Maybe. I do think the climate is pretty screwed, but at the same time there’s developments in play that even a few years ago I wouldn’t have been expecting within my lifetime.
It’s really too early to call how this all plays out ultimately.
As an ancient group claiming we are a future recreation of a long dead original humanity had said, “Have you found the beginning, then, that you are looking for the end? You see, the end will be where the beginning is.”
We may be heading for an end of many things, but we are also watching a beginning take form, and it seems to my eye to be a bit of a race between the collective environmental debts we’ve racked up and the advancement of a true game changer that might take what seems inevitable and turn it on its head.
What I would say is that I think people doing really bad shit in the world right now are in for a serious surprise within a generation. It’s going to be increasingly hard to keep skeletons in closets and even the most powerful people in the world today may not still be on top of the food chain by tomorrow.
I too am skeptical we escape the catastrophe of climate change - but I think the path to that end may yet have some promising twists and turns along the way.
Interesting take. I‘m interested in what you see as an emerging game changer at the moment? Maybe I am too blind because of doomerism in the morning. Also, what‘s the ancient group claiming there was a original humanity before ours, whatever that means.?
AI is still very much an unknown factor. Much of the AGI superintelligence doomerism is just anchoring bias around 50s and 60s extrapolations of bad anthropology that thought we were smarter than the Neanderthals and killed them off, so if something smarter than us existed it would try to kill us off. There’s probably much higher odds of symbiosis, but an effectively uncontrollable self-determining disembodied superintelligence is a pretty big unknown, and if I had to put money on it, in almost all cases is going to be quite bad for the worst people in the world.
As for the ancient group, that was mostly just citing the sentiment. But they were pretty neat. Around 2,000 years ago there was a big debate over intelligent design vs evolution (as described in Lucretius) with the latter group claiming death was certain because the soul depends on the body to exist.
So then this group emerges who claims there was an original evolved humanity who had all died out, but that before they did so they brought forth a new lifeform literally made of light, and that this life form was still alive and had recreated the universe and humanity in a non-physical copy where the copy of humanity weren’t dependent on physical form and could continue on past death. They claimed this world was the copy, and that the evidence for this being the case would be in the study of motion and rest, specifically mentioning the ability to find indivisible parts making up matter.
As someone who has been a fan of Nick Bostrom’s simulation hypothesis, I stumbled across this group years ago when exploring a theory that if this world were a simulation, it might have a 4th wall breaking Easter egg in the lore similar to most virtual worlds we have built so far. It’s been a pretty weird few years since as things like AI suddenly went from SciFi to reality with compounding advancements and are trending towards literally being inside light - all in parallel to humanity seemingly continuing on the path towards extinction.
So maybe even if humanity destroys itself, it will simply be the end of one thing and the beginning of another?
Hey, thanks for the interesting read. Who was the group that brought forth the idea of our world being a copy of the one created in light by our ancestors (if I got that right). Was that a classical greek group as well? Could you link something to read? That would be great!
The group following it (the Naassenes) was detailed here, though keep in mind that the group’s beliefs are being recorded by the opposition and are late enough to have been influenced by post-Valentinian Gnosticism and Neoplatonism (and yet still preserve a lot of the proto-gnostic paradigm).
I’d also highly recommend reading Leucretius’s De Rerum Natura if you aren’t familiar with it as the text and group both appear to have been heavily influenced by it, specifically in their discussion of naturalism and indivisible ‘seeds’ making up matter. An easy to read translation is here. You’ll even see things like Lucretius describing the emergence of life as arising from randomly scattered seeds, that what didn’t survive to reproduce died out, and likening seed falling by the wayside of a path to failed biological reproduction - all 80 years before the alleged parable about randomly scattered seeds that survived to reproduce multiplying while seed that fell by the wayside of a path did not.
Indeed, the Naassenes interpretation of that parable directly invokes Lucretius’s language despite apparently not knowing the origin, where they claim the parable is in reference to “the seeds scattered from the unportrayable one upon the world, through which the whole cosmical system is completed; for through these also it began to exist.” Which begins to indicate why in the earliest canonical gospel (Mark) it was controversial enough to be the only public parable allegedly given a secret explanation in private (and one that appears to be an interpolation into the text).
Thanks for showing me an interesting path, I am just reading the introduction to Lucretius’ poem, and I find it quite fascinating. It’s pretty embarrassing, that I know so little about the philosophical schools. I had 7 years Latin in school! But at least I have come a long way to be befriended with Materialism, so that’s a good start. I had just recently heard about the Gospel of Thomas, maybe that’s still a little too far out for me, but I will check out those links, too.
How did you arrive here?
PS: I do agree by the way, that the fear of superior intelligence destroying us, seems a very shallow thought. An artificial intelligence made in our current image could be disastrous, though. I am not sure whether the powers that be would allow a free thinking one.
Maybe. I do think the climate is pretty screwed, but at the same time there’s developments in play that even a few years ago I wouldn’t have been expecting within my lifetime.
