How To Create an interstellar-Capable Civilization

[Deleted]

1. Emotion is one of the key motivators for invention.

2. Why would this new society even care about learning more knowledge?

3. If you are going to just create an emotionless machine race why not just create a robot that only cares about learning/inventing?

4. Even if you altered everyone and gave them super intellect you aren't guaranteed a break-thru and dividing resources between a couple million people working on X will most likely mean an even slower pace at learning something.

5. Who does what? You are going to need a government to tell people what job they need to do.

6. Eventually cultures will form on their own, you really think the engineer people are going to behave the same as someone studying planets and the races effects on the planet? Also your going to need to make em all one race and appearance or eventually they will have preferences for one appearance over another.

Prob more problems with your "theory" but its really long and you coulda prob not said theory as much as you did so I've forgotten most of the post.

1. I never said they would have no emotions, they would still have positive-type emotions. I think this answers your third point as well.

2. Because they will be taught that and they will learn to enjoy learning about the universe around them, they will be shown how it has brought them to where they are today.

3. It's possible, nobody has tried it so nobody knows. This is all speculation and I never said they'd have super intellect, just no more distractions and restrictions.

4. You can't comprehend a society where people are simply just not told what to do anymore, where they will contribute in their own way and everybody would be okay with it. It's a concept so foreign to you that you'd stare at someone incredulously as you think they were insane when they tell you about it. I understand that and I'm not trying to be arrogant when I say this, but such concepts are centuries ahead of today.

5. Why would cultures form on their own when the humans will simply be concerned about learning about the universe? You're forgetting something, the early humans invented culture through social groups to protect their groups and it carried over through thousands of years up until today. In this theoretical society there is none of that, there is no need for survival and everybody sees each other as equal since they have no reason to believe otherwise. They will simply focus on knowledge until a situation arises where conflict happens and then the birth of culture will come about, then we're back to square one again.

- - - Updated - - -

Ya this will never ever happen to humans, and I actually hope it doesn’t because we would be nothing but animals dressed in sci-fi clothes
No currency is fine and there are ways are no government(massive internet polls for deciding group issues)
But no religion or culture? You will have to lobotomize the majority of the human race including yourself to achieve no culture, since spoiler alert you do have your own biases that your talking about right in this thread.
And religion will only die out when the last sentient creature dies in the universe, even the most die hard atheists would take a moment to pray the moments before their deaths.

Why would you need to lobotomize humans in order to achieve no religion or culture when they won't have any knowledge of it or be placed in a situation where they will feel the need to use such concepts? What's so difficult to understand about that? There will be no situations for their survival instincts to kick in and think "okay, we need to form up our own groups because we disagree with them" because they will simply just work together and be mature. We can't do that because all the influences and teachings from our society ranging from the four pillars all the way to media, games, movies, books and stories passed down from hundreds of generations ago of how people thought and behaved that made micro changes in the way we think unconsciously about things.

I never claimed to be perfect as I was raised in this society and I have experienced anger, hatred, jealousy, greed and have acted on those emotions. But I at least recognize when something is a bias and when it is not, and this is not one of them. Knowledge, technology and discovery are a source of infinite incentives for the human race to feed off until they manage to reach the next stage of the multi-stage rocket. That's all it is, in the next society that the humans from my theoretical society will create will most likely have different incentives or concepts for the next generation of humans to live with.

[tiki854]

You read the other MMO-Champion thread? Because that's where I wrote the "I've thought of everything" bit, which I copied and pasted from my Notepad document and forgot to take that out. It was more like a personal diary comment where I was struggling to think of ways to dismantle my own theory.

I'll say it again; the four pillars of society are primitive concepts that cause a lot of friction and problems in society because of how they have a natural symbiosis with human emotions and desires. This causes humans to behave in certain ways and lead to conflict in every form.

Yes, you're right with how conflict can still happen. I never said my theory was perfect and I did say I needed help with it because I can't do it all alone. Remember when I said that I wrote in my personal diary about trying to dismantle my own theory? That's because I'm just one person and I need help from different scientists and people in different fields. But that's the problem exactly, you can't see a world without culture, religion and all the other four pillars of society. But I can, and it's a bright future full of wonderful potential and opportunities. Nothing like the grim world you consider it to be at all, it only seems grim to you because it's outlandish and you've never experienced it before yourself. It only seems grim because it is devoid of all the things you've been taught to treasure, value and love. Of course it'd seem creepy, grim and dark. But what about what the humans who would live in that society? How would they feel? Maybe to them, it's an amazing experience and they couldn't imagine a world without their values and dedication to science and knowledge.

I have already explained the multi-stage rocket analogy and how it applies to my theory and is an extremely crucial part; this theoretical society is not the be all and end of all for human civilization. It is simply another beginning, another stage to boost humanity to the next stage where they will create a new society completely different from the last to adapt to the technology and challenges they will face in their time. This theoretical society will serve as a home for the humans of that time for many centuries or millennia until the need to create a new society arises and what they may come up with could be extremely foreign to any of us, it may even sound illogical or insane. But because of the knowledge they've amassed over the years, they will most likely have the data to accurately create a perfect society that will adapt to their challenges in the future.

