The marriage between violent men and an ever accelerating knowledge explosion is unsustainable. One of them has to go.
I think our core crux here is that if this is true, I would rather tackle it from the âever accelerating knowledge explosionâ side or the âviolentâ side rather than the âmenâ side.
Good luck with your ideas, man. Youâve certainly given me a new idea to think about (knowledge explosion) and I hope Iâve done the same.
I think our core crux here is that if this is true, I would rather tackle it from the âever accelerating knowledge explosionâ side or the âviolentâ side rather than the âmenâ side.
Ok, thatâs cool. To each their own of course. But we donât really have to choose, we can investigate both at the same time.
Should you start writing about the knowledge explosion side of things you will find it just as challenging as the âworld without menâ side. Search for my article âOur Relationship With Knowledgeâ on this site, itâs been down voted like crazy, no engagement at all. Thatâs pretty normal.
The science community in particular (those who have the most cultural authority on such issues) will view your writing on limiting the knowledge explosion much the same way the Catholic Church viewed atheists in the 12th century. You will be dismissed, ridiculed, scorned, deleted, banned etc. But probably not burned at the stake, so thatâs good. :-)
If I was pressed to choose, Iâd probably agree the âworld without menâ idea makes people more hysterical. But a notion that we canât have never ending unlimited goodies from the knowledge explosion does not exactly delight people, to say the least.
Both of these ideas are wildly ambitious. Neither has much of a chance until MAYBE after some large historical event which undermines the assumption of the group consensus that we can somehow magically have our cake and eat it too, radical change for the better, without radical change.
I think our core crux here is that if this is true, I would rather tackle it from the âever accelerating knowledge explosionâ side or the âviolentâ side rather than the âmenâ side.
Good luck with your ideas, man. Youâve certainly given me a new idea to think about (knowledge explosion) and I hope Iâve done the same.
Ok, thatâs cool. To each their own of course. But we donât really have to choose, we can investigate both at the same time.
Should you start writing about the knowledge explosion side of things you will find it just as challenging as the âworld without menâ side. Search for my article âOur Relationship With Knowledgeâ on this site, itâs been down voted like crazy, no engagement at all. Thatâs pretty normal.
The science community in particular (those who have the most cultural authority on such issues) will view your writing on limiting the knowledge explosion much the same way the Catholic Church viewed atheists in the 12th century. You will be dismissed, ridiculed, scorned, deleted, banned etc. But probably not burned at the stake, so thatâs good. :-)
If I was pressed to choose, Iâd probably agree the âworld without menâ idea makes people more hysterical. But a notion that we canât have never ending unlimited goodies from the knowledge explosion does not exactly delight people, to say the least.
Both of these ideas are wildly ambitious. Neither has much of a chance until MAYBE after some large historical event which undermines the assumption of the group consensus that we can somehow magically have our cake and eat it too, radical change for the better, without radical change.