Our Relationship With Knowledge
This article will argue that the more is better relationship with knowledge which is the foundation of science and our modern civilization is simplistic, outdated and increasingly dangerous.
Let's start with a quick analogy which can provide a glimpse of where we're headed.
Our Evolving Relationship With Food
For most of our history humans have lived near the edge of starvation much of the time. In this scarcity context a more is better relationship with food was entirely reasonable.
We live in a new food era now. In our time food is plentiful and readily available in much of the world, and where that's true more people die of obesity related diseases than die of starvation.
The point here is that a more is better relationship with food which was entirely rational for a very long time in an era of food scarcity became outdated and dangerous when transported to a different era characterized by a food explosion. We lucky moderns are required to replace the simplistic more is better food paradigm from the earlier era with a more intelligent and sophisticated relationship which can involve complicated cost/benefit calculations.
Our Evolving Relationship With Knowledge
This is where we are in our relationship with knowledge as well. The simplistic more is better relationship with knowledge which served us so well for so long now must adapt to meet the challenge of the new environment which it's success has created.
The modern knowledge explosion obviously brings many benefits, way more than can be listed here, more than our ancestors could have even dreamed of. And although mistakes, missteps and even epic calamities do occur, so far we've always managed to clean up the mess, fix the error, learn the lessons, and continue with progress. So what's the problem??
To understand the threat posed by operating from an outdated relationship with knowledge we need to examine the issue of scale. It is the vast scale of the powers emerging from the knowledge explosion that makes the longstanding progress => mistakes => more progress process that we are used to obsolete.
Erasing The Room For Error
Luckily for the purposes of this article at least, nuclear weapons provide a very easily understood example of how powers of vast scale change the threat landscape by erasing the room for error.
As you know, the nuclear stockpiles of the great powers will have to be managed successfully every single day forever, for as long as those weapons exist. The key thing to note here is that as far as the future of humanity goes, successfully managing such vast power most of the time is no longer sufficient. Doing a pretty good job no longer works. Making a mistake and then fixing it is no longer an option.
In the nuclear era the room for error we've always counted on in the past is erased, and one bad day is all it takes to end the possibility for further progress. This is what defines the revolutionary new situation we now find ourselves in, a situation which demands perfection from us.
And Now The Bad News
If nuclear weapons were eliminated entirely the underlying more is better knowledge development process which created the nuclear threat would continue to create more vast powers with the potential for crashing civilization.
Each emerging power of vast scale will have to be successfully managed every single day forever because a single mistake with a single such power a single time may be sufficient to crash the system and prevent the opportunity for renewal.
More, Larger, Faster
A key fact of the knowledge explosion is that it feeds back upon itself creating an ever accelerating unfolding of new knowledge, and thus new powers. So not only will emerging powers be larger than what we could produce in the past, and not only will there be more such vast powers than currently, but they will arrive on the scene at an ever faster pace.
Ever more, ever larger powers, delivered at an ever faster pace. Each of these accelerating factors; scale, number, and speed; needs to be graphed against the glacial pace of human maturity development.
Are We Perfect?
There is nothing about thousands of years of human history which suggests that we are capable of the consistently perfect management which powers of vast scale require.
We've been able to survive repeated episodes of murderous insanity and other such mistakes in the past only because the powers available to us were limited. As example, we threw conventional explosives at each other with wild abandon in WWII, and were saved from total destruction only because conventional explosives simply aren't powerful enough to crash civilization.
The Unexamined False Assumption
A simplistic more is better relationship with knowledge is built upon the false assumption that human beings will always be able to successfully manage any amount of power which emerges from the knowledge explosion. Simple common sense reveals this assumption to be a wishful thinking fantasy.
We sensibly limit the powers available to kids out of the realistic understanding that their ability to manage power is limited. But then we assume that when children turn 18 they somehow magically acquire the ability to successfully manage any amount of power that the knowledge explosion may deliver.
The irrationality of this assumption is proven beyond doubt by the thousands of hair trigger hydrogen bombs we adults have aimed down our own throats, a stark reality we rarely find interesting enough to comment upon.
Mature? Ready for even more power?
Should We Become Luddites?
Should we turn our backs on knowledge? We don't have that option. We make our livings on this Earth by knowledge. Knowledge is to humans what wings are to a bird, and fins are to a fish.
To illustrate the path we are now required to walk in our relationship with knowledge, let's return to the example of food. The solution to obesity is obviously not to stop eating. The solution to obesity is instead to develop a more sophisticated relationship with food, eating what our bodies need, while saying no to excessive consumption.
In the same way, a simplistic more is better relationship with knowledge which has served us so well for so long must now make way for a more sophisticated relationship involving complicated cost/benefit calculations. And just as is the case with food, this will sometimes involve saying no to some new knowledge.
Yes, you're right, it's true, saying no to any knowledge is typically considered heresy in the age of science. Such reactions are surely understandable, but they are also wishful thinking prisoners of the past.
Nuclear weapons prove that the simplistic more is better relationship with knowledge the modern world is built upon is outdated 19th century philosophy which requires updating to meet the existential threats presented by a revolutionary new era.
Art Of Conversation
Given how many millions of times I am likely to reference this issue in threads, it seemed it might be helpful to summarize my obsession with this question.
Is the knowledge explosion sustainable?
To address this question, let's examine some key components of the knowledge explosion.
: First, the scale of reality seems vast beyond comprehension, and the more we dig in to our study of reality the more complexity and detail we seem to find. Thus, it seems we don't need to worry about running out of things to learn. We'll cross this off the list of obstacles for now, for a long time, perhaps forever.
: Second, the knowledge explosion feeds back on itself, leading to an ever accelerating development of new knowledge. The classic example here is the invention of computers, which has greatly facilitated research across almost every field. And now artificial intelligence is coming, which will further accelerate our learning. Given how the knowledge explosion feeds back upon itself, it seems reasonable to assume that for the foreseeable future there is no practical limit to how fast we might learn.
So far we see: 1) a seemingly limitless amount of things available to learn, and 2) no known speed limit on how fast we might learn. Thus, when looking only at the nature of reality and the nature of knowledge, it seems we could reasonably answer yes, the knowledge explosion is sustainable.
: Here's the part of the knowledge explosion equation I don't see being adequately addressed, if it's even considered.
How much knowledge can human beings successfully manage? Put another way, how much power to edit our environment can we handle?
We can explore this question in more depth as we continue. For now I ask, pretty much everyone I meet everywhere, only that this question be put on the table for examination.
As an aspiring person of reason I decline to do what seems so common, blindly assume that human beings can handle ANY number of new powers of ANY scale delivered at ANY rate. That is, I decline to join the "science clergy" and their many followers in assuming that we are gods.
All of the above can be very reasonably debated, and one of my goals for this site is that we do just that.
Sign in or register to add a comment.
Add a Comment
About This Site
Welcome to Thoughtage.com
Click Here To Learn More
About This Site
Art Of Conversation
World War Two
Nuclear Weapons Activism
Nuclear Weapons Articles
Impact Upon American Cities
Nuclear Weapons Accidents
Nuclear Weapons History
Nuclear Weapons Politics
Nuclear Weapons Social
Nuclear Weapons Video
War By Mistake
Finding The Place, Investing The Time, Building The Relationship
The Moment In Time: History Of The Manhattan Project
Will All Nuclear Weapons States Have To Disarm At The Same Time?
Terms of Service
Useful Hints and Tips
Created with PlushForums
© 2021 Thoughtage.com