Social Question

Zuma's avatar

Will humanity become civilized enough soon enough to survive the dangers of rapidly advancing technology?

Asked by Zuma (5908points) January 4th, 2010

I was recently watching an interview with Nick Bostrom, a philosopher, who was asked why we don’t see any evidence of intelligent life when we look out into the universe. And, basically, he said that if we did, it would be very bad news for us because there are obviously evolutionary “filters” that prevent life from forming advanced civilizations and spilling out across the galaxy. The first filter is the “spark” which gives rise to self-organizing life and evolution in the first place; and the second—and here is where my own reasoning takes over—occurs after sentient life appears and has to solve the problem of creating a planetary civilization that does not destroy itself through war or an inability to deal with threats to the planetary ecology.

Essentially, this second filter is a race between the ever-increasing destructive potential of human technology—which empowers people to an extent that fewer and fewer people can bring down or annihilate the whole civilization—and our ability to come to a kind of spiritual consensus which allows us to find meaning and purpose in life without lapsing into a self-serving moralism singles out some subset of humanity to scapegoat and throw overboard.

Ideology and culture wars have undermined human solidarity to a point we can hardly have a civil conversation about the systemic problems we face:

1) global warming;
2) unregulated genetic engineering;
3) dependence on fossil fuels;
4) the decline of the seas;
5) the corruption, cronyism, collusion and instability endemic in unregulated capitalism;
6) the rise of corporate power, the flood of corporate money in politics, the disenfranchisement of ordinary citizens, and the mistrust of government;
7) predatory lending and the growing gap between rich and poor;
8) the placing of political partisanship above the common good;
9) the stagnation and corruption of democratic institutions;
10) the adulteration of the food supply, obesity, drug-resistant microbes, for profit medicine, and declining health outcomes;
11) the runaway growth of the prison-military-surveillance-industrial complex;
12) the hollowing out of American industry, education, and science and concomitant decline of American power and prestige;
13) the rise of fundamentalism and apocalyptic religious movements and its intrusion into politics;
14) the exclusion of groups from full participation in national life due to racism, sexism, nativism and the inequities of class;
15) the flight from reality into fantasy, the loss of critical thinking, media market segmentation, the dumbing-down American discourse, the decline of fact-based journalism and the replacement of news with sensationalism and propaganda;
16) the rise of selfishness, cynicism, incivility, and the decline of altruism; and
17) blaming people for being stupid, irresponsible, and having brought these problems on themselves.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

3 Answers

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

I have an issue with the phrase ‘civilized enough’ – so I will just address the other portions of your question. Like with anything else, some people are capable of using technology for good of others or for, at the very least, neutral purposes without it getting out of hand and leading to our destruction. Yet there are large forces of power at play (as there have alwasy been) that do not care about the future and technology may become our demise. I don’t, however, think this is why no other planet is out there with intelligent life.

Snarp's avatar

This is an interesting premise, but the biggest problem with it that I see is the assumption that human civilizations rise up and are then destroyed and are replaced by an entirely new civilization starting over again at the bottom. This model seems to apply to certain civilizations, like the Maya, but really, Western Civilization is a single civilization that rose in ancient Greece, moved to Rome, and then moved into Northern Europe. The dark ages were a bad period, but more a part of a cycle within an existing civilization than the end of it. The renaissance didn’t start from scratch, it started from existing knowledge from Roman and Arabic civilizations. What the dark ages actually did was enable the blending of other civilizations into Western Civilizations, which enabled it to move forward, perhaps more than it would have under continuous Roman rule (though we will never know). Basically, there hasn’t been a collapse of civilization that resulted in a complete start from scratch in the West in at least three thousand years. And that’s not even to get into Chinese Civilization, which has been entirely continuous, with no great collapse, for how long? We continue to progress, and in spite of the threats, there is no reason to believe that our civilization will collapse “like the Romans”. In fact, given the global nature of what was once Western Civilization, and its high level of technology, we may have crossed a tipping point at which total collapse is more or less impossible.

Austinlad's avatar

My question is, why are these 17 things happening (and getting worse before our very eyes), and what can we do to mitigate their affects?

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther