What if we weren't allowed to "ask the internet"?

[chewybrian]

But I bet you never really understood just how many and widespread they were across the entire globe. Social media has brought you into contact with hitherto unknown vast numbers.

I just checked. On the interweb, of course. It seems that, at the time of writing, there are 7,816,681,619 living simpletons in the world.

[LuckyR]

But I bet you never really understood just how many and widespread they were across the entire globe. Social media has brought you into contact with hitherto unknown vast numbers.

I just checked. On the interweb, of course. It seems that, at the time of writing, there are 7,816,681,619 living simpletons in the world.

Funny, I came up with the same number after I subtracted you, Sculptor, chewybrian and myself from the population of the world...

[Pattern-chaser]

I just checked. On the interweb, of course. It seems that, at the time of writing, there are 7,816,681,619 living simpletons in the world.

Funny, I came up with the same number after I subtracted you, Sculptor, chewybrian and myself from the population of the world...

Then you are kinder than I.

[Sy Borg]

But I bet you never really understood just how many and widespread they were across the entire globe. Social media has brought you into contact with hitherto unknown vast numbers.

I just checked. On the interweb, of course. It seems that, at the time of writing, there are 7,816,681,619 living simpletons in the world.

There are trillions of simpletons, of which 7,816,681,618 are human (most are insects).

Humanity - or at what it can become - is still in its infancy. Biology is only now in the process of becoming sophisticated, of transitioning (albeit kicking and screaming) from the emotionality and desire of youth to the reason and fecundity of maturity.

[Jack D Ripper]

...

Humanity - or at what it can become - is still in its infancy. Biology is only now in the process of becoming sophisticated, of transitioning (albeit kicking and screaming) from the emotionality and desire of youth to the reason and fecundity of maturity.

You are quite the optimist.

[Sy Borg]

...

Humanity - or at what it can become - is still in its infancy. Biology is only now in the process of becoming sophisticated, of transitioning (albeit kicking and screaming) from the emotionality and desire of youth to the reason and fecundity of maturity.

You are quite the optimist.

Only in the long term.

The universe is 13.8b years old and will be able to support live for another trillion years, at least. So it's in its infancy. In terms of the universe's development, we're perhaps akin to simple primitive multicellular organisms like fungi or algae - the building blocks of what is yet to come.

In the meantime, of course, our future is dark and full of terrors ...

[Jack D Ripper]

You are quite the optimist.

Only in the long term.

The universe is 13.8b years old and will be able to support live for another trillion years, at least. So it's in its infancy. In terms of the universe's development, we're perhaps akin to simple primitive multicellular organisms like fungi or algae - the building blocks of what is yet to come.

In the meantime, of course, our future is dark and full of terrors ...

Humanity will die out long before that.

Although it may be likely that life will evolve elsewhere, many times, I don't see why one should believe that that will result in actual intelligent life.

I see from another thread more of your optimism (with bold emphasis added):

"Deep state" is a fabrication, another way for the real movers and shakers to hide behind scapegoats.

Certainly we are controlled by unelected parties - multinational companies and billionaires. When 26 of the wealthiest people own as much as the poorest 3.8 billion people, it's pretty clear who has the most influence on public affairs.

Trump of course, is part of this cabal, and has sold out individuals, small business and the environment to his allies. I do not understand how he manages to fool so many people into thinking he is the opposite to what he really is because he is so obvious. His policies have favoured companies over individuals, even more so than any of his predecessors whom he accused of being "deep state".

All we need to do is get billionaires and multinationals to pay their proper share of tax, but the power shift to them has is so extreme now that I cannot see the super wealthy ever having to pay their fair share again.

I will venture to affirm that the reason you do not understand why so many people are fooled is because you do not fully appreciate just how stupid people are. If you had the full measure of their stupidity, you would not be surprised by this at all.

If you believe I am being overly harsh about people, please tell me, what other possible explanation could there be for the observed phenomena? How could it be possible for people to be so easily fooled if they were intelligent?

