The Evolution of Civilization

[Ubermensch]

As we advance as a civilization, we always leave behind relics with history and culture attached to them which brings about a form of sentiment for us. But a lot of these relics take up space that could instead be used efficiently to help our species. You have relics that can come in the form of murals, modern art or even buildings, some of which could be religious, like statues, temples or even churches. But they're outdated, we don't need them anymore, we keep them around for the sentiment and not because they provide any practical use to our civilization.

We could do so much more if we simply documented these things and replaced them with something far better for our future generations. Schools, hospitals, science labs of all kinds of fields. It would drive more knowledge into towns or cities, more opportunity for children to grow up safe and have a vast knowledge about their universe when they reach adulthood.

If anything, Augmented Reality technology might actually allow us to revisit ancient monuments of the world without having to go there. Maybe even those that no longer exist. And we'll be able to have that experience exactly as if it were happening in real life, right in front of you. History isn't going anywhere when those relics are taken down, it's simply going to be remembered a different way from how people remembered back then.

I'd love for you guys to join in here and read what you have to say on this topic.

[PrimiOne]

As we advance as a civilization, we always leave behind relics with history and culture attached to them which brings about a form of sentiment for us. But a lot of these relics take up space that could instead be used efficiently to help our species. You have relics that can come in the form of murals, modern art or even buildings, some of which could be religious, like statues, temples or even churches. But they're outdated, we don't need them anymore, we keep them around for the sentiment and not because they provide any practical use to our civilization.

We could do so much more if we simply documented these things and replaced them with something far better for our future generations. Schools, hospitals, science labs of all kinds of fields. It would drive more knowledge into towns or cities, more opportunity for children to grow up safe and have a vast knowledge about their universe when they reach adulthood.

If anything, Augmented Reality technology might actually allow us to revisit ancient monuments of the world without having to go there. Maybe even those that no longer exist. And we'll be able to have that experience exactly as if it were happening in real life, right in front of you. History isn't going anywhere when those relics are taken down, it's simply going to be remembered a different way from how people remembered back then.

I'd love for you guys to join in here and read what you have to say on this topic.

Let's see if I get this right.....are you arguing that we should demolish Abu Simbel and build an hotel there or it's just the "relics" inside a city like the Coliseum?

[Kathandira]

As we advance as a civilization, we always leave behind relics with history and culture attached to them which brings about a form of sentiment for us. But a lot of these relics take up space that could instead be used efficiently to help our species. You have relics that can come in the form of murals, modern art or even buildings, some of which could be religious, like statues, temples or even churches. But they're outdated, we don't need them anymore, we keep them around for the sentiment and not because they provide any practical use to our civilization.

We could do so much more if we simply documented these things and replaced them with something far better for our future generations. Schools, hospitals, science labs of all kinds of fields. It would drive more knowledge into towns or cities, more opportunity for children to grow up safe and have a vast knowledge about their universe when they reach adulthood.

If anything, Augmented Reality technology might actually allow us to revisit ancient monuments of the world without having to go there. Maybe even those that no longer exist. And we'll be able to have that experience exactly as if it were happening in real life, right in front of you. History isn't going anywhere when those relics are taken down, it's simply going to be remembered a different way from how people remembered back then.

I'd love for you guys to join in here and read what you have to say on this topic.

I love looking into ancient history as it is really interesting to attempt decipher the meaning of relics and murals and the information that was left behind. But that is something we should learn from the things we find and study. 12,000 year old tablets and structures, though well preserved, are difficult to decipher. These things were preserved on long lasting stone, but the way it was written doesn’t appear to with future discoverers to understand.

We really should create a new roseta stone of sorts. One that will allow civilizations in the future to completely understand who we are, and our technological progress. If in the event of a cataclysmic asteroid such as what wiped out the dinosaurs, all we have created would be gone. We build things to be replaced, not to last 10s of thousands of years. If we were wiped out, and our knowledge was lost, it would all be for nothing.

[Ubermensch]

I am all up for science but as my dear friend Suvi said "Through science, I am finding my god" and I agree with it. You sound rather radical. "Get rid of everything that resembles spirit and soul". I am against that. I find religion and churches nothing else than best version of human mafia that has been ever invented and that mafia is good at getting at peoples hearts. That being said, I am aware what it represents so to clueless people, it should remain intact.

