So, what's wrong with fascism? — Posty McPostface

If you ask this question again, we'll immediately take you outside, push you up against the wall and shoot you. What the heck, your family too, bullets are cheap.

Hmm.... How about the Amish?

I'm not claiming I know a lot about the Amish, or that the Amish are all the same, or that we should all become Amish, but...

They do seem an example of a group of folks who have thought about such things in their own way and bowed out of the knowledge explosion to some degree. They've chosen to keep some of what the knowledge explosion has produced, while declining other aspects. That is, they aren't prisoners of the simplistic "more is better" relationship with knowledge, but have crafted a more nuanced relationship.

At the least the Amish seem a real world example that such choices are available, and don't automatically lead to catastrophe.

Jake, I'm basicly suggesting that there is a third possibility, namely that you thesis might be right AND that there still will not be done a whole lot about it in the short term. — ChatteringMonkey

I can agree with this. My best guess is that little to nothing will be done about it until some epic calamity forces us to face the issue. Or maybe we will never face it, and just race blindly over the cliff.

That said, there is something you and I can do about it, and we are doing it together right now. We aren't in a position to be personally decisive on such a huge historic issue, but we are in a position to expand conversations like this. What is the point of philosophy if it helps us see such threats, and then we do nothing about them?

I'd suggest there could be two purposes for this thread.

1) Help people decide whether they think the thesis is generally correct, or not?

2) For those who vote yes, help organize a constructive response. This could be something as simple as inviting more folks in to this thread, for example.

Now the thesis in your opening post, while it may have it's merits, it deals only with possibities not certainties. — ChatteringMonkey

To bat the ball back over the net, I would argue that thousands of hydrogen bombs poised to erase everything accomplished over the last 500 years is not a possibility, but a well documented real world fact beyond dispute. Again, what I'm describing is not futuristic speculation, but a current reality.

I've had this conversation many times, and it always arrives at about the same place. Intelligent people such as yourself will examine and test the thesis, and often conclude it has some merit. But then they are faced with the fact that intellectual elites and other experts are typically talking about almost everything else in the world except this. This collision between one's own reasoning and the world around us can be disconcerting, disorienting.

I'm basically asking readers to face that we are in a bus careening down a steep mountain road, and there is no bus driver. This is not a vision folks are eager to accept, for very understandable human reasons.

To me, even if we can't do anything about this, it's a fascinating philosophical experience. Who should you believe? Your own reason, or a culture wide group consensus and the experts?

Thank you for the link to Bostrom. I did try to engage with him some time ago but didn't succeed. Perhaps this would be a good time to try again, good idea, thanks.

These are certainly reasonable questions, and I agree that there are some serious issues, but I don't think we have all that much controle over the direction we are heading. The only way is forward it seems to me. Technologies will possibly bring new risks, but possibly also new solutions and ways to manage those risks. — ChatteringMonkey

This seems a pretty good summary of the group consensus, generally speaking. It's this group consensus that I'm attempting to inspect and challenge.

Do we have control over the direction we are heading?

A reasonable argument can be made that knowledge is a force of nature that will take us where ever it will. That's a very real possibility that I recognize, but it doesn't seem that it is in human nature to be defeatist and just wait around for the end to come. We've very confidently tackled and successfully managed many forces of nature, so why not this too?

I would agree that it does seem quite unlikely that we will calmly reason our way to a solution, but we need to also factor in our response to calamity and pain. The group consensus you've articulated exists today because we still think we can get away with giving ourselves more and more and more power without limit. Historic events may challenge that assumption in a profound manner.

The only way is forward it seems to me. — ChatteringMonkey

Well ok, but um, blindly repeating outdated assumptions is not really forward movement, but rather a clinging to the past.

Technologies will possibly bring new risks, but possibly also new solutions and ways to manage those risks. — ChatteringMonkey

And this will work most of the time, but with powers of vast scale, that's no longer good enough.

Again, this isn't futuristic speculation, it's fully true right now. As we speak, we have to successfully manage nuclear weapons every single day, and just one bad day is all it takes to bring the whole system crashing down. As we build ever more technologies of ever larger scale at an ever faster pace, this reality will become ever more true. That's what I'm asking readers to face, the path we are currently on is unsustainable, it's a formula for disaster.

Like you, I don't pretend to have all the answers. The only "answer" I can suggest is that we face these inconvenient questions without blinking, and raise their profile to the degree possible.

WRONG: If the thesis of this thread can be defeated, it should be, because we don't want to go around alarming people for no reason.

