Author Topic: Progressive Yahwism  (Read 992 times)


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7417
    • View Profile
Re: Progressive Yahwism
« on: October 31, 2021, 01:35:03 am »

ĎHomo sapiens as we know them will disappear in a century or soí

Chris Evans read out the first page of Sapiens, the book by the Israeli historian Yuval Noah Harari.
Last year, Harariís follow-up, Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow, was published in the UK, becoming another bestseller. It develops many of the themes explored in Sapiens, and in particular examines the possible impact of biotechnological and artificial intelligence innovation on Homo sapiens, heralding perhaps the beginning of a new bionic or semi-computerised form of human.

This is what our enemies want to become.

Iím not sure if it will be deliberate but I do think weíll probably have just one system, and in this sense weíll have just one civilisation. In a way this is already the case. All over the world the political system of the state is roughly identical. All over the world capitalism is the dominant economic system, and all over the world the scientific method or worldview is the basic worldview through which people understand nature, disease, biology, physics and so forth. There are no longer any fundamental civilisational differences.

All we need to do is kill Western civilization, and the door to other possibilities reopens.

as the ecological crisis intensifies, the pressure for technological development will increase, not decrease. I think that the ecological crisis in the 21st century will be analogous to the two world wars in the 20th century in serving to accelerate technological progress.

As long as things are OK, people would be very careful in developing or experimenting in genetic engineering on humans or giving artificial intelligence control of weapon systems. But if you have a serious crisis, caused for example by ecological degradation, then people will be tempted to try all kinds of high-risk, high-gain technologies in the hope of solving the problem, and youíll have something like the Manhattan Project in the second world war.

Harari is describing a solely Western mentality. To non-Westerners, having realized that environmental damage has occurred as a consequence of machine proliferation, the obvious solution is to stop machine proliferation ASAP. But Westerners think the 'solution' is to invent even newer machines to counter the effects of existing machines:

So if we continue to allow Westerners to keep deciding on behalf of everyone else what the future is to be like, then it will probably really go like Harari predicts. But this need not be the case. All we need to do is insist that Western civilization has already done far too much harm to continue deserving our trust.

You canít just stop technological progress. Even if one country stops researching artificial intelligence, some other countries will continue to do it.

War should be declared by all anti-AI countries on all pro-AI countries. And as long as AI is stopped before it can innovate independently, the only other fix we need to halt further innovation is to eliminate machinist genes from the human gene pool.

The real question is what to do with the technology. You can use exactly the same technology for very different social and political purposes. If you look at the 20th century, we see that with the same technology of electricity and trains, you could create a communist dictatorship or a liberal democracy. And itís the same with artificial intelligence and bioengineering. So I think people shouldnít be focused on the question of how to stop technological progress because this is impossible. Instead the question should be what kind of usage to make of the new technology.

We should use whatever technology is already around to prevent the introduction of anything even newer, preferably by exterminating those who want the progress (starting with Harari himself).

Now the main economic asset is knowledge, and itís very difficult to conquer knowledge through violence.

State control over reproduction can be used to eventually breed new generations uninterested in perpetuating superfluous knowledge (especially stuff from the Renaissance onwards):

If you want a steak, you just grow a steak from cells Ė you donít need to raise a cow and then slaughter the cow for the steak. This may sound like science fiction but itís already a reality. Three years ago they created the first hamburger they made from cells. Itís true that it cost $300,000 but itís always like that with a new technology. By now, 2017, the price, as far as I know, is down to $11 per hamburger.

While of course this is preferable to slaughtering cows for steaks, it is still a Western approach to the problem. It is not a solution. After you get your steak and eat it, you will soon want another one. Eventually you may even want more than one. Or you may want different varieties of steak. And so on. Nothing has been solved. The desire for steaks has not been decreased. If anything, it has been increased.

Here is the alternative: if you want a steak, realize that the problem is with you for wanting the steak in the first place, not with how to get the steak you want. You want a steak because of your non-Aryan blood. So don't reproduce, and after you die there will be one fewer person wanting a steak. Repeat until there are zero people in the world who want steaks. This is the true solution to the problem of wanting steaks.

Western approach: increase supply.

Correct approach: reduce demand.

It will also have a lot of ecological benefits because it will reduce the enormous amount of pollution which is caused by high animal farming today.

Reducing the population of meat-eaters will have even more ecological benefits. But you refuse to even consider this because you are a progressive Yahwist.

AA: You live in a part of the world that has been shaped by religious fictions. Which do you think will happen first Ė that Homo sapiens leave behind religious fiction or the Israel-Palestine conflict will be resolved?

As things look at present, it seems that Homo sapiens will disappear before the Israeli political conflict will be resolved. I think that Homo sapiens as we know them will probably disappear within a century or so, not destroyed by killer robots or things like that, but changed and upgraded with biotechnology and artificial intelligence into something else, into something different. The timescale for that kind of change is maybe a century. And itís quite likely that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict will not be resolved by that time. But it will definitely be influenced by it.

I hope otherwise.

AA: Are you confident that radical Islam is nothing more than the death rattle of the pre-modern era?

In the 21st century, humanity is facing some very difficult problems, whether itís global warming or global inequality or the rise of disruptive technology, such as bioengineering and artificial intelligence. And wWe need answers to these challenges, and Ė at least as of March 2017 Ė I havenít heard anything relevant being offered by radical Islam. So this is why I donít think that radical Islam will shape the society of the 21st century. It could still be there, it could still cause a lot of trouble and violence and so forth, but I donít see it creating or shaping the road ahead of humankind.

I hope otherwise.

AA: If we can indefinitely prevent death, would it still be possible to create meaning without what Saul Bellow called ďthe dark backing that a mirror needs if we are to see anythingĒ?

I think so, yes. You have other problems with what happens when you overcome old age, but I donít think lack of meaning will be a serious problem. Over the past three centuries, almost all the new ideologies of the modern world donít care about death, or at least they donít see death as a source of meaning. Previous cultures, especially traditional religions, usually needed death in order to explain the meaning of life. Like in Christianity Ė without death, life has no meaning. The whole meaning of life comes from what happens to you after you die. There is no death, no heaven, no hellÖ there is no meaning to Christianity. But over the past three centuries we have seen the emergence of a lot of modern ideologies such as socialism, liberalism, feminism, communism that donít need death at all in order to provide life with meaning.

If our enemies succeed in becoming literal vampires, we will have to respond by becoming literal vampire slayers.

This is only type of stake we should give our enemies:

« Last Edit: October 31, 2021, 04:11:22 am by 90sRetroFan »