You sound rather radical. "Get rid of everything that resembles spirit and soul". I am against that.

Why is that such a bad thing? They're imaginary constructs meant to give us solace in the face of a meaningless world. Wouldn't you rather embrace the universe and its chaos instead? It's a wonderful thing and we don't really need spirit or soul philosophies when we know that our atoms will return to the universe and give way to new life and structures after we're long gone.

- - - Updated - - -

Let's see if I get this right.....are you arguing that we should demolish Abu Simbel and build an hotel there or it's just the "relics" inside a city like the Coliseum?

I never said we should build hotels at all. I said we should be building things that can help us in knowledge or in health. If population is a problem then we need to curb that rather than enable it but it's only a problem because we have currency implemented in our society.

Once we need the space, we should demolish it. Demolishing Abu Simbel isn't as tragic as we'd like to think it is though, when our technology gets there, we can recreate it all in virtual reality/augmented reality.

[Rafoel]

Why is that such a bad thing? They're imaginary constructs meant to give us solace in the face of a meaningless world. Wouldn't you rather embrace the universe and its chaos instead? It's a wonderful thing and we don't really need spirit or soul philosophies when we know that our atoms will return to the universe and give way to new life and structures after we're long gone.

In meaningless world, schools and hospitals and science labs are completely meaningless as well. As is this "species".

[Chonar]

It seems you're be building towards a 100% efficient world.

No time to enjoy the sunset, thats 20 minutes you could've spent productively.
No use for art. The paint on that canvas could've been used to make roadsigns.
Different flavors in your food? What's the practical use? Eat this pill; it is a complete breakfast, lunch and dinner in one.
Now you'll save even more time!
Having sex? Barbaric, inefficient and messy. Extract your DNA and procreate only through artificial insemination of makeshift pod-wombs.
Having sex without wanting to procreate? That's not practical at all.
We can be more efficient.
Entertainment? The only entertainment you need is the feeling of elation of a job well done.
Music? Inefficient, outdated concept. You need to save your ears to hear important information.
Stories? Fiction does not benefit us in any meaningful way. Replace your stories with user manuals.
So you can be more efficient.
Beep boop.
Beep boop.
Beep boop.

[Ubermensch]

When nothing is sacred, it becomes what it displaces. No thank you. This sounds rather dystopian.

Why do we need "sacred" things in the first place?

- - - Updated - - -

In meaningless world, schools and hospitals and science labs are completely meaningless as well. As is this "species".

But we can give it meaning because it has a practical purpose for us and can help us fulfill our purposes as a species and a civilization. Spirituality and the soul aren't things that will help us, if someone didn't know anything about them or even the existence of their concepts, it would have little to no impact on their lives.

- - - Updated - - -

It seems you're be building towards a 100% efficient world.

No time to enjoy the sunset, thats 20 minutes you could've spent productively.
No use for art. The paint on that canvas could've been used to make roadsigns.
Different flavors in your food? What's the practical use? Eat this pill; it is a complete breakfast, lunch and dinner in one.
Now you'll save even more time!
Having sex? Barbaric, inefficient and messy. Extract your DNA and procreate only through artificial insemination of makeshift pod-wombs.
Having sex without wanting to procreate? That's not practical at all.
We can be more efficient.
Entertainment? The only entertainment you need is the feeling of elation of a job well done.
Music? Inefficient, outdated concept. You need to save your ears to hear important information.
Stories? Fiction does not benefit us in any meaningful way. Replace your stories with user manuals.
So you can be more efficient.
Beep boop.
Beep boop.
Beep boop.

Well, we are headed for that future anyway, it's inevitable. I think sentient species need emotion and some sort of "nature" in order to survive their odds against other creatures until they develop some kind of immunity against nature itself. Then they will be able to discard those things in order to pursue new avenues where emotion or an inherent "nature" is not required.

So to speak, we're going to evolve into some kind of hive-mind that will need to spread beyond our world. It will become a necessity if we want to survive any Great Filters. I guess I'm perhaps a thousand or two years too early but it'll happen anyway, there's no way to survive and become a multi-galaxy faring civilization while we still have conflict and competition amongst our species. We'll end up destroying ourselves or blocking our very own technological/mental advancements or we'll end up getting destroyed by some natural disaster.

- - - Updated - - -

We do need spirit and soul so that we can progress because we are not droids.