RIGHT: If the thesis of this thread can not be defeated, if it is generally found to be true, it really deserves our full attention. It's not going to accomplish anything to build many new amazing tools if they're all just going to be swept away in a coming crash....

Which could literally happen at any moment.

Generally no, I don't think so, mostly for practical reasons. But I would accept exceptions if there are really good arguments to do so. The principal reason is that I don't think the knowledge itself is inherently dangerous, it's the technological applications that can be. — ChatteringMonkey

Ok, but if the knowledge exists and offers some ability to manipulate our environment, isn't somebody going to turn that knowledge in to a technological application? Is there really a dividing line between knowledge and technology in the real world?

Consider atomic research. If I understand correctly, that field began simply as curiosity about how nature works. As the understandings of the atom developed, somebody down the line realized that if the atom could be split that would release enormous energy. And then at some later point The Manhattan Project figured out how to do that, and nuclear weapons and nuclear energy were born.

I just finished watching a documentary on Netflix called The Nuclear Option. It discusses new reactor designs which may be much safer.

https://www.netflix.com/title/80991265

Let's imagine that this works, and that nuclear energy becomes affordable and safe. Assuming this we could then ask...

Was learning how to split the atom worth it?

POSITIVE: Clean safe energy, a major contribution to fighting climate change.

NEGATIVE: Global economy prospers, making more humans, consuming more finite resources, destroying more habit, accelerating species extinction etc.

NEGATIVE: All benefits of science can be erased at the push of a button.

Complicated, eh?

But maybe the biggest problem I have with trying to prevent research is that I don't think it will work. — ChatteringMonkey

Will not preventing some research work? Don't we have to ask this too?

Let's recall the Peter Principle, which suggests that people will tend to be promoted up the chain until they finally reach a job they can't do. Isn't civilization in about that position? If we can't or won't limit knowledge, doesn't that mean that we will keep receiving more and more power until we finally get a power that we can't manage?

Hasn't that already happened?

If I walked around with a loaded gun in my mouth all day everyday would you say that I am successfully managing my firearm just because it hasn't gone off yet? Aren't nuclear weapons a loaded gun in the mouth of modern civilization?

I propose that my concerns are not futuristic speculation, but a pretty accurate description of the current reality.

This is a great discussion, thank you, and please imagine me bowing deeply in your direction.

If you want to prevent certain research... — ChatteringMonkey

Do you want to prevent certain research? A question to one and all...

In my country there is a policy that prevents funding research with direct military applications. — ChatteringMonkey

That's interesting. If you feel you can share the name of your country, please do.

Generally, i would say, people don't really have well-thought out ideas about most issues, including what our policies about research should be. — ChatteringMonkey

Yes, indeed, and that includes me as well. Thus, this thread. The goal here is to generate as much discussion on the topic in as many places as possible from all points of view. I don't propose that this will solve the problem, but it's better than nothing.

I mean, it's a bit of a complex topic to do justice to here in this thread, but I think it's more the other way arround, politicians and policymakers who decide and then convince the public to adopt their views. — ChatteringMonkey

That's surely a reasonable perspective, though I do have personal experience of being part of a small group of about 50 average everyday citizens who changed a major state law, so that can happen. Another example, the current resident of the U.S. White House. The overwhelming majority of political elites on all sides didn't want him to get the job, but the little people decided otherwise (by a minority vote).

All that said, your basic point seems sound. Most of the time most of us don't decide things via reason, but by reference to authority. So for example, even if every word I've typed in this thread were to be proven exactly 100% true :-) that wouldn't accomplish much as I have no authority, nor any talent for acquiring it. Point being, pretty close to nobody is listening to me.

That's a key reason why I hope this thread can attract intellectual elites of various types. Not only does this subject need their intelligence, advanced education, and talent for communicating, it needs the authority they have accumulated.

So my plea to all readers would be, if you have any connections among intellectual elites of any flavor, please consider inviting them in to this thread, or in to similar conversations on your own websites. Any place you can find or generate such conversations is good.

@BrianW, thank you.

death of the entire human species is not a definite outcome of nuclear war — Marcus de Brun

Yes, agreed, not a likely outcome either, imho. I'm referring to the collapse of modern civilization in my concerns. Some would surely survive a nuclear war for example, but probably wish they hadn't.

I'll list my objections to the argument in a more organised manner : — ChatteringMonkey

Thank you ChatteringMonkey, good plan. I've been meaning to break the thesis up in to a series of concise assertions so that readers can more easily tell us where they feel problems exist.