This multi-stage rocket does not stop until the human race finds a way to become immortal and be incapable of destroying themselves and at the same time be intelligent and mature enough to not attack others. That's the whole point of this theory like I've been saying so many times, it isn't the end of everything.

The humans are not even emotionless because they will retain happiness, excitement and all the other positive-type emotions that do not produce conflict in humans. So, I don't understand why everybody keeps saying they will be emotionless drones when they won't be.

What would really be nice is instead of attacking my theory and rejecting it because it goes against your values, try to see eye to eye with it and understand that it isn't about us but about the future humans. Their happiness, well-being and survival comes first before anything else because if we die out then all those years our species has been around for has all been for nothing. I wouldn't even be surprised if there was an intelligent civilization out there waiting for us to evolve and finally reach a type 1 civilization so they can contact us at last.

Don't you believe that every other intelligent civilization out there in the universe had to make drastic changes to their way of life and society in order to evolve and survive? Everything changes and we always view change as a bad thing because we're too used to our current iteration of things. Why are you so against change when it means that we could potentially discover amazing things, gain amazing knowledge and create amazing technology that will defy all known science today? And at the same time, the humans will be happy because all they know is how to be happy as seeing as all the negative-type emotions are eliminated.

I suppose what my attacks are coming from are a lack of strong reasoning as to why a pure pursuit of science and nothing more is better than what we have. I'm biased in that I love money, culture, and I highly respect religion for all that it's done for humanity, all that it will continue to do, and the solace many find in it that they otherwise couldn't. But even with my visions rooted in today's values, what makes your visions so 'evolved'? These words you use: evolved, better, next stage... they are premature and without foundation. The main principles driving your vision, at least as you've been able to communicate them, are survival and personal satisfaction in both emotion (happiness) and inquisition (intellect). These are noble goals, but the explanation of why shedding these things that have helped us so much, like money, religion, culture, and yes even violent conflict, will get us to those goals isn't clearly laid out in your writing.

Beyond that, the goals in themselves, I'd argue, are somewhat empty. Here's a thought experiment that perfectly achieves everything you've talked about: Imagine an invention were created tomorrow that every human hooks themselves into, and it feeds us, nurtures us, and makes us immortal for all intents and purposes and will never be disturbed so it's a guarantee of an eternity of survival. Furthermore, this invention pumps into us something that makes us happy because we engineer ourselves to be totally emotionally satisfied by whatever it is giving (tantamount to how you describe changing our desires to only want scientific advancement). We would be immortal with no risk of endangerment, we would be totally satisfied because we've designed ourselves to be, and all would be well and achieved. Why bother with making actual scientific discoveries, actually going out and studying and analyzing and theorizing when all that that could ever accomplished from such study, as you've put it, is accomplished by this invention?

- - - Updated - - -

If you really want constructive criticism, then lay out your arguments precisely and cleanly. If you can't in plain essay style writing, I'd suggest using the classical form of an equation. Start with your founding principles or statements that are near irrefutable from which you will base your logic off of. For example: A - Socrates is a man. Then walk us through the logic, in every detailed step you can imagine, for example: B - All men are mortal. And then arrive at: C - Thus Socrates is mortal. Or in your much more difficult to argue case: C - The four pillars of society should be eradicated. I think it'd help you more clearly lay out your thoughts and why they are valid.

[Paperfox]

You lost me when you said no government.

You put a group of people together and they will develop rules, and eventually a government of some sort. Even pirates will do this.

[Bronan]

Are you a god?

[Deleted]

I suppose what my attacks are coming from are a lack of strong reasoning as to why a pure pursuit of science and nothing more is better than what we have. I'm biased in that I love money, culture, and I highly respect religion for all that it's done for humanity, all that it will continue to do, and the solace many find in it that they otherwise couldn't. But even with my visions rooted in today's values, what makes your visions so 'evolved'? These words you use: evolved, better, next stage... they are premature and without foundation. The main principles driving your vision, at least as you've been able to communicate them, are survival and personal satisfaction in both emotion (happiness) and inquisition (intellect). These are noble goals, but to say that shedding all of these things that have helped us so much, like money, religion, culture, and yes even violent conflict, will get us to those goals isn't clearly laid out in your writing.

Beyond that, the goals in themselves, I'd argue, are somewhat empty. Here's a thought experiment that perfectly achieves everything you've talked about: Imagine an invention were created tomorrow that every human hooks themselves into, and it feeds us, nurtures us, and makes us immortal for all intents and purposes and will never be disturbed so it's a guarantee of an eternity of survival. Furthermore, this invention pumps into us something that makes us happy because we engineer ourselves to be totally emotionally satisfied by whatever it is giving (tantamount to how you describe changing our desires to only want scientific advancement). We would be immortal with no risk of endangerment, we would be totally satisfied because we've designed ourselves to be, and all would be well and achieved. Why bother with making actual scientific discoveries, actually going out and studying and analyzing and theorizing when all that that could ever accomplished from such study, as you've put it, is accomplished by this invention?