I realize that there is a strong motive to believe otherwise, as it is an unpleasant thing to think about how stupid people really are. But the silver lining is that, eventually, one will receive the sweet release of death and no longer be bothered by stupid people. As the philosopher Seneca said:

The best thing which eternal law ever ordained was that it allowed to us one entrance into life, but many exits.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Moral_le ... /Letter_70


The underestimation of human stupidity reminds me of something else, about how shocked some people are about the holocaust. For those of a scientific bent, looking at Milgram's experiments is instructive. But there is a nice little quote from Hannah and her Sisters that gives an accurate picture of things:

You missed a very dull TV show on Auschwitz. More gruesome film clips, and more puzzled intellectuals declaring their mystification over the systematic murder of millions. The reason they can never answer the question "How could it possibly happen?" is that it's the wrong question. Given what people are, the question is "Why doesn't it happen more often?" Of course it does, in subtler form.

The reason the Nazis were so successful at murdering people is that they took charge of one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world. If we look at someone like Idi Amin, he only murdered a few hundred thousand people, because he was in charge of a different country and did not have the same capabilities. That, of course, does not make him a better person, just less effective at doing what he wanted to do.

Most people are not in charge of a country, and so they are far more limited in how many people they have an opportunity to murder. Some may choose not to murder anyone, not because they would not like to do so, but because they are afraid of the consequences, lacking the power of a leader of a country.


Whatever theory of humanity one has, it must fit the facts of what people actually have done, or it is an inaccurate theory. "Stupid" and "evil" seem to be exceedingly common attributes.

[Sy Borg]

Sure humans will die out. They will, however, be outlasted by intelligent technology. By the time the last billionaires and their cronies have perished, those remaining "humans" probably won't be human. We are not the end of the evolutionary line, but a segment.

When it comes to stupidity, consider a Bell Curve of human intelligence. The vast majority are in the average range. Based on numbers, it would seem that even the lower end of average is pretty stupid when it comes to politics. Still, I've never met a person who didn't have some skill, knowledge or aptitude beyond my own. That's what comes from living in a quasi-eusocial society based on specialisation of labour. None of us are complete.

Also note that mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, even insects are amongst the most complex and intelligent entities for trillions of kms in all directions. And I know of some reasonably intelligent people who like Trump. It's emotional. They enjoy that he is destroying a system that they feel has betrayed them while mouthing pretty words. They want to see it all broken down before it gets worse. Trouble is, when the dust dies down after civil unrest, the powerful will have further cemented their position, and the rest of society becomes either more chaotic or more repressed.

So what I see is more immaturity than stupidity and evil, though the notions are not always easily parsed.

[Jack D Ripper]

Sure humans will die out. They will, however, be outlasted by intelligent technology.

You are again expressing optimism. You are consistent on that. But I think it only right to point out the fact that we do not at present have intelligent technology, and we may never have it.

By the time the last billionaires and their cronies have perished, those remaining "humans" probably won't be human. We are not the end of the evolutionary line, but a segment.

Eventually, the sun will burn out, and all life on the earth will end. The idea that humans will make it to another solar system is extreme wishful thinking, given the distances involved and the health problems for humans in space.

When it comes to stupidity, consider a Bell Curve of human intelligence. The vast majority are in the average range. Based on numbers, it would seem that even the lower end of average is pretty stupid when it comes to politics.

That is stating it mildly. Think about the "intelligence" of someone who is barely intelligent enough to vote in a reasonable way. That is pretty stupid, even if it isn't in the lower end of what is possible for human stupidity.

Still, I've never met a person who didn't have some skill, knowledge or aptitude beyond my own. That's what comes from living in a quasi-eusocial society based on specialisation of labour. None of us are complete.

That makes me think of the Apology by Plato, in which Socrates found that there were people who knew things that he did not know, but thought they knew other things that they did not know, and, because Socrates did not have that delusion, he was wiser than they were. See:

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/13726/1 ... 3726-h.htm

The upshot is, having some petty skill or knowledge does not make one not stupid generally.

Also note that mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, even insects are amongst the most complex and intelligent entities for trillions of kms in all directions. And I know of some reasonably intelligent people who like Trump. It's emotional. They enjoy that he is destroying a system that they feel has betrayed them while mouthing pretty words. They want to see it all broken down before it gets worse. Trouble is, when the dust dies down after civil unrest, the powerful will have further cemented their position, and the rest of society becomes either more chaotic or more repressed.