With knowledge however, our relationship to it doesn't really matter, because we, as personal actors, don't produce the knowledge that gives rise to the kind of risks we are talking about. It's only state funded research that does that. — ChatteringMonkey

Ok, but in democracies at least, we are the state, it's our money and our votes which drive the system. Each of us individually has little impact personally, but as a group we decide these questions. If any major changes were to be deployed by governments they would require buy in from the public. Even in dictatorships, the government's room for maneuver is still limited to some degree by what they can get the population to accept.

2. I don't think you have justified the generalisation from one or a few examples, to all of knowledge. I don't disagree with the examples you gave, but as of yet I don't see reasons to conclude that this is necessary the case for all knowledge or even most knowledge. This argument needs to be made, unless you are settling for the less general claim that only some knowledge holds dangers that we should take into account. — ChatteringMonkey

I would surely agree that some forms of new knowledge are more dangerous than others. I'm not arguing we stop learning or go back to the 8th century, so the discriminating calculations you seem to be suggesting are appropriate.

I am arguing against the notion that we should push forward on all fronts as fast as we can, ie. the "more is better" relationship with knowledge.

The situation is admittedly very complicated because of the way one seemingly harmless technology can empower other more dangerous tools. Computers might be an example of this?

If you are settling for the less general claim, then I don't think this is that controversial. Most funding agencies and research organisations allready have advisory and ethical boards that are supposed to look into these issues. — ChatteringMonkey

Yes, agreed, but... Can you cite cases where the science community as a whole has agreed to not learn something? There may be some, we could talk about that.

For example, genetic engineering is rapidly becoming cheaper and easier. What process is going to stop your next door neighbor from someday creating new life forms in his garage? Sure, they will pass laws, but when have laws worked to the degree necessary in cases like this? If legit responsible scientists learn how to do XYZ it's only a matter of time until bad actors, or just stupid careless people, acquire that same knowledge.

You are raising good challenges, thanks for that, keep them coming if you can.

Hi ChatteringMonkey, thanks for engaging.

I agree with the objections raised by other posters. The quoted part is a generalisation that you don't really provide an argument for. — ChatteringMonkey

To keep things tidy, you were referring to this...

It is the vast scale of the powers emerging from the knowledge explosion that makes the historic [progress => mistakes => more progress] process that we are used to obsolete. — Jake

I could likely use help in making the argument clearer. Here's another try.

Let's consider the relationship between conventional explosives and nuclear bombs.

NORMAL SCALE: With conventional explosives we can make big mistakes (ie. WWII) and then clean up the mess, learn from the mistake, and continue with progress. [progress => mistakes => more progress]

VAST SCALE: With nuclear weapons the "clean up the mess", "learn from the mistake" and "continue with progress" parts of the process are removed, at least in the case of war between the major powers. With powers of vast scale the formula is: [perfect management OR death].

Research is funded by countries, and countries are vying for controle and economic gain. — ChatteringMonkey

Yes, this is a huge problem, agreed. As humanity is currently organized, in competitive groupings so often led by power hungry psychopaths, what I'm describing is beyond challenging.

I do doubt that this status quo can be substantially edited through the processes of reason. However, there is another possibility, pain. As example, consider Europe. Even though Europe is the home of Western rationality, Europeans still conducted ceaseless insane war upon each other for centuries. But then the pain of warfare became too great in WWII, and now they are united in peace like never before.

It seems inevitable to me that sooner or later somebody is going to set off a nuke in a big city somewhere in the world. That will be a revolutionary historic event which will bring with it the possibility of revolutionary historic change.

The point being here, that it's not their attitude towards knowledge that is driving their research policies. — ChatteringMonkey

Another good point. Yes, it's their relationship with power, which is what drives our relationship with knowledge. We usually don't pursue knowledge just for itself, but for the power it contains. I like this way of looking at it, as you're helping us dig deeper in to the phenomena. It might be useful to rephrase the question as our "more is better" relationship with power.

Hi Nathan, thanks for joining us.

Jake, your ideas are interesting, but before I buy into them, it would be useful to see some empirical data. — Nathan

First, don't buy in to the ideas, kick the tires as hard as you can. Members would actually be doing me a favor if they could liberate me from this line of thought as it's become an all consuming obsession, which isn't such a great plan if the ideas are incurably flawed.

