Thanks for the thoughtful comments and the thoughtful links, Georgina. I really appreciate the care you take with everyone's essay. I am obviously worried about the future, but I know there are reasons to hope too. In fact, I am very optimistic about the world we can build if we avoid catastrophe. There is--as you show in your own essay--so much to look forward to. And, for what it's worth, imperfect fruit is delicious.

Robert,

Very well written, and a strong point that I hope will be taken more and more seriously. A lot of progress has been made in modeling and forecasting risks, but it still remains a very difficult problem for most real-world applications. It seems that there is a growing consensus that we have to put more work into quantifying global risks that threaten the survival of humanity itself. Thank you for your efforts in spreading this idea, and good luck!

Jens

    Robert,

    Very good description of the problem.

    Your solution is to leave Earth and for all of us to collectively pushing the governments of the world.

    You are very right when you say we cannot dictate anything much to future generations. Can we dictate to even our own generation? I think not.

    So how are we going to steer to the future.

    My approach defined in my essay here is a bottom-up one which I think you are also proposing.

    Let me know what you think of my approach to empower individuals around the globe.

    - Ajay

      Hi Robert,

      I enjoyed your essay quite a bit! I'm glad you touched on the common-good problem, as I think it's a really important consideration in this area. I was also glad to see you pointing out gain-of-function research, which I've been worried about lately.

      That being said, one point doesn't seem quite right to me: "Without better evidence that we are really unusual, it seems more likely that civilizations as advanced as ours are fairly common, but that they generally do not survive long." It doesn't seem to me that the observation that we are intelligent life can be used as evidence that such life is common; this observation is no more likely in a universe with little intelligent life, since it depends on the existence of an intelligent observer in the first place. (I'm sure you've seen this before, but in case my explanation isn't clear, see the anthropic principle. Or perhaps I misunderstood your argument?

      Overall, though, I quite enjoyed your essay. Thanks for writing!

      Best,

      Daniel

      Crucial Phenomena

        Thanks, Daniel! I'm really glad you enjoyed it.

        You're right that because of the anthropic principle the observation that there is at least one advanced civilization--ours--tells us nothing about how common advanced civilizations are. My argument was that methodologically in the absence of evidence one way or another it is safer and more productive to proceed on the assumption that we're not special. But on further reflection that was probably a mistake. I think you are right that the anthropic principle undermines even the most minimal version of this mediocrity principle.

        Of course, that doesn't mean advanced civilizations aren't common. I think there are theoretical reasons to worry about the possibility that they simply don't last very long. But I also think you're right to point out that we don't have direct evidence one way or another.

        Thanks in any case for pointing that out to me. Your essay looks interesting too, and I'm looking forward to reading it.

        Best,

        Robert

        Thanks for your commments, Ajay. I agree that for the most part we need a bottom-up approach. I'm busy for the next few days, but I'll try to take a look at your essay as soon as I can.

        Robert

        Robert,

        No way your excellent essay should be languishing so far down the list. I hope my rating helped, and that it continues to get the attention it deserves.

        I'll take minor exception to one statement: "If humanity were a single person with all the knowledge and abilities of the entire human race, avoiding nuclear war, and environmental catastrophe would be relatively easy."

        As the rest of your essay shows, we have a large capacity for punching ourselves in the face. It isn't easy to stop. Your followup to the statement, though, I think is right on:

        "But in fact we are billions of people with different experiences, different interests, and different visions for the future."

        In my opinion, it is just this variety that affords us the ability to steer away from an extinction event.

        All best,

        Tom

          Great essay, Robert! This is nicely written and gives an excellent and convincing overview of the need to increase our resilience as a civilization.

          Research and education is absolutely part of the solution and will be one avenue of generating new ideas to safeguard our future. I also agree that we need to find new models for governance--but I am skeptical that the necessary changes in governance can arise through research alone. In fact, there are at least a few existing theoretical governance models that improve upon our own, but the willingness for people/nations to adopt these is lacking. How do you suggest that we build the necessary institutions to properly govern the commons? I think finding these necessary modes of governance is one the biggest challenges to our long-term survival, but I'm not sure how we'll get there. Of course there's only so much you can discuss in an essay, so I'd be curious to hear any further thoughts you have about this.

          Best of luck in the contest!

          Cheers,

          Jacob

            Thanks, Tom! I agree with you. Our diversity poses real challenges, but in another way it may be our greatest asset. I'm just heading out for few days vacation, but I'm looking forward to reading your essay when I get back early next week.

            Best,

            Robert

            Thanks, Jacob!

            I am heading out for a few days vacation in a couple minutes, so I can't give you a full answer now--and am not entirely sure I know the answer--but in general I think we need to generate a lot of public pressure on institutions to change the regulatory and incentive structure. I don't think governments change without such pressure. Left to their own devices, they mostly serve well-funded lobbies. But that means that somehow we need to raise the public awareness of these issues a lot. Of course, one way to do that is through writing about the issues the way we're doing.