It’s really too early to call how this all plays out ultimately.
As an ancient group claiming we are a future recreation of a long dead original humanity had said, “Have you found the beginning, then, that you are looking for the end? You see, the end will be where the beginning is.”
We may be heading for an end of many things, but we are also watching a beginning take form, and it seems to my eye to be a bit of a race between the collective environmental debts we’ve racked up and the advancement of a true game changer that might take what seems inevitable and turn it on its head.
What I would say is that I think people doing really bad shit in the world right now are in for a serious surprise within a generation. It’s going to be increasingly hard to keep skeletons in closets and even the most powerful people in the world today may not still be on top of the food chain by tomorrow.
I too am skeptical we escape the catastrophe of climate change - but I think the path to that end may yet have some promising twists and turns along the way.
Interesting take. I‘m interested in what you see as an emerging game changer at the moment? Maybe I am too blind because of doomerism in the morning. Also, what‘s the ancient group claiming there was a original humanity before ours, whatever that means.?
AI is still very much an unknown factor. Much of the AGI superintelligence doomerism is just anchoring bias around 50s and 60s extrapolations of bad anthropology that thought we were smarter than the Neanderthals and killed them off, so if something smarter than us existed it would try to kill us off. There’s probably much higher odds of symbiosis, but an effectively uncontrollable self-determining disembodied superintelligence is a pretty big unknown, and if I had to put money on it, in almost all cases is going to be quite bad for the worst people in the world.
As for the ancient group, that was mostly just citing the sentiment. But they were pretty neat. Around 2,000 years ago there was a big debate over intelligent design vs evolution (as described in Lucretius) with the latter group claiming death was certain because the soul depends on the body to exist.
So then this group emerges who claims there was an original evolved humanity who had all died out, but that before they did so they brought forth a new lifeform literally made of light, and that this life form was still alive and had recreated the universe and humanity in a non-physical copy where the copy of humanity weren’t dependent on physical form and could continue on past death. They claimed this world was the copy, and that the evidence for this being the case would be in the study of motion and rest, specifically mentioning the ability to find indivisible parts making up matter.
As someone who has been a fan of Nick Bostrom’s simulation hypothesis, I stumbled across this group years ago when exploring a theory that if this world were a simulation, it might have a 4th wall breaking Easter egg in the lore similar to most virtual worlds we have built so far. It’s been a pretty weird few years since as things like AI suddenly went from SciFi to reality with compounding advancements and are trending towards literally being inside light - all in parallel to humanity seemingly continuing on the path towards extinction.
So maybe even if humanity destroys itself, it will simply be the end of one thing and the beginning of another?
Hey, thanks for the interesting read. Who was the group that brought forth the idea of our world being a copy of the one created in light by our ancestors (if I got that right). Was that a classical greek group as well? Could you link something to read? That would be great!
It was actually the Gospel of Thomas (“the good news of the twin”), an apocryphal text followed by an early sect of Christianity.
For example, the full text of the quoted bit before was:
If you want to read the text itself, it’s here.
The group following it (the Naassenes) was detailed here, though keep in mind that the group’s beliefs are being recorded by the opposition and are late enough to have been influenced by post-Valentinian Gnosticism and Neoplatonism (and yet still preserve a lot of the proto-gnostic paradigm).
I’d also highly recommend reading Leucretius’s De Rerum Natura if you aren’t familiar with it as the text and group both appear to have been heavily influenced by it, specifically in their discussion of naturalism and indivisible ‘seeds’ making up matter. An easy to read translation is here. You’ll even see things like Lucretius describing the emergence of life as arising from randomly scattered seeds, that what didn’t survive to reproduce died out, and likening seed falling by the wayside of a path to failed biological reproduction - all 80 years before the alleged parable about randomly scattered seeds that survived to reproduce multiplying while seed that fell by the wayside of a path did not.
Indeed, the Naassenes interpretation of that parable directly invokes Lucretius’s language despite apparently not knowing the origin, where they claim the parable is in reference to “the seeds scattered from the unportrayable one upon the world, through which the whole cosmical system is completed; for through these also it began to exist.” Which begins to indicate why in the earliest canonical gospel (Mark) it was controversial enough to be the only public parable allegedly given a secret explanation in private (and one that appears to be an interpolation into the text).
Thanks for showing me an interesting path, I am just reading the introduction to Lucretius’ poem, and I find it quite fascinating. It’s pretty embarrassing, that I know so little about the philosophical schools. I had 7 years Latin in school! But at least I have come a long way to be befriended with Materialism, so that’s a good start. I had just recently heard about the Gospel of Thomas, maybe that’s still a little too far out for me, but I will check out those links, too. How did you arrive here? PS: I do agree by the way, that the fear of superior intelligence destroying us, seems a very shallow thought. An artificial intelligence made in our current image could be disastrous, though. I am not sure whether the powers that be would allow a free thinking one.