And how, exactly, is that different from just saying that they are stupid, that they do not understand what they are supporting, or what the results will be? Stupid being described by different words is still stupid.

I also think it is telling that someone who is relatively intelligent, according to you, is still doing what is really quite stupid, according to you. How is that nor really an admission that people are really, really, stupid?

So what I see is more immaturity than stupidity and evil, though the notions are not always easily parsed.

I cannot help but think that you are using "immaturity" to mean what is stupid and evil.

When I was young and immature, I did immature things. To say the same thing, when I was young and immature, I did some stupid things. Perhaps not as stupid as the average man, but quite stupid nevertheless.


I hope that my disagreement with you is not giving a false impression. From the few posts of yours that I have read, I have a generally favorable view of you. But I do think you are overly optimistic.

[Jack D Ripper]

One of those occasions when it would be good to be able to edit a post. However,

... By the time the last billionaires and their cronies have perished, those remaining "humans" probably won't be human. We are not the end of the evolutionary line, but a segment.

...

It seems to me that there is no reason to suppose that life on earth, or the effects of life on earth, will have any lasting impact on the universe.

Many species have died off, and humans are just another species. Albeit an arrogant one, with delusions of grandeur, often imagining themselves to be god-like (e.g., made in the image of God, etc.). We can end, just like all of the species that have already ended. The idea that we are special is due to human arrogance.

[Sy Borg]

Sure humans will die out. They will, however, be outlasted by intelligent technology.

You are again expressing optimism. You are consistent on that. But I think it only right to point out the fact that we do not at present have intelligent technology, and we may never have it.

I think it exceedingly likely that evolution did not start biology and it will not end with it either. Is it optimistic or far-fetched to figure that humans will die out and be replaced, just as we replaced extinct species?

People wonder if we will ever live on other planets. Obviously not. Humans are not made for space - gases, temperature, gravity, radiation - but at least some of our replacements will be perfect for the job. Note that intelligence does not require sentience (see experiments with slime moulds, more about this later in the reply).

By the time the last billionaires and their cronies have perished, those remaining "humans" probably won't be human. We are not the end of the evolutionary line, but a segment.

Eventually, the sun will burn out, and all life on the earth will end. The idea that humans will make it to another solar system is extreme wishful thinking, given the distances involved and the health problems for humans in space.

The super wealthy will surely continue to thrive and advance ever more rapidly as the poor slowly die out. Ever more advancements will be kept under wraps and not be made available to the public (just as most elderly, obese people won't be cured of COVID symptoms in a few days like King Donald I). We have a two-speed world economy. The distinction between haves and have nots grows ever greater.

I think a species split is coming (not in our lifetimes, of course), perhaps an emergence as profound as the split between humans and other great apes.

It starts, as always, with different living conditions, but in this case it will be followed by implants, genetic engineering and nanotech. I also expect the next emergence from humanity to show about as much mercy to non-enhanced humans as humans have been merciful to other great apes, ie. mostly clean 'em out, but keep a few around as curios. They won't be asking anything of the internet because it will be internally accessible via implants or other means.

And none of this takes into account the likelihood of self-improving, intelligent, quasi-conscious machines creating sophisticated structures in space.
As I say, biological evolution may be just a phase, one that followed a prior evolution of complex molecules from simple ones. Now, from biology, will come machines replete with information about how to assemble Earth-style structures from the materials of other worlds. Like seeds.

It may be that qualia will not be necessary in the future - not a destination of evolution, but a phase. Who says that qualia is necessary?

So humans appear likely to be outlasted by their learning, intelligent machines, whether they feel anything or not. The machines ay evolve to experience things in their own machine-y way - a new phase of conscious existence (as opposed to the assumption that sentience always increases with sophistication).

Of course, if climate change etc wipes out all civilisation in the next century, that could be "the end of the game" because we are not yet so advanced, but even then I'd expect some dominant, highly automated city states to still persist and progress. All it will take is one of them to survive the coming storm and the rest will follow.

I also think it is telling that someone who is relatively intelligent, according to you, is still doing what is really quite stupid, according to you. How is that not really an admission that people are really, really, stupid?