My visions are evolved because they are more closer in tune with the universe than any other version of human civilization, it literally uses the universe as the primary source of motivation which is infinite. You are correct that I haven't clearly written my intentions properly on the concept behind my theory, but that is the idea behind it all. I think this is a problem of how we believe the four pillars are all we need and that our species should only survive on them. Sort of like how a heroin addict believes that he can only survive on heroin. It's like a drug to human beings to continue living in a world with the four pillars, that's why they find it so difficult including you and I to let it go.

The simple answer to your experiment is that they're not real discoveries or real knowledge, it's akin to being on drugs all the time and you'll actually get nowhere as a species except sit in dark caverns being delusional. We would be satisfied but could we really see or understand where we are? I'd just imagine that it's like tripping on drugs and you have no clear concept of reality other than the fact that you are an completely satisfied immortal that will live forever scratching your lice infested hair as your mind melts.

My theoretical society doesn't have that, there are clear goals and motivations and life would be based around them. Think about how the four pillars have sub-categories and how an entire life can be based off those four things. It'd be the same here, they would figure out how to form a full society just from their three pillars instead. They have the motivation to help their species, to help each other and to learn from each other and at the same time advance throughout the universe learning from all the alien civilizations they meet and hopefully working with them. If anything, that might actually be all we need; an encounter with an advanced civilization to give us knowledge on how to live happily in peace without having the society stagnate and die out.

Try to imagine an alien civilization that is a type 2 or 3, would their society even be remotely similar to ours in any way? Would they even have such a concept like a "society" anymore? Maybe they've evolved beyond that, maybe they found something completely new that is effective and allows them to advance further towards a type 4 civilization. I seriously doubt that even a type 1 civilization will have any of the things our current society has otherwise it would've been hell for them to get the amount of money, manpower and all the people to agree on helping them make all their technology reliant solely on the power of the sun itself. Can you see what I mean? It's just not feasible for our society, we need a new society that will provide us with knowledge and technology to help us reach the next series of stages in our lifespan as a species.

While I fully understand things like art, music, writing (especially story writing since I do that as a hobby) and all other aspects of beautiful human inventions are precious and mean a lot to us as a species, they will mean nothing to future humans most likely as their minds will be geared towards the stars and discovery. And besides, haven't you considered the possibility that with a new society we could invent brand new forms of art? Hell, what if we could somehow amass the knowledge to create a new emotion that is far more powerful than love without compromising our logical capacity and cause us to be violent? What if? That's the bright side of gaining new technology and knowledge, we can do so much more like this. Maybe the humans of my theoretical society stumble across something like it one day, maybe it'll be their new driving force and give them the push to excel.

In all honesty, this is all still speculation, a lot of theories are speculation despite how much evidence and data they have piled up on the table. But how do we prove theories? By actually putting them to practice and seeing what happens as a result. Of course, you'd have to break a dozen human rights laws to test out my theory... but if it worked out and was effective? Wouldn't that be worth it all?

- - - Updated - - -

You lost me when you said no government.

You put a group of people together and they will develop rules, and eventually a government of some sort. Even pirates will do this.

A group of people who were born and raised in this current society yes, even the pirates as savage and insane they were, they were still raised with the influences and teachings of the four pillars. And on top of that, they're in a survival situation so the need for rules in order to survive arises, as with everything else.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you a god?

Boy, I wish. :P

- - - Updated - - -

If you really want constructive criticism, then lay out your arguments precisely and cleanly. If you can't in plain essay style writing, I'd suggest using the classical form of an equation. Start with your founding principles or statements that are near irrefutable from which you will base your logic off of. For example: A - Socrates is a man. Then walk us through the logic, in every detailed step you can imagine, for example: B - All men are mortal. And then arrive at: C - Thus Socrates is mortal. Or in your much more difficult to argue case: C - The four pillars of society should be eradicated. I think it'd help you more clearly lay out your thoughts and why they are valid.

I am very tired so I'm struggling to understand what any of this means, but I'll read it again tomorrow after I've gotten some sleep. It was a good discussion and I really enjoyed it despite how much I've typed, my ears are ringing and my eyes are melting lol.

Good night.

[tiki854]

My visions are evolved because they are more closer in tune with the universe than any other version of human civilization

Arrogant and off-putting, and before you so quickly dismiss my insult as the feeble-mindedness of but a slave to current day paradigms, maybe consider that others can think imaginatively and perhaps have even contemplated what you're contemplating. And they have done so in much more detail, with greater accuracy in their points and defense in their arguments, and those many still wouldn't say something so absurd.

The simple answer to your experiment is that they're not real discoveries or real knowledge, it's akin to being on drugs all the time and you'll actually get nowhere as a species except sit in dark caverns being delusional. We would be satisfied but could we really see or understand where we are? I'd just imagine that it's like tripping on drugs and you have no clear concept of reality other than the fact that you are an completely satisfied immortal that will live forever scratching your lice infested hair as your mind melts.

