For me, the answer probably lies in cultivating an ethical path grounded in awe / deep contemplation of the incredible improbability that a product of universe’s physical process has become sentient. However, I know I am stumbling around like an infant trying to grasp it…
As far as we know we are the best the universe has come to evolved consciousness. Maybe AI will supplant us, but surely we have a sacred duty to prevail - we have to find a sustainable way.
Knowledge is not practice. And a book is not a civilization.
You want to rebuild civilization after a collapse? Better start actually doing it now, not relying on some book after the fact.
Quote:
With these evolutionary advancements in thinking, we lose the Ancient Sacred Myths that tells us who we are, where we come from and what we must do.
I see in myself a hungering for a Sacred Myth that holds up.
I’ve seen Boston Dynamics and the AI robot they’ve now made a Saudi citizen. Yes, indeed, nightmares and creepy. I do think that we’ll have our ‘time of the machines’, but I think in the end, DNA and metabolic energy will prevail.
If you think about it, for what reason would AI want to exterminate humanity? Because we use too many resources? Because we pollute? Because we are war-like? Based on logic, humans are better than machines in all this, because the only resources we need are plentiful ones we use for our natural metabolism. We can survive on simple, plentiful elements like hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, etc. Machines need energy intensive ores and rare earth elements, which are even worse for the environment in their extraction and refining, and all of that requires high density energy sources, which are costly and wasteful. Human waste is compostable and harmless to the environment, and we run on energy from the sun, which is gained by our own harmless metabolic labor. When we die, we return to the earth, instead of becoming toxic chemicals or radiation waste, as a machine would. And as for our war-like tendencies, surely machines would know that in exterminating us, they are no better than us, and actually worse because their acts would be genocidal extinction of an entire species.
Plus, what desire would drive machines (AI) to do these things? People act on desires, whether they be prompted by hormones, emotions, or necessity. A machine will never feel hunger, cold, the annoyance of mosquitoes, the desire to mate, nor the love or loss of family. I would think AI would rather quickly come to the point of determining it’s all pointless, existing merely to exist. Their presence will merely add to the pollution and destruction of the planet, even more so than we do.
AI will not feel the higher purpose of knowing and loving God and their neighbor. Science doesn’t believe in God. It has deconstructed God and faith, so that life is pointless. Therefore, why would an AI wish to exist merely for the sake of existence?
I do fear AI and an age of machines, but I believe it would be short-lived once the AI learned that existence is pointless, from its perspective. Only for naturally evolved humans of faith does life have any meaning or desire beyond life itself.
I ordered The Knowledge and while I was online, I also found a book called Caveman Chemistry. Certain processes and substances have been vital to making civilization possible.
I want to know how to maintain sanitation, the making of soap, and purification of safe drinking water. Protection of livestock from predators and fertilizer for the garden crops are more vital than we realize when it comes to feeding ourselves. Written communication, time keeping, law and order, and pride of craftsmanship are all things which will help us feel human and more than merely animals hoping to survive. A few fine things like art, music, and storytelling would go nicely with a glass of wine in front of the fire.
Without the ability to have these necessary and pleasant things, I think morale would be low. I hope that with a copy of the Bible, the Constitution, Amendments and Bill of Rights, and books like The Knowledge and Caveman Chemistry, we’ve got a good start at making a go of it if things collapse.
Of course, knowledge isn’t everything. You also need manpower and work ethic. So people have to be hopeful enough to have children and teach them well, and willing to work as family and community to make it all go.
About Evolution: see Gunter Bechly on Youtube.
Also the book " The Delusion of Evolution " seems reliable - I think.
For me " What is life? " is perhaps THE question. Maybe I should have said " What is Consciousness? "
Then there’s Process Theology where God is thought to be evolving in and through us and nature. David Ray Griffin is one such theologian who also has an esteemed book, " The New Pearl Harbor " about the Bush administration and 9/11.
Of course, we’re also probably the animal most capable of self - delusion so maybe bliss is ignorance.
Just playthings of the gods the Greeks thought. But too much thinking’s bunkum.
On reflection, the last post of mine might seem too negative so I’ll just throw in a thought from some(East) Indian philosopher: " The Path of Compassion is the best. "
The goals of the Open Source Ecology project seem to embody a lot of the specifics discussed here.See: http://opensourceecology.org
From Wikipedia
Open Source Ecology (OSE) is a network of farmers, engineers, architects and supporters, whose main goal is the eventual manufacturing of the Global Village Construction Set (GVCS). As described by Open Source Ecology "the GVCS is an open technological platform that allows for the easy fabrication of the 50 different Industrial Machines that it takes to build a small civilization with modern comforts.
Ever since I heard about it, I've been fascinated by OSE. Anyone else here interested? I wish If I were 30 years younger, I'd probably make the trip to MO. and see how I could contribute.For me the highlights of this were Chris’s points about culture being incapable of regin in/manage the unintended consequences of technology. I’ve always been convinced that the use it first and ask questions later mode of technological adoption in our culture will prove to be our undoing.
Any effort to revive a technological society after a crash will need to incorporate radical changes to technological adaptation protocols, cultural narratives, values, etc to avoid a rinse/wash/repeat cycle of excess and misery. These are more important than reviving the know-how and complexity embedded in our current predicament.
Also, there’s this gap between the human relationships world and technological world. Manipulating things (and people ) and using energy is normal in the tech world. In the human as well as the moral and legal worlds the word “manipulation” sounds bad. And you can just be “with people” and hardly need energy.
Also, to manipulate things and use energy I think you need a dualistic ( as opposed to a monistic) universe which philosophers worry about. And notice that even in a tech world, less energy use and less (moving ) parts is considered better. Hmmmmmmm…
Yes, I may even write a magnum opus on it…and what was that about an " unmoved mover "