Hardcore :)

Even Paula White is one of the very most intelligent entities for trillions of kms in all directions. While it is faint praise to be rated smarter than rocks, note that rocks themselves are quite rare and special things in a universe dominated by plasma, radiation and dust. We live in a really, really, really dumb universe.

So what I see is more immaturity than stupidity and evil, though the notions are not always easily parsed.

I cannot help but think that you are using "immaturity" to mean what is stupid and evil.

When I was young and immature, I did immature things. To say the same thing, when I was young and immature, I did some stupid things. Perhaps not as stupid as the average man, but quite stupid nevertheless.

The stupidities and evils of my youth still make me cringe. Like everyone, I didn't know any better. A person with a mature outlook will tend not to do harm.

I am not convinced that evil, as such, is real. It appears to just be concentrated entropy in one's vicinity. It could be a volcano, a storm, an animal, a person, falling debris - anything can appear evil if you and yours happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[Jack D Ripper]

You are again expressing optimism. You are consistent on that. But I think it only right to point out the fact that we do not at present have intelligent technology, and we may never have it.

I think it exceedingly likely that evolution did not start biology and it will not end with it either. Is it optimistic or far-fetched to figure that humans will die out and be replaced, just as we replaced extinct species?

I think we are more likely to be replaced with cockroaches than anything else. Of course, when the sun burns out, the cockroaches will die, too.

People wonder if we will ever live on other planets. Obviously not. Humans are not made for space - gases, temperature, gravity, radiation -

I was really liking what you were staying at that point.

but at least some of our replacements will be perfect for the job. Note that intelligence does not require sentience (see experiments with slime moulds, more about this later in the reply).

I don't think we will make intelligent machines that take over after people are dead. I think you are imagining that human intelligence is greater than it is; I don't think humans will create anything so special.

The super wealthy will surely continue to thrive and advance ever more rapidly as the poor slowly die out. Ever more advancements will be kept under wraps and not be made available to the public (just as most elderly, obese people won't be cured of COVID symptoms in a few days like King Donald I). We have a two-speed world economy. The distinction between haves and have nots grows ever greater.

I cannot disagree with the obvious fact that there is a huge gap between the haves and the have nots. But (and this is more relevant for what appears below), the haves cannot have what people cannot find or make.

I think a species split is coming (not in our lifetimes, of course), perhaps an emergence as profound as the split between humans and other great apes.

It starts, as always, with different living conditions, but in this case it will be followed by implants, genetic engineering and nanotech. I also expect the next emergence from humanity to show about as much mercy to non-enhanced humans as humans have been merciful to other great apes, ie. mostly clean 'em out, but keep a few around as curios. They won't be asking anything of the internet because it will be internally accessible via implants or other means.

And none of this takes into account the likelihood of self-improving, intelligent, quasi-conscious machines creating sophisticated structures in space.
As I say, biological evolution may be just a phase, one that followed a prior evolution of complex molecules from simple ones. Now, from biology, will come machines replete with information about how to assemble Earth-style structures from the materials of other worlds. Like seeds.

It may be that qualia will not be necessary in the future - not a destination of evolution, but a phase. Who says that qualia is necessary?

So humans appear likely to be outlasted by their learning, intelligent machines, whether they feel anything or not. The machines ay evolve to experience things in their own machine-y way - a new phase of conscious existence (as opposed to the assumption that sentience always increases with sophistication).

I don't think people will make such impressive machines.

Of course, if climate change etc wipes out all civilisation in the next century, that could be "the end of the game" because we are not yet so advanced, but even then I'd expect some dominant, highly automated city states to still persist and progress. All it will take is one of them to survive the coming storm and the rest will follow.

I don't think it has to wipe everyone out within a century to stop what you are predicting, but I think this is more likely than the alternative you mention above.

I also think it is telling that someone who is relatively intelligent, according to you, is still doing what is really quite stupid, according to you. How is that not really an admission that people are really, really, stupid?

Hardcore

If I truly expressed how I feel about that response, it would probably seem weird and creepy. I will just say that I am glad that I am communicating with you.

Even Paula White is one of the very most intelligent entities for trillions of kms in all directions.