Next, I hear you about empirical data and studies, but as you know, I'm not the most qualified person to produce that. This issue is way too big for any one person, so I'm hoping that by engaging philosophers, scientists and other intellectual elites we can bring much greater firepower to bear on the issue than any of us could ever provide on our own. So given that you are an academic yourself, I would bounce this ball back in to your court and hope that you might use your connections to engage some of your highly educated peers on this issue, either here, on your blog, or where ever they are willing to engage.

I'll read the links you shared regarding analogy problems, thanks. I do struggle trying to find the best way to express these ideas.

Wow, this is great. Excellent discussion guys! Thank you for that.

I'm pleased to engage with you on this. I didn't intend my initial post to be an objection to your view (and certainly not to the presentation of it here, which I think is written quite nicely). Rather, I was sharing one academic philosopher's take on whether the issue is being discussed in philosophy scholarship as well as what I took to be the plausibility of the view. — Doug

Doug, I hope you will free to comment in any direction your reasoning takes you. I welcome objections and challenges of all kinds. I'm very enthusiastic, but not delicate. I'm posting to receive assistance in uncovering weaknesses in these ideas. And I would very much welcome an introduction to any intellectual elites or others who are addressing these topics.

Knowledge is a broader category than technology, which seems to be a species of knowledge. It seems to me that your view is strongest when applied to technology. But that there are other species of knowledge that don't seem so obviously problematic in the way you suggest. So, it would be interesting to see if you could extend your view to other species of knowledge. For instance, mathematical knowledge. — Doug

Tell me if this helps.

I'm not against knowledge, but am instead arguing for the development of a more mature understanding of our relationship with knowledge and power. I'm really arguing for more knowledge in a particular direction.

The food analogy I referred to in my opening post might help. Obviously food is not bad, but essential. But a "more is better" relationship with food no longer works in an era of food abundance. And so we have to make more sophisticated decisions about what to eat, how much to eat, when to eat etc. Note that this inevitably involves saying no to some food we might like to consume.

If we apply the food analogy to knowledge, we might define the challenge as:

1) how do we understand what knowledge to say no to, and...
2) how do we create a consensus on that decision?

This is a difficult business indeed, because while we divide knowledge in to tidy categories within our minds, in the real world everything is connected to everything else. As example, while mathematical knowledge seems harmless when considered by itself, it is in part mathematical knowledge which makes nuclear weapons possible.

Thank for the link to philpapers. I'm just in the process of discovering it and it does seem the kind of resource I'm asking for. Thanks again for your contributions here.

There are any number of fields where discovery and the progression of knowledge is valuable that seem to me to undermine your concern. — Doug

Doug's sentence above seems a good summary of the objections many or most people would have to the opening post, so let's focus on this a bit.

Everyone understands that the knowledge explosion has brought many benefits, and some problems too. We view the history, decide that the benefits out weigh the problems, and thus conclude the knowledge explosion should continue as it has over the last 500 years. This is a culture wide assumption that is generally taken to be an obvious given, thus the assumption typically doesn't receive much attention.

This cost/benefit analysis was entirely reasonable and rational in the past, prior to the emergence of vast powers with the ability to crash the system. In the new reality we've been living in since say, the 1950's, the old cost/benefit analysis falls apart, is made obsolete. In today's world it doesn't matter if the benefits outweigh the costs 1000 to 1 if the cost is the crashing of modern civilization, because such a crash would erase all the benefits.

In the past, the cost of the knowledge explosion was that various problems would arise that would then have to be understood, fixed and cleaned up. And then progress would continue. This was a reasonable formula because progress always did continue in spite of various problems which arose.

Today, the potential cost of the knowledge explosion includes the end of modern civilization, the end of the knowledge explosion, the end of progress, and the end of an ability to fix our mistakes.

The argument being presented here is that we are attempting to operate from ancient "more is better" assumptions that were long entirely rational, in a new environment that is radically different. Our philosophy is not keeping up with our technology.

The argument is that this failure of our philosophy to adapt to new conditions is the central issue facing modern culture, and that generally speaking intellectual elites are failing to give this situation adequate focus, seeing it instead as one of a thousand issues that might be examined.

Hi Doug, many thanks for your thoughtful reply. I'm delighted that the post on the Cocoon site paid off.

First, yes, of course the piece above can be improved. I see it as a kind of first draft which I am submitting to the group mind for feedback.

However, to argue against what I just said, it seems to me the issue itself is more important than the form of presentation. As example, if I noticed your house was on fire the important thing would be that I said something, and much less how exactly I said it.

