which is along the lines of a contemporary epic. Contrast that with Bladerunner, the protagonist of which is probably a robot, but doesn't know that he is. I'd guess that if a new global religion appeared, it would contain both elements: pro and con. Religions that provide a forum for conflicting values have ideological dynamism. In other words, they provide something valuable in the form of a clear common ground.

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.
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.

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

Excellent, thanks! :up:

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

Sorry, this sentence is reaching for a conclusion, but seems too general and vague (?) to me.
Could you please reword it if possible?

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. 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?

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

Thank you for clarifying. :up:
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.
Who decides? What are the criteria?
(Ah, the pesky details… sorry. )

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

But why focus on one issue? This one above all? Or focus on one issue at a time? Ok…
I am concerned about a passive, non-skeptical ‘religious’ attitude towards Tech that asks for faith, total belief, and patience. (Because the crucial breakthrough is ‘just around the corner!’ and then we will be cruising down easy street on robot power, or something).

I’m even more concerned about who’s driving the chariot?
Who’s in charge, and where are we going, and why?
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.
Every tech advancement helps us, but it help the Rulers even more.
Until that fact changes, my skepticism remains.

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.

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

I will be the technopope, so you can breath easy. :naughty:

Are you against the formation of a techno-optimistic religion?

So long as the devotees tolerate my techo-pessimistic sentiments, and they don't make me flagellate myself or others, or humiliate me for not being able to do math problems, and let me go outside sometimes, and let me be the bell ringer. It's not like I feel I have any control over my life now. I could just as well be an indebted brick maker (slave laborer) in Pakistan, had I not the courage to free myself.

Imagine AI telling me that euthanasia is an opportunity to change myself for the better. So long as it doesn't mandate it, ok. Does it do my thinking for me, by hidden carrots I cannot see?

Nature does what nature does, no matter how awful it appears. AGI just seems like a gift of weapons ("thanks mother nature") for the masters of the universe to have an arms race with, for power over others/resources, at great cost to the stability, harmony, simplicity of life on earth.

Something may rise from the ashes, but it may require our ashes in the mix.

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.

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.

But why focus on one issue? This one above all? Or focus on one issue at a time? Ok… — 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.

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

I don't think such an approach was ever, or is ever, wise, and I certainly don't advocate for it.

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.

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

Good, well done! I think that is called being politically and socially aware.

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

I agree.

[image of meditating robot] — Bret Bernhoft

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.

But religions an spiritualities are already zombifying people anyway. — baker

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. For example: 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.

It is just -let's say - a pathway to a free state of mind. — javi2541997

Religious/spiritual people seem to be "free" to you? Free of what? Free to do what?

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.

Sure.

Do you really think that religion or spirituality deprive people from energy? — javi2541997

Wel, religion has been called the opiate of the masses by no less than Marx - meaning that it may effectively stunt people's critical faculties and prevent them from trying to improve the current world (on the basis that the next one will be magnificent). Many people who embrace religions do see the world through a very limited and doctrinaire lens which is its own form of zombification.

Whether you like it or not, there will always be the necessity to believe in something. — javi2541997

Not sure that really means very much. What is 'something'? The issue with a belief is whether is is useful or true or good. Not just any belief will do. :wink:

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

But that’s how you worded it. Either / or. And that’s an invitation for purging the dissenters and foot-draggers.

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

Thanks for not actually calling me a “luddite” lol (which sounds like ‘troglodyte’ :monkey: ), but what you wrote amounts to a polite way of labeling a critical stance towards capitalist-funded tech as being evil-fearing techno-phobe.
You do not speak like a skeptic of anything related to Tech or the owners of such.
Back to binary choices… agree with our sketchy vision of Technotopia or be labeled as a suspicious and superstitious machine-smashing grunt.
I don’t hate or fear technology for this is how we live now of course.

The promise of ‘machines doing the work for us’ is a double-edged sword: they replaced humans and either put them out of work, or weakened their position.
How can “auto systems… allow economic parity for all”? Please back that claim up with something substantial or unfortunately it seems hollow at best.

If you wanted to link to a previous post of yours, or to an article that shows this vision and its possibilities, I will honestly read it with an open mind.

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

We need more than “checks and balances” to defeat the “nefarious few” (as you aptly call them).
Been there, done that: they have gamed the system until their wallets overflowed.
I’m not asking for specifics on how to defeat the 1% and pry the remote control out of their cold dead hand lol. I don’t know either.

But as a very general direction saying “we the people” comes through as a platitude in a rote political speech.
Personally, it sounds like an afterthought to a plan already drawn up, or a rationalization for it.
We as a people are NOT the stakeholders now, if we ever were, and things are moving in the wrong direction.

You seem to be asking for a lot of faith in this system you are describing, and trust in Elon Musk and like visionaries.
Basically, it is the capitalist status quo in hip new clothes.

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

:smile: :up: Well said.

Patriotism may be the ‘last refuge of the scoundrel’ (as the saying goes), but having an absolutist, inflexible, and literalist stance on any religion or spiritual belief is a close second, in my very humble opinion.