I had to look up who she was. I don't know if that means that I am out of touch, or if it is just that I forgot who she was as a result of trying to survive in these times without completely losing my mind. I rather wish I had not looked up who she was, which tends to favor the latter hypothesis, though that may be wishful thinking.

While it is faint praise to be rated smarter than rocks,

I am not so sure that I agree with your comparison. I have never heard a rock say anything as stupid as some of the things she has said. I think you might be biassed against rocks in your analysis. If we take the total of all of the seemingly intelligent things she has said, and subtract the total of all of the stupid things she has said, would we end up with something greater than we would get following the same procedure with an average rock? I would need to see something analyzing that to be ready to suppose that she would have the advantage over a rock on such a contest.

note that rocks themselves are quite rare and special things in a universe dominated by plasma, radiation and dust. We live in a really, really, really dumb universe.

Yes, yes we do.

The stupidities and evils of my youth still make me cringe. Like everyone, I didn't know any better. A person with a mature outlook will tend not to do harm.

Such things make me like you more. Perhaps hearing about what I have heard some others say will make you appreciate what I mean. I have encountered people who say that they have no regrets, that they are glad that they made all of the choices they have made, because that is what has made them what they are today. To me, that seems crazy, as making better choices would have, presumably, made them better. Wouldn't it be better to be better? (There is nothing like encountering people who effectively deny tautologies.)

I am not convinced that evil, as such, is real. It appears to just be concentrated entropy in one's vicinity. It could be a volcano, a storm, an animal, a person, falling debris - anything can appear evil if you and yours happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I am not entirely certain what you mean, and therefore not entirely certain that I disagree with you. But I want to say that Paula White is evil. Whether that is due to her stupidity or a lack of empathy or some other cause is of little importance to the conclusion. How one got to be evil is a different matter than whether one is evil or not.

Perhaps an analogy may be of help in this. When I judge a thing to be bad, say a bad product that is poorly designed or poorly made, it does not matter that the product did not choose to be what it is, that it did not choose to be bad. It is still a bad thing, such that very likely the world would be better if it had never been made. The thing is not to be blamed for existing, but it is still a bad thing.

[Sy Borg]

Sorry about inflicting Paula White trauma on you. I was haunted for days after hearing her speak. I think it's important to highlight the weird people behind what appears to be the US's new monarch rather than pretend that they did not exist.

I'm not sure why Americans bothered fighting the British if they were going to just install another king. And why fight to bring democracy elsewhere when the nation appears unsure whether it wants a democracy itself? I never thought I'd see such a thing in the west in my lifetime. Godwin notwithstanding, the parallels with Hitler are mind-bending (especially for the daughter of a refugee from the Third Reich).

The cult of personality and almost complete retreat from reason are especially chilling. There are no words that can make a difference and, when words fail, violence follows. There seem to be many thousands spoiling for civil war in the US, and it doesn't take that many to start a tit-for-tat human wildfire.

And, given the insanely fast movement of world politics, you think it unlikely that we still won't have created intelligent technology in a century or two (let alone millennia) when we have already built them. The most powerful are not robots, but corporations that are ever more automated. The human proportion of companies has been shrinking dramatically for some time.

As for human stupidity, human stupidity, my views are tempered by being an animal lover. It's not so hard to see the frightened, aggressive, confused, thick-headed, playful and greedy apes lying directly beneath our paper-thin layer of human sophistry. Life used to be a lot more stupid than it is - think in terms of millennia, not political cycles.

You, like many so-called "rational" people believe that 7.8 billion humans, some living in more protected environs than any complex organisms has ever enjoyed in the history of the planet, will disappear *entirely* in a century or two, before sending autonomous technology to other worlds. "Rational" people have long predicated the end, usually because they are so alarmed at the recklessness of their peers. Affected by emotion, their predictions tend to be wildly premature, with the assumption that today's mistakes will continue unabated.

It's not logical to believe humans are so easily made extinct when a global pandemic in an overcrowded and unprepared world has not even made the slightest dent in our global population. I understand that about one million have died. It will take about a week to replace them.

I think we have a rough agreement on badness equalling concentrated entropy. Some people are naturally entropic - reducing the order of others' lives. Of course, being alive means inflicting entropy on others (often fatally), so this is a matter of degrees.

