One Cannot Live in the Cradle Forever by Robert de Neufville

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

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

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

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

Hello Robert

Evolution is a process of adaptation & given enough time & raw materials will eventually produce a fully evolved, perfectly adapted life form, which particular life form will be evidenced by the facts that it will be able to live - indeed thrive - anywhere, at any time, under any conditions, or relocate or terra form to suit, doing so, moreover, without causing any waste, loss or damage to either itself or its surrounds, animate & inanimate alike.

We were well on our way to achieving this most exalted of existential states, 'when a funny thing happened on the way to the forum' - in a word 'patriarchy'.

Evolutionary viability as critically relies on 'female centrality' (see my essay) as it does on the availability of sufficient & suitable subsistence resources.

This is the law which we have broken.

Unless we dismantle patriarchy & re-centralise women we're doomed.

But if we do not only will we escape extinction but nature will quickly turn us into its crowning work.....

Margriet

Robert,

I found your essay exceptionally well aimed and argued and right on topic. A great pleasure to read, thank you. I feel a top score coming on! Your message is loud clear and true; "Adapt or Perish" and "Our existence is more tenuous than we generally realize." I also somehow feel this is the precurser essay to my own essay which continues the theme with new fundamental results showing a firm direction to go and methodological description.

However I agree you're right that; "Overcoming the technical challenges may be easy in comparison to using our collective power as a species wisely." and in far more ways than one. I'd also extend that to easy; "...in comparison to implementation in the face of old belief led science". For me scientific discovery implies 'change'. For many it seems the opposite is true!

I agree it's a fair view to say; "I don't think we understand the risks well enough yet to honestly say exactly what we need to do." I propose first resolving the great fundamental anomalies, then improved understanding will identify the greatest risks. Also our ability to avoid catastrophes will improve. Without that focus we may be consigned to being a momentary speck in the history of the universe.

Great job, well done. I hope you enjoy mine. The derivation uses quite simple 3D geometry and logic. QM becomes intuitive and understandable, even by young students (see the reproduced 'classroom experiment' in the end notes).

Best of luck in the competition.

Peter

Robert

I thought your well written essay framed the issue facing humanity in very clear terms. I do believe we are on the same page and thank you for your comments on my essay. If you have not already done so, I suggest you also read the essay by Walter Putnam which adds yet another dimension to the discussion. I also, think Marc Séguin's idea of the need to become future-literate fits in quite well.

I really agree with what you wrote:

"But the greatest challenges may be political. Overcoming the technical challenges may be easy in comparison to using our collective power as a species wisely. 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."

If we can't rid ourselves of nuclear weapons - the biggest environmental and existential threat to our future - how can we manage the more complicated issues?

Below are a few quotes that I find relevant to you essay:

Robert A. Heinlein:

We have two situations, mutually exclusive: Mankind surviving, and mankind extinct. With respect to morality, the second situation is a null class. An extinct breed has no behavior, moral or otherwise.

Arthur C. Clarke:

There is no way back into the past; the choice, as Wells once said, is the universe-or nothing. Though men and civilizations may yearn for rest, for the dream of the lotus-eaters, that is a desire that merges imperceptibly into death. The challenge of the great spaces between the worlds is a stupendous one; but if we fail to meet it, the story of our race will be drawing to its close.

Carl Sagan:

Since, in the long run, every planetary civilization will be endangered by impacts from space, every surviving civilization is obliged to become spacefaring--not because of exploratory or romantic zeal, but for the most practical reason imaginable: staying alive... If our long-term survival is at stake, we have a basic responsibility to our species to venture to other worlds.

Good luck in the competition. You deserve to do well.

Regards

Arthur

Thank you, Robert, for your own thoughtful essay. You are absolutely right that there must be a political will to create institutional change in order that humans work together for the common good. We have that now in many different forms, but it seems scattered in many different directions as well. Maybe we are closer than we think to a consensus on what steps to take. Groups large and small are just like individuals in many ways: You can know what is the right thing to do, or at least what you should not do, and yet still do the opposite. But just as individuals mature and learn over the years to follow the conscience, maybe humanity is reaching the point where the collective conscience will prevail over base instinct. Best of luck in the contest.