Even if they create conflict and competition? I wouldn't call that progress, I would call that stagnation.

Both religion and science can co-exists, whether they can work together or just respect each others differences. I am leaning towards working together. It's bad thing to try to get rid of science as religious person or to get rid of religion as science oriented person. Both serve a purpose.

They can never co-exist. Religion causes conflict and competition, directly or indirectly, human nature takes over in something that is tribalistic in nature. Religion already served its purpose a long time ago as a temporary substitute for science until we got up to speed on our knowledge and technology. Now that we're at this stage, we can safely disengage from religion and proceed to focus on science entirely.

[Surreality]

They can never co-exist. Religion causes conflict and competition, directly or indirectly, human nature takes over in something that is tribalistic in nature. Religion already served its purpose a long time ago as a temporary substitute for science until we got up to speed on our knowledge and technology. Now that we're at this stage, we can safely disengage from religion and proceed to focus on science entirely.

Our species relies heavily on spirituality. That is our nature. That is what we use religion for. Science can never appease our absolute necessity for spiritual guidance. Our species will never be without some kind of religion. Science is just going to have to get over itself and learn how to coexist with human nature.

[Ubermensch]

Our species relies heavily on spirituality. That is our nature. That is what we use religion for. Science can never appease our absolute necessity for spiritual guidance. Our species will never be without some kind of religion. Science is just going to have to get over itself and learn how to coexist with human nature.

If the necessity is so dire then how did we survive before we invented the concept of spirituality?

[Ubermensch]

Because they give us meaning, continuity, connection.

We can have these things without making things sacred. Just not in the way we're used to.

[Ubermensch]

Do you have an example of an eternal thing that’s man made?

Knowledge, it isn't sacred, it's just what we know but it can give purpose, meaning and connection.

[Ghostpanther]

I would but I wouldn't take what's "holy" to other people. Not everyone wants to embrace universe and chaos and they should have right to be like that. We do need spirit and soul so that we can progress because we are not droids. We don't need church or religion to tell us what is that spirit and what is that soul and that is what religion does in my opinion.

Both religion and science can co-exists, whether they can work together or just respect each others differences. I am leaning towards working together. It's bad thing to try to get rid of science as religious person or to get rid of religion as science oriented person. Both serve a purpose.

This. Very well said. Science has actually helped to prove the accuracy of a lot of the Bible, thru archeology discoveries. For example, the Hittite Empire was thought to be nothing more than a biblical tale of a culture which really had not be proven to exist. Then they found the ruins of them. Same has happened with many other finds concerning holy scriptures.

[Chonar]

Well, we are headed for that future anyway, it's inevitable. I think sentient species need emotion and some sort of "nature" in order to survive their odds against other creatures until they develop some kind of immunity against nature itself. Then they will be able to discard those things in order to pursue new avenues where emotion or an inherent "nature" is not required.

So to speak, we're going to evolve into some kind of hive-mind that will need to spread beyond our world. It will become a necessity if we want to survive any Great Filters. I guess I'm perhaps a thousand or two years too early but it'll happen anyway, there's no way to survive and become a multi-galaxy faring civilization while we still have conflict and competition amongst our species. We'll end up destroying ourselves or blocking our very own technological/mental advancements or we'll end up getting destroyed by some natural disaster.

Great Filters?

BEHOLD THE SCOURGE OF MAN

Seriously though, you're describing Humanity 2.0 there. Until that happens, all the things I described; enjoyment of senses, the inefficiency of emotion, thought and feelings, art, music, etc; Thats what makes us human. To get rid of it is to dehumanize us.

[Ubermensch]

Knowledge is sacred... (there are a bunch of schools of philosophy that see it that way, and a few Gods that have knowledge as their domain).

But knowledge alone can’t give meaning, if it could everyone would have a meaning in our culture, as we are overflowing with “knowledge”.

But that's how you choose to see it, objectively, knowledge isn't sacred and is really more of a tool to help us along. Once we reach the peak of evolution or civilization, whatever that is (omnipotence being the limit in my opinion), knowledge will no longer be necessary.

[Chonar]

I don't get how religion causes competition. I can understand conflicts because people in history did a lot of bad and evil things "in the name of the God". Hence, I detest religions of any kind.

My invisible friend can beat up your invisible friend!
Nuh uh!
Yuh uh!