[Jack D Ripper]

Sorry about inflicting Paula White trauma on you. I was haunted for days after hearing her speak. I think it's important to highlight the weird people behind what appears to be the US's new monarch rather than pretend that they did not exist.

It's okay. If one wants to avoid unpleasantness, one should avoid the internet.

I'm not sure why Americans bothered fighting the British if they were going to just install another king. And why fight to bring democracy elsewhere when the nation appears unsure whether it wants a democracy itself?

It was a different time with different people. So what they did and what the current group does need not particularly resemble each other.

Also, to be fair, most Americans who voted, voted against Trump. It is due to our (yes, I am an American) peculiar way of selecting a president, with our electoral college system, with states getting to allocate the votes within it, typically (though not always; this depends on the state) all to the winner within that state. So, typically, what matters is getting a majority in the most states (or in the most populous states, as each state has a portion based partly on its population); having a huge majority in one state is no better than just barely winning it, as far as the election goes.

Looking ahead to what you wrote below, with Nazi Germany, many Germans hated Hitler, with a remarkable number of assassination attempts against him (which says quite a lot, as a mild dislike does not motivate one to such an action, and the vast majority of people are not in a position to make such an attempt). Of course, being hated by a very significant percentage of Germans did not stop him from taking over the country, which is one of the depressing aspects of what happened. It does not take everyone being on board for things to go one way or another. I suppose there is good in that, too, in that in our current situation, there can be a significant number of idiots supporting Trump without him winning the election this year.

I never thought I'd see such a thing in the west in my lifetime. Godwin notwithstanding, the parallels with Hitler are mind-bending (especially for the daughter of a refugee from the Third Reich).

I personally think Trump is much more like Mussolini. Trump and his cronies seem to lack basic competence, which has helped things not become as bad as they otherwise would be. But it is bad enough, particularly with the help from career Republicans, some of whom did not like Trump as the choice in 2016, but now do his bidding.

The cult of personality and almost complete retreat from reason are especially chilling.

Yes, the lack of reason is particularly disturbing. I think it is proof of gross stupidity.

There are no words that can make a difference and, when words fail, violence follows. There seem to be many thousands spoiling for civil war in the US, and it doesn't take that many to start a tit-for-tat human wildfire.

And, given the insanely fast movement of world politics, you think it unlikely that we still won't have created intelligent technology in a century or two (let alone millennia) when we have already built them.

I am unconvinced that we already have intelligent technology. I suppose this may be a dispute over what, exactly, counts as "intelligent".

The most powerful are not robots, but corporations that are ever more automated. The human proportion of companies has been shrinking dramatically for some time.

As for human stupidity, human stupidity, my views are tempered by being an animal lover.

My love for my dog does nothing to temper my thoughts on human stupidity. My dog has never said anything stupid ever. If I required that of humans....

It's not so hard to see the frightened, aggressive, confused, thick-headed, playful and greedy apes lying directly beneath our paper-thin layer of human sophistry. Life used to be a lot more stupid than it is - think in terms of millennia, not political cycles.

You, like many so-called "rational" people believe that 7.8 billion humans, some living in more protected environs than any complex organisms has ever enjoyed in the history of the planet, will disappear *entirely* in a century or two, before sending autonomous technology to other worlds.

I did not say that humans will disappear entirely in the next two centuries, though I do not rule it out as a possibility. If civilization collapses, then there won't be any more great advances in technology unless and until civilization is rebuilt. So there is no need for the complete extinction of humans to end human technological progress.

Also, the level of autonomy would have to be great for the technology to continue in any significant way, and we are far from that level at the present time.

"Rational" people have long predicated the end, usually because they are so alarmed at the recklessness of their peers. Affected by emotion, their predictions tend to be wildly premature, with the assumption that today's mistakes will continue unabated.

It's not logical to believe humans are so easily made extinct when a global pandemic in an overcrowded and unprepared world has not even made the slightest dent in our global population. I understand that about one million have died. It will take about a week to replace them.

I think we have a rough agreement on badness equalling concentrated entropy. Some people are naturally entropic - reducing the order of others' lives. Of course, being alive means inflicting entropy on others (often fatally), so this is a matter of degrees.