And why is a real discovery so important? What makes those hooked into the invention so delusional where as the eternal scientists exploring for a sake none other than knowledge are sane? Since when does seeing or understanding where we are matter in the grand pursuit of pure knowledge, for that sounds a bit on the romanticized side to me. As if one wishes to swoon over their discoveries and realize how grand and great they are, to bask in their pride. Of what good is that, if not to show that we need some of our current day sin, to be prideful and vain and bolster myths of great men.

[Deleted]

Arrogant and off-putting, and before you so quickly dismiss my insult as the feeble-mindedness of but a slave to current day paradigms, maybe consider that others can think imaginatively and perhaps have even contemplated what you're contemplating. And they have done so in much more detail, with greater accuracy in their points and defense in their arguments, and those many still wouldn't say something so absurd.



And why is a real discovery so important? What makes those hooked into the invention so delusional where as the eternal scientists exploring for a sake none other than knowledge are sane? Since when does seeing or understanding where we are matter in the grand pursuit of pure knowledge, for that sounds a bit on the romanticized side to me. As if one wishes to swoon over their discoveries and realize how grand and great they are, to bask in their pride. Of what good is that, if not to show that we need some of our current day sin, to be prideful and vain and bolster myths of great men.

I can't sleep, I have an appointment to go to. So, I'll reply to your questions anyway.

Okay

1. We've already established that I haven't written down the fully detailed theory in here, so I don't know why we keep going back to this as it's an endless loop.

2. If that's going to be your argument then lets apply it to everything in this society as well, what's the point of painting a picture or creating a sculpture or even making music? You can just trip out on LSD and smash drawers and that could be the equivalent to listening to a Beethoven song for someone. You can just put on VR Goggles and just pretend to paint something in there, what's the point of art? Hell, what's the point of working jobs when we could all just pretend that we're actually earning money and developing an economy as well if we just totally trip out on this brand new super drug of yours.

In all seriousness, it's not about pride or romanticizing the idea. It's about learning what lies in the universe so we can learn everything there is to know, it's about finding it all fascinating and realizing just how small we are. You are trying to bait me into saying something that I don't mean and I can see through it.

Look, I'm writing this theory to help my species. If I ever release the full version if I ever finish it, it's down to you guys to decide whether or not you want to survive as a species or just die out. I can't make these people do it, so honestly fighting me does nothing useful here. You've been handed an opportunity to really make a difference for the human race and now it's up to you to take the initiative. I was hoping you'd help me improve some ideas for this theory but it just seems like you just flat out hate the idea because of the lack of individualism it has. You hate not being special, you hate not feeling like you're better than others through your salary or qualifications, your reasons for hating this theory are purely selfish reasons and I can't believe you don't see it.

Majority of the people who reject such an idea claim it's for noble purposes such as human rights and freedom of speech but as I talk to them more, the more I find out that they're actually arguing against it because they're afraid of losing their position in society. They want to be "somebody" and that's fine, but it's just selfish and just based on primitive caveman emotions.

Your philosophical questions are so far from the point of this theory that I don't even think you have the best interests of the species in mind and more about what you love in mind. That's just my take on your stance here, I may be wrong but the past couple of people who've argued with me have had the same sort of stance. I've yet to see you suggest some kind of idea that could improve the theory because you're still too busy trying to attack me and my theory because you are afraid of it.

[Deleted]

Why don't you let folks define what sort of civilization they'd like to be a part of? Science is not the be-all and end-all.

A "civilization" of cultureless, homogeneous, emotionless lab-tech drones with no music, art, culture, or anything meaningul sounds more like an insect hive and less like a true civilization.

- - - Updated - - -

And while we're at it, this is the perfect topic to pull out a quote from from another MMO-Champion poster, Tigercat:

"Actually, Mr. Lennon, I CAN imagine a world with no hatred, religion, war, or violence.
I can also imagine attacking such a world, because they would never see it coming."

Both true, but exploring new frontiers is critical for both the survival and evolution of art and culture. In terms of not having the entire existence of the human race tied to this planet and running out of meaningful space and for a lack of better word, content here on Earth.

It might be intellectually stimulating to hype about studying exotic biological substances but that's going to happen in any case. We're not abandoning Earth, but we still need to get off this third rock from our star, relatively speaking, and start figuring out what the hell to do with the local surroundings.

[Independent voter]

When we create AI and after the "singularity" happens, AI can travel to distant stars even if it takes a million years, they can turn themselves off and a timer can "wake" them up. Also they can send a copy of themselves while the original does w/e back on Earth.

Why put a human through all that when machines, AI, will do it a million times better?

[Deleted]

When we create AI and after the "singularity" happens, AI can travel to distant stars even if it takes a million years, they can turn themselves off and a timer can "wake" them up. Also they can send a copy of themselves while the original does w/e back on Earth.

Why put a human through all that when machines, AI, will do it a million times better?