I say this because in regards to whether the thesis is true and whether it is being discussed (which you raised on The Philosophers' Cocoon), in the sense (1) the thesis is true (or plausible, at any rate), it is being discussed, and in the sense that (2) the thesis is not being discussed, the thesis is not true. — Doug

Apologies, I don't quite understand you here. If your time permits could you try again?

Yes, I agree the concern I'm expressing has been addressed in regards to particular technologies, for example, genetic engineering.

What I'm not seeing (perhaps because I don't know where to look) is a broader discussion of our relationship with knowledge itself. It seems to me the underlying problem is that we're failing to adapt our "more is better" relationship with knowledge to meet the new environment created by the success of that paradigm. As I see it, we're assuming without much questioning that what has always worked well in the past will continue to work for us in the future, and I don't believe that to be true.

The entire system is only as strong as the weakest link, and human maturity is a very sketchy business indeed. As I noted above, the vast scale of the powers being developed would seem to require greatly enhanced judgment and maturity from us, and it doesn't seem that we can evolve as fast as knowledge and technology can.

As for (2) if you don't intend to limit your point to technology, or applied knowledge, then I don't think your claim is being discussed (though I might be wrong). — Doug

I do have another line of discussion regarding our relationship with knowledge that is probably best discussed in a religion flavored conversation, and I'm not introducing that here so as to not muddle the waters. The first post opens a big enough can of worms for one thread.

Consider whether you think that learning more about mathematics is dangerous. Or, learning more about the oceans. Or how non-human animals experience the world. Or the universe. Or physics. There are any number of fields where discovery and the progression of knowledge is valuable that seem to me to undermine your concern. — Doug

I would argue the following. It's indisputable that the knowledge explosion is delivering too many benefits to begin to list. I agree with this entirely. However, none of that matters if we crash civilization, because then all those benefits will be swept away.

And there is a very real possibility that such a crash will happen, given that the machinery for that unhappy day is already in place, ready to go at the push of a button. Or the next time somebody screws up. In my opinion, the appropriate context for this discussion would be that state of mind we would bring if someone had a gun to our head, because that is literally true.

Finally, and I apologize for this, but I've just come from spending every day for months on a prominent group philosophy blog that publishes every day, where after 2 years nuclear weapons have been mentioned only briefly, and only once, and only after much hounding from me. It's upon that experience and many other similar ones that I'm questioning whether this subject is being adequately addressed by intellectual elites.

Enough from here. Thanks again for engaging and your further comments are most appreciated should your time permit.

The question "does a god exist" typically presumes that there are only two possible answers, yes or no. It presumes that things either exist, or they don't. Let's observe reality to test this presumption.

The overwhelming vast majority of reality from the smallest to largest scales is space. Now let's apply the presumption. Does space exist or not, yes or no?

There is "something" between Earth and Moon or they would be one. But this "something" has none of the properties we would normally associate with existence. It's invisible, has no weight or mass, color or shape etc. Not being a physicist I'm making no claims here other than to suggest the question of existence would seem to be rather more complicated than the simplistic dualistic "yes or no" nature of the question at the heart of the God debate.

We might continue from there to observe that while the paragraph above is basically just common sense available to any thoughtful person, high profile experts on both sides of the God question have been earnestly debating the God question based on the "yes or no" presumption for centuries, a process which continues to this day. Such an observation might cause us to deepen our skepticism of authority, leaving us little other option than to think such things through for ourselves.

Ah, but upon what basis would we do that? If order to think this through for ourselves we would need to reference some methodology which we judge qualified to evaluate the question. So before we do anything else we must first prove that whatever methodology we have chosen is qualified for the task at hand.

If we choose holy books as our methodology, before we dive in to quoting scripture we must first prove that holy books are qualified to deliver credible answers on the very largest of questions. If we choose reason as our methodology, before we dive in to doing logic calculations we must first prove that the poorly developed ability of a single half insane species on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies is capable of developing credible answers regarding the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere (scope of god claims) an arena which that species can not begin to define in even the most basic manner such as size, shape etc.

If one follows this trail in an intellectually honest manner one will likely arrive at the understanding that there is no methodology which can be proven qualified for questions of such enormous scale as god claims. At this point the God debate collapses in on itself and we arrive at the truth, we are ignorant.

And then the useful question becomes, what is our relationship with this asset which we have in such abundance, our ignorance?