I have stated that you are being optimistic about the technology, but maybe that is backwards. Maybe it is more a depressing thought to suppose that humans will infect the universe with its autonomous technology in the future.

[Sy Borg]

Jack, after doing some reading about the Italian Fascist Party, the parallel between Trump and Mussolini looks good, and the comparison is being made more than I realised.

“Democracy is talking itself to death. The people do not know what they want; they do not know what is best for them. There is too much foolishness, too much lost motion. I have stopped the talk and the nonsense. I am a man of action. Democracy is beautiful in theory; in practice it is a fallacy. You in America will see that someday. Fascist education is moral, physical, social, and military: it aims to create a complete and harmoniously developed human, a fascist one according to our views.” Benito Mussolini

Not so far from the CCP's view. It's perhaps correct, too. Democracy is failing. Ignorant people are reminding us of the old saying, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing". The Dunning-Kruger effect may just seem like an amusing observation, but the ramifications are dark - as seen by failed uprisings. Dumb people being manipulated into acting against their own interests. Every uprising of the so-called Arab Spring resulted in a theocratic autocracy. That is essentially what Trump wants, with himself as the object of idolisation.

Still, when you think about the desire to roll back the social advancements of the last half century, I appreciate that they not trying to create hell on Earth. They just want to go back to the 1950s. It's an old wound that never healed, if wounds ever really do.

Fundamentalist theists continue to seethe over Darwin, Dawkins and others who had publicly disproved their false claims. So even today many display a deep hatred for science and they constantly try to undermine it. So we have a marriage of evangelists and the fossil fuel industry. The latter is also loved by some evangelists for being a possible harbinger of the Apocalypse, a time when abortionists, homosexuals and feminists are scoured from the Earth, ushering in God's dominion.

Similarly, fundamentalist conservatives have never forgiven the hippies of the 1960s for exposing and undermining their patriarchal homophobic hegemony, paving the way for women's rights. Fundamentalist conservatives have remained fixed on their singular goal all this time, to return to the 1950s, which is also about the time that fundamentalists saw as optimal.

Looking at today's situation, every social issue relates to unresolved battles from many years ago. All of those wars we thought were over still continue - the American Civil War, WWII, the social revolution of the 60s, even the push towards scientific theory back in the 1600s. None of these battles are truly over. The internet has allowed extremist fanatics to vastly broaden their bases, due to the number of angry, disenfranchised people. The media, primarily the Murdoch stable, keep the people divided, to ensure that they do not place the blame where it belongs - corporate tax avoidance, corporate lobbying that has compromised the polity, and - mostly - automation.

I did not say that humans will disappear entirely in the next two centuries, though I do not rule it out as a possibility. If civilization collapses, then there won't be any more great advances in technology unless and until civilization is rebuilt. So there is no need for the complete extinction of humans to end human technological progress.

Also, the level of autonomy would have to be great for the technology to continue in any significant way, and we are far from that level at the present time.

Once technology can perform most jobs better than any human, then "civilisation" is not needed to progress. Corporations are already separating from the masses - not contributing to the tax system, buying up their own shares, and with far fewer flesh-and-blood employees. When wealth concentrates at the top enough, top corporations will increasingly shift to a B2B model. The masses will increasingly be seen as just extra resources and vermin.

All that will be needed are fortified, gated communities - small, exclusive city states. VIPs will live within the walls, and "animals" will be on the outside.

I have stated that you are being optimistic about the technology, but maybe that is backwards. Maybe it is more a depressing thought to suppose that humans will infect the universe with its autonomous technology in the future.

Nooooooo, you have this all backwards! Do you think humans are in any way separate from the Earth? That we act in ways that are beyond its bounds? No, humanity is less like parasite or a cancer than an agent of change. Consider how blue-green algae "poisoned" the Earth with oxygen, killing 90% of species in the Permian extinction event. By your definition, the Earth was infected by blue-green algae, yet their oxygenation of the Earth made multicellularity possible.

We are simply agents of change of the Earth's surface, like the blue-green algae. The uppermost layers of the planet are metamorphosing again and humans are operating almost exactly as imaginal discs do in metamorphosing insects.