Perhaps that is a good idea, maybe we just simply augment ourselves with AI and our bodies stay behind while our minds travel the stars. It seems like a much more practical concept than to send humans out there. Or perhaps we allow AI to completely take over and we give AI all our knowledge and technology.

I like it.

[Zephire]

It's not much in your text I agree with. I think it's a lazy and lame way to avoid solving current problems. It also sounds like what could happen after a singularity, AI takes over and eradicates humans, ending us and become the new dominant species. Only in your theory it's special humans instead of AI. I have not given a counter argument years of thought as you have given your theory so I don't think I can argue about it. I just think you need to look for the good things in life, how friendly and helpful people can be. The world is so much more than hate, greed etc.

[Deleted]

Corporate space exploration will be the foundation for Humanities future in space.

So the creation of an interstellar-capable civilisation will basically have the same build as an international corporation on earth that operates in different regions of the world.

[zebreck]

Long post where you repeat yourself.

You can't "edit out" emotions. Any of them. That's just not how the human brain works. Did you read my post? There are portions of human behavior that seem to be genetic in origin, we share them with our closest primate relatives, you can't culturally "edit out" that stuff. It's literally hardwired. You can't undo that without also making whoever you're subjecting to your mad science not a human anymore. I'd be happy to post actual peer reviewed science that supporots the idea that we share portions of our behavioral drives with our primate cousins, can you show me anything that evens suggests its possible to edit out a human emotion? any of them? Peer reviewed science please.

You also have a fundamental misunderstanding of what culture is. It's not external to the behavior of humans, it is the behavior of humans. It's a reciprocal system in which we continuously define and redefine what it is to be ourselves and our places in the society of individuals. It's not simple. You can't just flip switches and change it because there's no central control room: ergo no switches. This is literally the first lesson in my Anthro 101 class and every year I get students like you who fundamentally don't get it at first. You can't, literally cannot, just create culture wholesale by fiat. People have to go live that culture every day, make decisions on the micro level about what is and is not best for them, or reasonable to do, or morally right. This means unless you have dictatorial control over literally every living human at all times, you will get people doing their own thing, which is probably not going to be the same as your thing.

Also yes, some humans just suck. Go read up on personality inventories. There are some people that appear, for reasons we don't fully understand but are clearly at least partially genetic, to be born with massive predilections for sociopathic behavior. Unless you're suggesting some sort of sci-fi personality screening and abortion campaign, you can't get rid of them. You're right about the idea that things don't inherently exist in a person's mind until we experience them. You're wrong in your assumption that everyone's experiences of a given thing are identical, or even equivalent. Not everyone paints things with the same color palette. There's not even a "right" choice for color palettes. You have no solution to this problem.

Also: I clearly didn't do a good job explaining multipolar traps. You're trying to solve all of them forever with your ideal society blueprints. Your problem is that you misunderstand your subject matter and your plans won't work. You're basically giving me a laundry gnome list of how to do things. There's a few good first steps, a whole lot of ????? and then the final line is: "And then everyone does exactly what I want them too forever." The point i'm making to you is that humans are variable, crazy, complicated things. The universe is crazy complex with a whole host of things reasonable people could reasonably disagree on (take this for instance). Science is chock full of really smart people who all want to understand the same thing yelling at each other because their interpretation of the same thing is a tiny shade different.
You can't eliminate the inherent Hegelian uncertainty of living just because it's annoying to you, and any plan that fails to incorporate the inexact and frustratingly complicated nature of human behavior is doomed to fail.

[Shibito]

How about starting as an interplanetary society first? Space stations, moon bases, hubs on Mars, etc. It's even theorized that Mars could be terraformed in five hundred years if we started in a few decades.

We would eventually fight mars in a space war, so better not.

[Hashtronaut]

Posting because I may want to read this more thoroughly when I have more time.

But overall I get the sense that you think your idea is “the only way” this situation can occur, which ideologies I tend to always disagree with. I’ll hold judgement for now.

[tiki854]

Look, I'm writing this theory to help my species. If I ever release the full version if I ever finish it, it's down to you guys to decide whether or not you want to survive as a species or just die out. I can't make these people do it, so honestly fighting me does nothing useful here. You've been handed an opportunity to really make a difference for the human race and now it's up to you to take the initiative.

I'm not attacking your theory because you haven't provided a theory to attack. Your proposals are merely that, proposals, without ground or solid argumentation. I read maybe a few lines explaining why the 4 pillars gradually destroy us (something like they cause greed and violence). One needs to tackle that question first. I'd suggest looking at why each pillar is such a strong influence in our society today, building the strongest argument you can in favor of them, and then dismantling those arguments.

Then, even if you were to make extremely strong points against those four pillars, you'd need to generate even more reasoning as to why these new 3 pillars are the solution and will guide us to a pinnacle of mankind. Insofar as support for your own proposal goes, I have seen nothing but assumption, pure and baseless speculation as to how implementing these principles would guide all of humanity.