            Best,

            Robert

            • [deleted]

            • Post #39

            Hi Robert,

            What an excellent article, and your writing is fantastic. You really took the long view, trying to make sure we get to that future of safety and unlimited possibilities that we will find in interstellar existence. My friend, I'm sure we're going to make it to that stage someday, and articles like yours are essential to help spur us into action.

            There was absolutely nothing to disagree with in your article, it is really tight and it satisfyingly expresses what you set out to express.

            In the "Adapt or Perish" section, I found a tie-in with what I've been doing: "But in fact we are billions of people with different experiences, different interests, and different visions for the future." Of course, foreknowledge machines would change that last bit.

            I want to offer another solution to problem of why we haven't met any extraterrestrial civilizations, a topic you discuss in your essay. This was alluded to in my article: We haven't had first contact because it is possible that, in their eyes, we are like barbarians insofar as we have not yet discovered how to unite our world through viewer foreknowledge. Without being united in ourselves, we could not become united with them either, so they stay away. If this is why they have chosen to remain hidden, at least the wheels of the conceptual part of this lacking in our way of life have started to turn.

            Before I sign off, I want to tell you that I have responded to your latest points in our thread on my page--I think you will find what I suggest to be intriguing, especially in the context of your article.

            I have rated it well above its previous position. All in all, it is a great contribution, and I wish you luck in the contest. From what I understand in my discussions with others, the real movement happens in the last week before voting closes. Between now and then, I hope more community members will discover and experience your article, and give it the high rating it deserves.

            Warmly,

            Aaron

              Robert,

              Thank you for a very interesting essay. I fully agree with you when you say:

              "Only by working together and building consensus can we harness the wisdom of the crowds. In the end, survival will require the cooperation and insight of a broad cross-section of the human race."

              I believe, as you do, that "governments will only agree on a common program if we - ordinary citizens around the world - demand one."

              Your ideas resonate with what I propose in my essay, that in order to raise the collective awareness and knowledge of the citizens of the world about the issues that are the most important to successfully steer the future, we must refocus education (both formal and lifelong) on precisely these issues - what I call the futurocentric curriculum.

              I have looked at all the essays, and read more than half of them from start to finish. Your essay is part of the short list that I hope will make it to the finals, and I have rated it accordingly. If you have the time to take a look at my essay, rate it and comment on it, it would be quite appreciated.

              Good luck in the contest!

              Marc

                Thank you so much, Aaron. It has been been a pleasure discussing these issues with you here. To briefly answer your comment, I certainly think it is possible that advanced alien civilizations are remaining hidden from us, but it seems to me that if advanced civilizations were common, then one might choose to make its presence known. I think it is also possible that civilizations that make it to the point of leaving their world of origin might live in difficult-to-detect habitats in interstellar space. But it is hard to know how likely these possibilities are. Best of luck to you as well!

                Robert

                Thank you, Marc. I really appreciate it. I think you are right about the importance of education. I am very interested to read your essay and will take a look at it as soon as I can!

                Best,

                Robert

                Hi Robert,

                I want to respond to your statement, "it seems to me that if advanced civilizations were common, then one might choose to make its presence known." Upon reading it, I realized that I did not expound the point I was making sufficiently.

                A civilization with foreknowledge machines simply would not make contact with a civilization without them, because this would invite conflict. They would be able to look ahead to see when a given civilization would attain viewer foreknowledge themselves, and when contact would be initiated with that civilization, so they would not have to wonder about when to make contact or debate the matter amongst themselves.

                Think about it this way, such a civilization would not stay hidden out of fear, they would stay hidden out of compassion. If a civilization without access to viewer foreknowledge (i.e., a future-blind civilization) were to encounter any other civilization, the future-blind civilization might form an aggressive posture due to fear of the unknown. This might cause the future-blind civilization to attack, in which case the future-sighted civilization would have to defend itself, and this would obviously not go well at all for the future-blind civilization. So, it may be that graduating from the future-blind stage is a universally understood prerequisite to first contact for civilizations everywhere.

                So, from this perspective, on the assumption that all civilizations advanced enough to achieve interstellar travel would also be future-sighted, it would not be the case that, "if advanced civilizations were common, then one might choose to make its presence known." Just thought I'd add these ideas to my previous comments.

                Warm regards,

                Aaron

                (My thanks again for the helpful review, Robert.) This is just a note to say I'll be rating your essay (along with the others on my review list) some time between now and May 30. All the best, and bye for now, - Mike

                Hi Robert,

                In case you'd like to look at at least one of the references I was planning share with you about superluminal signaling experiments, you will find it in my most recent post at the bottom of Michael Allan's page. As you may know, this topic is relevant to the content of his article, so it was natural to discuss it there.

                Warmly,

                Aaron