My main consideration is turnover-rate actually, and while I have no way of knowing how often the hurt feelings of post removal actually result in the loss of a member (or how much a segregated category for low quality threads would mitigate that pang), retaining one or two members every now and then would add up over-time. — VagabondSpectre

All publications everywhere are limited by the abilities, interests and experience of the editors. On net forums this is particularly true, given that the qualifications for a forum mod are basically only that one be pals with the current mods, and be willing to do a bunch of thankless work for free. So it's routine for 20 year olds who can't drink yet to be making decisions about the writings of people three times their age.

Therefore it is not unfair to ask, what are the credentials of the moderator? — Marcus de Brun

It's a fair question, but the answer is, someone willing to do the work for free. Point being, net forums are a "worth what we paid for it" experience, and we have to be realistic about what is possible.

Thanks Baden, appreciate the kind words, same to ya.

Regarding staying or leaving, here's a thought experiment which may assist that calculation.

I'll go set up a forum, and then you come spend a day of your time helping me build it for free. Then, when one of my more hysterical members accuses you of genocide using _repeated_ misrepresentations of your ideas as evidence, I'll erase all your work without warning, explanation, or apology. So, will you be coming back tomorrow to invest another day of your time in to entertaining my members at your own expense?

In the above hypothetical, what actions would I need to take to persuade you to return and keep on helping me build my forum for free?

I can't find the discussion. Looks like it was deleted. — T Clark

Yes, that appears to be the case. Ok T Clark, you win, congratulations dude. The forum gets to have you instead of me.

I'm gone guys, adios, good luck, and thanks to those of you who filled my thread with intelligent comments and challenges.

shows a deep contempt for men but who refuses to discuss it's implications. — T Clark

1) No where in my posts have I expressed a deep contempt for men. I have instead specifically said I'd be happy for men to remain if the problem of violence could be solved by some method other than my proposal.

2) I have hardly refused to discuss the implications of my proposal, given that roughly half of the posts in the thread you are referring to are mine, and I've replied to as many people and posts as I can without becoming a total thread hog.

It is my understanding that Jake's intention is that the program would not be voluntary. Women will not be allowed to mate with men. Men will not be allowed to mate with women — T Clark

3) I said none of this either.

What you're all wound up about is that I'm not taking you seriously, and that's because you make up stuff out of your imagination and then argue against it as if somebody other than you had actually said it.

But in the spirit of cooperation, let's make a deal. I'll stay out of this thread clearing the field for you to conduct your holy jihad unmolested by reason, and in return perhaps you could stop clogging the thread I started with your imaginative reading of other people's posts.

As long as we were dependent on horsepower and the firepower of cannons firing mere projectiles, we were protected by the limits of our grasp. — BitterCrank

BitterCrank has summed up my perspective pretty well. To expand on that a bit...

The last century was characterized by a knowledge explosion which gave us two things.

1) Many wondrous miracles, too many to list.

2) An extremely efficient method for erasing all the miracles.

I expect more of that is coming, just at a faster pace. More miracles, and more technologies capable of crashing civilization.

We probably can't even imagine many of the coming miracles, just as those of us who grew up in the 60's couldn't have imagined the impact the Internet would have. A lot of very cool new things are surely coming.

On the other hand, the state of civilization will become increasingly fragile. As is the case with nuclear weapons, every technology with the power to crash civilization will have to be successfully managed every day forever. A single failure a single time with a single power of this scale will result in game over, at least for centuries to come. There's really little in the record of human history to suggest such a record of perfection is possible.

The scale of these coming powers is what to focus on, because that's what erases room for error. In the past we could charge ahead at full speed, make mistakes, clean up the mess, and then continue charging. WWII comes to mind as a good example of this.

What's really interesting, and fairly terrifying, is that everyone has basically known all of the above since Hiroshima in 1945, and yet we keep acting as if nothing has changed. We keep gathering knowledge as fast as we possibly can. We keep reaching for as much power as we can possibly get. We keep pushing, pushing, pushing ever deeper in to a process which is going to end our ability to make mistakes and then clean up the mess.

After discussing this for about a decade, I've come to this conclusion (for now). Our best hope may be to have some kind of epic calamity that is big enough to wake us up, but not big enough to kill us. As example, a limited regional nuclear war. Or maybe even a single detonation.

There really isn't much evidence that we're going to be able to reason our way out of obsolete patterns of the past. We're probably going to have to hit some wall with a loud bang, much like the drunk who refuses treatment until he finally kills someone while drunk driving.

It seems to me there will be a lot of luck involved. If we have the small chaos before the big chaos, we might learn and adapt. If the big chaos comes first, well, game over, no adapting possible.