Everyday, many of the smartest people in the world try to predict how a slight shift in economic policy will affect humanity tomorrow, and they fail to do so, so to make such absurd claims on how your 3 pillars will play out in the future is going too far. It is the language you use that I take issue with, your absolute and utterly blind certainty in your proposal before you've even argued as to why it would work. It takes on a religion of its own at such a point. I've quoted the above section because it is but another small portion of how you forgo reasoning in favor of assumption; the assumption that you are, without doubt or certification, correct. So again, to reiterate, if what you want is constructive feedback, you need to construct something in the first place. I stand by the idea that you're romanticizing pure scientific pursuit, the Great Filter, and all else you've written down, because without hardcore argumentation, with only weak catch-all sentences full of wonder, hope and mythizations, then it is but poetry you are writing, not theory.

If you have this theory elsewhere, then post it. It is pure hubris to ask us for thankfulness, constructive feedback, or any form of beneficial reaction for your humanity-saving ideas when you haven't shared them save but the shallowest form of arrogant, myth-like stories.

[PACOX]

Watch Isaac Arthur on the Youtube.

[Deleted]

You can't "edit out" emotions. Any of them. That's just not how the human brain works. Did you read my post? There are portions of human behavior that seem to be genetic in origin, we share them with our closest primate relatives, you can't culturally "edit out" that stuff. It's literally hardwired. You can't undo that without also making whoever you're subjecting to your mad science not a human anymore. I'd be happy to post actual peer reviewed science that supporots the idea that we share portions of our behavioral drives with our primate cousins, can you show me anything that evens suggests its possible to edit out a human emotion? any of them? Peer reviewed science please.

You also have a fundamental misunderstanding of what culture is. It's not external to the behavior of humans, it is the behavior of humans. It's a reciprocal system in which we continuously define and redefine what it is to be ourselves and our places in the society of individuals. It's not simple. You can't just flip switches and change it because there's no central control room: ergo no switches. This is literally the first lesson in my Anthro 101 class and every year I get students like you who fundamentally don't get it at first. You can't, literally cannot, just create culture wholesale by fiat. People have to go live that culture every day, make decisions on the micro level about what is and is not best for them, or reasonable to do, or morally right. This means unless you have dictatorial control over literally every living human at all times, you will get people doing their own thing, which is probably not going to be the same as your thing.

Also yes, some humans just suck. Go read up on personality inventories. There are some people that appear, for reasons we don't fully understand but are clearly at least partially genetic, to be born with massive predilections for sociopathic behavior. Unless you're suggesting some sort of sci-fi personality screening and abortion campaign, you can't get rid of them. You're right about the idea that things don't inherently exist in a person's mind until we experience them. You're wrong in your assumption that everyone's experiences of a given thing are identical, or even equivalent. Not everyone paints things with the same color palette. There's not even a "right" choice for color palettes. You have no solution to this problem.

Also: I clearly didn't do a good job explaining multipolar traps. You're trying to solve all of them forever with your ideal society blueprints. Your problem is that you misunderstand your subject matter and your plans won't work. You're basically giving me a laundry gnome list of how to do things. There's a few good first steps, a whole lot of ????? and then the final line is: "And then everyone does exactly what I want them too forever." The point i'm making to you is that humans are variable, crazy, complicated things. The universe is crazy complex with a whole host of things reasonable people could reasonably disagree on (take this for instance). Science is chock full of really smart people who all want to understand the same thing yelling at each other because their interpretation of the same thing is a tiny shade different.
You can't eliminate the inherent Hegelian uncertainty of living just because it's annoying to you, and any plan that fails to incorporate the inexact and frustratingly complicated nature of human behavior is doomed to fail.

I have tried over and over again to explain to you that it isn't about editing out human emotions but about not placing humans in a situation where these emotions can manifest. I have to admit I am bewildered at how you still don't understand this one, it's a no-brainer. Right now, are you feeling sad about the loss of a good baseball player? No? Well, start getting upset about the loss of a good baseball player. You see, if you're not in a situation or the circumstances around you that causes you to show a certain emotion then how can you feel that way about something? And on top of that, you don't even know how to feel that emotion or have any knowledge of it. So, you could potentially go your entire life without having ever felt like that about anything if that was the case. It isn't science it's just common sense, it all adds up on its own.

So, you're telling me that because you were raised with culture and that you haven't conducted any experiments where all four pillars are not taught to the newborn children in this experiment whilst providing them with everything they could possibly want and the knowledge of positive-type emotions plus the knowledge of science, technology and the universe and you still want to claim that you're absolutely correct? No questions asked? All your research and experimentation are still based on humans who have been living under the four pillars for years or decades. You still have currency which makes them feel the need to activate survival instincts because they need it to buy food/water/shelter, they still feel the need to create culture because they have no way of joining other social groups that are not of their own ethnic race without dying or getting attacked. They still need to create government because once humans fight for survival for currency and culture... we begin to see the primitive caveman side of humans like we do everyday today.