[Ubermensch]

Seriously though, you're describing Humanity 2.0 there. Until that happens, all the things I described; enjoyment of senses, the inefficiency of emotion, thought and feelings, art, music, etc; Thats what makes us human. To get rid of it is to dehumanize us.

Well, that's exactly what I'm talking about. I'm talking about setting up our civilization for humanity 2.0 but we've been subjective about it based on what culture or environment we grew up with so we're quite scattered. To condense it, we'll need to be as you say "dehumanized", we'll need to be evolved without the things that cause us to split up into groups and fight each other.

- - - Updated - - -

It is how you choose to see it, which is why I don’t support what you are suggesting.

I'm looking at it with the same objective view the universe is made of. It is objectively, realistically, something that isn't supposed to be held as sacred. It's a tool, history has shown us how it's a tool.

[Chonar]

Well, that's exactly what I'm talking about. I'm talking about setting up our civilization for humanity 2.0 but we've been subjective about it based on what culture or environment we grew up with so we're quite scattered. To condense it, we'll need to be as you say "dehumanized", we'll need to be evolved without the things that cause us to split up into groups and fight each other.

I rather not dehumanize us in order to make us less likely to go for eachothers throats. There's too much good stuff in our human sensibilities.
You're talking about performing surgery with a chainsaw, cutting away the bad and taking along too much of the good.

[Ubermensch]

Yes, especially when there is competition and conflict. If there is no competition, there is no conflict and if there is no competition and conflict, we stagnate. The sheer will of a spirit and soul to be better than someone else is what makes things better for everyone and there are various levels of competition. Sport, company, country.

Would you call WW1 and WW2 a stagnation due to conflict even if both wars made world to progress towards better in technological sense?

But that's the thing, we needed conflict and competition when our technology and knowledge was inadequate back then, but from the 21st century onwards, we no longer are hindered by this. We can afford to live without conflict and competition in the near future if we go down this path. It's all evolutionary stages that all each give us the necessary drive to overcome our current obstacles until we get to our next stage.

Now with conflict and competition in our civilization, we will actually stagnate because we'll be too busy fighting each other (which will create minimal progress compared to if we worked together as a species). Do you see how technology and knowledge can radically change the playing field?

I don't get how religion causes competition.

They will always produce conflict and competition, directly or indirectly. Even the most peaceful of religions. A peaceful religion may attract the negative attention of a violent religion and they decide to attack this peaceful religion. They go to war with one another and human nature will take over from there. The peaceful religion will evolve their doctrine to involve violent tendencies based on their influences from the war.

That's another religion ruined and more conflict/competition created.

So the problem here are people, not religion.

Yes and no. You were almost on the right track. The problem here is indeed, people. But religion is what causes them to be the problem and any other environmental factors/influences they're raised with from childhood to adulthood and even through adulthood to their deaths.

- - - Updated - - -

Except you are forgetting one half of existence; the subjective agents that are living beings.

So again, not something I would support.

That's why we'll need to become objective agents in order to get over this hurdle. Perhaps that's the ultimate form of emotional creatures, the final realization that their state cannot exist forever if they wish to advance, perhaps that's the end of their journey. Perhaps now, they need to give way to a new journey for new humans with the world they built for them to carry on their civilization for.

[Ubermensch]

I rather not dehumanize us in order to make us less likely to go for eachothers throats. There's too much good stuff in our human sensibilities.
You're talking about performing surgery with a chainsaw, cutting away the bad and taking along too much of the good.

There is objectively more good if we all work together as a species and advance as one. It's all a series of stages to help us evolve to some ultimate state of being, perhaps that's how intelligent species evolve, they have stages of their own that they undertake and if they fail then they simply weren't meant for it. Sort of like Darwinism on steroids.

- - - Updated - - -

No thank you, I would rather not be blind to half of reality.

We're blind to all of reality already. We can only perceive three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension. Think of what we could uncover if we simply take that next step and unburden ourselves.

[Ubermensch]

We would be removing one more thing we already had, and make ourselves blind to it. Again, no thanks.

What I would rather have is an updated version of:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_cosmism

If you want this future, you are going to have to evolve to not be burdened by emotion or our own nature. Otherwise we'll be stuck fighting each other forever and your future will never happen so long as we're trying to kill each other.