There are a few choices in what to believe about the existence and purpose of mankind. Outside of these particular ideas, there are no obvious alternatives, so choosing one may be useful in defining a purpose and outlook in life.
The first is that we are the sole beings in the history of all time, which is eternity, and space, which is by logic infinite.
The second option is that beings have existed for eons, and so logically some of them achieved God-like powers, given enough time and technological progress. The natural universe has no feelings, and we are all helpless victims to more powerful beings. Today, a popular version of this exists. It suggests that we are simply characters in some grand Matrix-like video game, nothing more than characters in some twisted-super-human-mind who wields infinitely larger technological powers than ourselves. Today’s “simulation hypothesis” would seem to have greater appeal to those who believe in infinite technological progress of the future. Perhaps some secretly wish to have this power themselves.
The third option is that there is some grand, benevolent, all-wise Creator, who may as well live in another dimension, with this life simply being a time to develop ourselves, and have experiences, each with our own specific purpose in life. The crowning jewel of all of our lives in general is to develop love while ignoring all the other distractions of power, prestige, money, and other animalistic instincts so common in all of us. This is what I believe. In this sense, life is a simulation, and perhaps death is a greater reality than we experience here, much like Plato’s cave, Pauls seeing throuhg glass darkly, __________ (more?)
In this light, it is clear that circumstances must exist for love to take place. It is logical then that the single most core and essential environment to experience and develop love is in the basic family unit. Consequently, without the bonds of marriage and childbearing as the most important building blocks of society, the purposes of the Creator cannot exist as there are no ways for more people to come to earth to have these experiences.
Likewise, if technology eliminates the ability to care for others in a substantial or meaningful way, then the same decay and ultimately elimination of love will occur, with the only logical conclusion to be a large reset of some sort. If you belong to one of the world’s largest religions,
It is not as if I am a stranger to technology. It would be one thing if I had little experience with computers, however, my first computer was the world’s first “partable” computer around 1981, which some might have thought as the world’s first laptop, but since it weighed 26 pounds, it is not something anyone would actually want to put on their lap. My first business out of college was one of the first online platforms. Later, I shifted to digital marketing. Most of my work life has involved using a computer all day long.
programmers: the first will be last and the last will be first.
Genny liver
fallacies: that the future is one type of response by humanity. E.g. docile vs revolutionary
opposite of scarcity is not “abundance,” it’s “excess.”
My background.
The modern world is full of books with messages that appeal to their readers, for how else would you sell a book that challenges many of the dominant ideas of the day? It does happen though on ocassion. 20 years ago, the most popular selling exercise program in the US was also the possibly most rigorous (although I don’t think it put much of a dent in our waistlines in the long run 🙂
Some of my interests are economics, sociology, politics & political science, philosopy, business, the grand history of the world through the rise and fall of civilizations, comparative mythology, and of course, technology, but regardless of the avenue, I am always interested in the big picture and repeating patterns. For example, the lessons of history, the rise and fall of civilization, is much more useful to know than the individual facts and unrelated sequential events, because the patterns can be used to evaluate our future.
But I have often been a contrarian, which is to say not that I simply oppose others, but willing to go alone when the fundamentals clearly deny what the masses believe. I am skeptical of what the masses have to offer.
In economics courses taught in college for example, the big picture seems to be often missing whenever I ask a student what they have learned. They respond with things like supply, demand, financial markets, risk management, investment strategies, banking, and monetary policy. They can run statistical models, regression analysis, international finance. But there are few economic students who seem to have a solid grasp of the current over-arching, increasingly fragile global financial system at a truly macro level (mounting debt, slowing growth/populations, false economic growth driven by monetary policies, the crushing weight of govts on spending) that are, in my opinion, increasing existential risk for humanity. (maybe call some professors). In this case, they may have a broad background, but the applicability is nil.
I am also insatiably inquisitive.
productriveity is result of people x communication x speed of communication x distance or whatever
tech goal: easier
marketing gaol: reduce friction (to sell more).
Goals:
Most people are unwilling to talk about problems, esp massive ones they feel they have little control over. I actually enjoy talking on such problems head-on. So, I expect that if you are not one to want to deal with the problems that are currently plaguing, and probably increasingly plaguing to society, or at least a low survival mentality, then you might have little interest in this book. I don’t have the answers. I am asking you to help find the answers to the problems in this book. I will propose solutions as well, because I never believe in complaining about a problem unless I have a better solution.
Perhaps the most famous economist of the 2nd half of the 20th century, Milton Friedman, who provided evidence that govt was the real cause of the Great Depression due to their contracting of the money supply), noted that the government is the problem in “Government is the Problem” (explain). He also pointed out that corporations are potentially no better, because of the eternal nature of self-interest. Perhaps “selfishness” is a better word. In other words, there is no reason to think that one can be more corrupt than the other as they are built on the desires of those who run them.
However, which one is a bigger problem? In addition to the My daughter said government, because only they can crush entire populations at their own whim, while corporations can are limited mainly to income issues.
This is not really a book of answers as much as it is a book of questions.
Most, if not all diseases will eventually be cured with light; that is, some sort of wave within the light spectrum. No more medicines and tools, as well as every other aspect of our body and environment, will be able to be manipulated simply with vibrations.
speed of text to images to video for each technology speeds up dramatically over time
even if power acelerates for all, tech compounding ensures those at the top will compound the fastest, achieving escape velocity. sure govt are there to slow that via inheritance taxes, monopoly laws, other taxes, but govt will lielky abuse this privilege for themselves. why trust govt more than business? same people.
Dental assistant electric toothbrush.
Mentioned that Korea was using robots to teach children. They said “pretty cool” and I was like “no.” Why would anyone think that an autonomous machine training people is a good thing? Oh, but robots can simulate care and love. What? really?
Psychologicla model of family doomed.
I am not anti-materialist or anti-technologist, but everything in excess becomes just that: excessive and corossive. How much is too much?
For years I have asked people what they would do if there was no work. There are essentially two answers: play (travel) and work, purely for the sake of work. Yet, if work is not needed, then all work is in reality a hobby, designed to occupy/waste time that would be otherwise spent playing games.
Bronfenbrenner? I think maybe this is what the girl was talking about on campus. I need to interview some family theory teachers.
C.S. Lewis said “Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.”
hormesis
The primary goal of any living thing is to survive (e.g. food and shelter), followed by its reproduction. Among humans, food and basic safety from the elements is probably what most people suggest is at the core of daily life (Maslows). But if those needs are met, then what are the remaining goals? existing to exist (e.g. people that show up to work because they have nothing else to do, or play games all day)? The only other alternatives would seem to be the endless pursuit of pleasure through one of the basic materialist/experientialist/social pursuits? But then, what happens to the ultimate goal, the pursuit of love, and some would say spirituality/love of God? Does it remain a goal? How achievable is it?
HumanIT 