What is so difficult to understand about that? These four pillars are literal inventions by human beings, made into very real things by the human mind because it is the only thing we have been taught about and we have never been offered another source to learn from, another choice to live a life. We have movies, books, scientists and all kinds of media telling us that this is the only way to live a life because humans are somehow flawed and imperfect. Well, I tend to disagree with that, humans aren't flawed or imperfect. In fact, they are perfect and beautiful. They're just placed in a society that is flawed and imperfect which causes humans to unconsciously regress to caveman-level mentalities, I.E: law and punishment, the need for an eye for an eye to feel better.

Also, just to clarify I never said everybody would be exactly the same but I said that everybody would be on the same page.

This is also another issue, I have never once said with absolution that we could edit out human emotion. I said that it's a possibility that with CRISPR that we could do something similar to that, my whole theory isn't even based on this one thing. I don't expect it to work out because it's probably impossible, but it's still worth it to hope that it works out.

So, mental illness? Yes, some humans have genetics that predispose them to have mentally ill traits or conditions. But then again, a lot of that research is STILL based on humans that have lived many years under the four pillars and that still doesn't debunk my theory. Until we actually test them the way I would test them, you're just basing your answers on biased sources. Of course, like I said; if you're willing to break a dozen human rights laws to do it.

I have given you a very brief summation of what I have a written, what this has resulted in is me being asked tons of questions with lots of people because they don't fully understand my theory. So, of course you feel that way about what I've written and it isn't unwarranted either. I have repeatedly said throughout this whole thread that I can't do this alone and that I need help from other people, but people seem to be hellbent on trying to argue with me instead. I understand why people think that it's impossible but what you need to understand is why you think it's impossible, think about the source of your disbelief and realize that it may actually be possible. I think the only solution to our mess is to stop using the four pillars as a guiding tool and start moving on to something else, all our problems are being caused by these four pillars and yet you still want to use the four pillars to solve problems? Can't you see the insanity in that? These four pillars are man-made, they were made up by us, they have absolutely nothing to do with nature.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not attacking your theory because you haven't provided a theory to attack. Your proposals are merely that, proposals, without ground or solid argumentation. I read maybe a few lines explaining why the 4 pillars gradually destroy us (something like they cause greed and violence). One needs to tackle that question first. I'd suggest looking at why each pillar is such a strong influence in our society today, building the strongest argument you can in favor of them, and then dismantling those arguments.

Then, even if you were to make extremely strong points against those four pillars, you'd need to generate even more reasoning as to why these new 3 pillars are the solution and will guide us to a pinnacle of mankind. Insofar as support for your own proposal goes, I have seen nothing but assumption, pure and baseless speculation as to how implementing these principles would guide all of humanity.

Everyday, many of the smartest people in the world try to predict how a slight shift in economic policy will affect humanity tomorrow, and they fail to do so, so to make such absurd claims on how your 3 pillars will play out in the future is going too far. It is the language you use that I take issue with, your absolute and utterly blind certainty in your proposal before you've even argued as to why it would work. It takes on a religion of its own at such a point. I've quoted the above section because it is but another small portion of how you forgo reasoning in favor of assumption; the assumption that you are, without doubt or certification, correct. So again, to reiterate, if what you want is constructive feedback, you need to construct something in the first place. I stand by the idea that you're romanticizing pure scientific pursuit, the Great Filter, and all else you've written down, because without hardcore argumentation, with only weak catch-all sentences full of wonder, hope and mythizations, then it is but poetry you are writing, not theory.

If you have this theory elsewhere, then post it. It is pure hubris to ask us for thankfulness, constructive feedback, or any form of beneficial reaction for your humanity-saving ideas when you haven't shared them save but the shallowest form of arrogant, myth-like stories.

I can see that I can't convince you to understand what I'm saying here, it seems that your biggest hurdle is the fact that I have no evidence or proof that it could work. I have not explained in detail like I've already said before either. Apparently now you're saying you didn't read the entire OP, so I'm not sure where we stand now because I'm confused as to how you can say the things that you say without reading OP properly.

I have explained the 3 pillars of the pacifier society would provide unlimited amounts of incentive and is found the same way they travel, throughout space. It is all around them and humans have been curious about things forever. Without negative-type emotions, what reason would humans not want to instead start learning about the place they live? To start doing research into improving their own technology so they can improve their own lives as well, to aim for meeting other civilizations which may give them further insight into the universe. Why would anyone who is not angry or hateful care about "roles"? Why would they want to go against their own brothers and sisters? They find something? Wonderful, they'll talk about it and write down their findings, eventually trying to figure it out together. They don't have to actually agree on it, they could just instead write different interpretations of the same thing and state their reasons for doing so. Maybe sometime later they come across more information that is a confirmation and there we go, case is solved, nobody has any hard feelings and are quite truthfully happy the case is closed. They move on to something else.

The smartest people of today only try to predict these things because they can't see a world without the four pillars, so all their data and ideas comes from the thought that our society won't ever change or dispose of the four pillars. Why would they? They can't imagine a different society without them, so they just base all their research and data on that. While it would be more accurate than my proposals, they're still not accounting for what kind of changes the future could bring. Maybe there's a sudden stop and people just decide to totally create a new society out of nowhere, do their models account for that? Maybe some idiot in power just decides to launch a nuke on a whim without actually having any problems with any other nation and the entire human race is wiped out, does it account for that too? Perhaps an asteroid through some incredibly insane cosmic odds gets nudged out of position and begins hurtling towards our planet, does it account for that too? You can only do so much when you predict until you realize that it doesn't account for decisions made on a whim, which we have seen countless times in human history.

I do have the full theory in private but since it's not complete, I spend my time asking people for their opinions and seeing what kinds of arguments they can come up with. Done this dozens of times now, if someone can really come up with an argument that shows a glaring hole in my theory then I'll work to see if there's a solution for that and modify my theory to adapt to it. But most of the arguments here are based on human sensationalist feelings, like how people talk about "what it means to be human" and how it's what "makes us human". Even though what you think "made you human" is basically the four pillars taking advantage of your emotions and desires, causing you to think humans are flawed. We'll never know until we actually begin experimenting, so you're right about this being pure speculation until we can actually experiment.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not much in your text I agree with. I think it's a lazy and lame way to avoid solving current problems. It also sounds like what could happen after a singularity, AI takes over and eradicates humans, ending us and become the new dominant species. Only in your theory it's special humans instead of AI. I have not given a counter argument years of thought as you have given your theory so I don't think I can argue about it. I just think you need to look for the good things in life, how friendly and helpful people can be. The world is so much more than hate, greed etc.

Would you be okay with AI taking over and eradicating humans if it meant they took our knowledge, technology and passion to carry on learning in the universe? I would be to be honest, I'm fully supportive of any civilization that does this. Right now I'm supportive of human civilization, but if I ever found an alien civilization then I'd do the best I could to learn from them and move on from the human race, since they're unwilling to change or give leeway to anything that isn't their own ideas.

I do know how friendly and helpful people can be, I'm not saying that there is only hate, greed and jealousy. But the entire concept of this society works based on those things and it brings them out a lot in us no matter how we want to feel about things.

- - - Updated - - -

Posting because I may want to read this more thoroughly when I have more time.

But overall I get the sense that you think your idea is “the only way” this situation can occur, which ideologies I tend to always disagree with. I’ll hold judgement for now.

What other idea is there? All the other ideas are based on the four pillars, on the very things they were raised with. It's biased and a lot of studies are just confirmation bias for themselves. Start an experiment truly raising humans in an environment different from our one and raise them with the concept of my theoretical society from the very beginning of their birth and see what could happen. Would anyone actually try to do it? I don't think so. What I am trying to do is completely go against everything we know because history has shown time and time again that we've made some great discoveries doing just that. Sometimes we just have to accept that the answers to all our problems is often really simple; remove the four pillars and start focusing on learning about the universe. Maybe that's all it really takes for our species to thrive.

- - - Updated - - -

Corporate space exploration will be the foundation for Humanities future in space.

So the creation of an interstellar-capable civilisation will basically have the same build as an international corporation on earth that operates in different regions of the world.

Sounds like it'd be incredibly slow and inefficient if we were to restrict our interstellar traveling capabilities by money. How many times could we send a ship out before we run out of money and people refuse to work to build the ships anymore? How fast would research be into space engineering or technology if we have to acquire tons of money before doing so? It'd take ages to make strides in technology when impeded by something so primitive like money.

That's just the tip of the iceberg, you then have to try to argue and reason with all the people who have cultures/religions and different governments who believe that this interstellar exploration should be done in a completely different way or even not at all. How do they intend to adhere to that problem when their workforce is comprised solely of people influenced by those four pillars? They could go on a strike, and nothing could be done to stop it. Would you then initiate an authoritarian society in order to make people work no matter what? Or would you just let it just crumble apart for another couple of decades until someone has the same idea again?

Can you see what a mess that would be? We wouldn't get anywhere before a civil war broke out; religious people often cannot be bought with money no matter how much you throw at them and the same goes for insane people or people with nothing to lose. We wouldn't get anywhere before the company went bankrupt or was absorbed by a new company that has completely different ideas and effectively resets progress.

[Cosmic Janitor]

Scifi space magic would go a long way. Honestly, this is what I see as the biggest hurdle. Uniting the shit heap we are on will happen sooner or later, we have a long time left before we really need to go to space to survive as a species. What I'm currently not seeing is us breaking our current understanding of the laws of physics to such a degree that we could actually become an interstellar-capable civilisation. I'm not even sure if uniting us is even needed for that anyway.. I also very much doubt that religion is going to be the thing that enables us to go into space in the end. If anything it will keep holding us back.

[Deleted]

Currency: even in an advanced society you will still need some system to determine the relative value of things.

Religion: unnecessary, but knowing the history of one's own civilization is of vital importance.

Culture: depends. Some cultures promote secularism, scientific thinking and overall progress, while others do the exact opposite. For humanity to reach the stars we should make sure that the first kind of cultures prevail.

Government: well, we will always need someone to enforce fair play, because there will always be assholes who would not play fair.