Participating in a discussion is a great way to learn and contribute to ideas for superstructing. When you post a comment, try to provide information that others may not know, and avoid getting into arguments. Winning discussions are all about working together to get smarter.

Please login or register to post


    21st Century Ideas: Proposal to replace 'humanity' with 'modern human civilization'

    In relationship to the superthreats.

    Started by: ARK Raves:7

    Subscribe » RSS

    I'd like to offer that we stop thinking about the superthreats as threats to 'humanity' but threats to 'modern human civilization'. They combine to form a danger which our social structure is not built to sustain. We are creating these superstructs as an effort to redefine our social structure, with the hope that the new structure has the ability to deal with these threats. As these superstructs are implemented the nature of 'modern human civilization' changes and the threats themselves are offset. I'm offering this as an alternative to the view that the threats are against humanity and thus we are on a path to extinction. To assume that human beings will go extinct because 'modern human civilization' collapses from the threats is a complete misnomer. Humanity existed before civilization and can exist beyond it. Would there be a huge dip in the human population? Very likely, but the superthreats as they've been presented do not point to an extinction level event but the failing of our civilized social structure. And so to repeat, we superstruct to change that social structure, hopefully towards one that is not only able to deal with the superthreats, but also to not create future ones.

    The superthreats form a "perfect storm" which weaken humanity's ability to respond to any new deadly situation. If we allow the threats to weaken us, new unexpected threats become exponentially more deadly. Extinction is very possible.

    I disagree. By "humanity", I don't think of homo sapiens. I think of science, philosophy, art, literature, and all of those things that make being human worth it.

    On the other hand, not everything in "modern human civilisation" is worth preserving. For example, most of us would not be sorry to lose modern warfare.

    Many good points in both this discussion and the comments attached. The SuperThreats the GEAS report revealed before our eyes are, indeed, twofolds. The most litteral meaning of these threats is that the very existence of the human race as a whole is potentially close to an end, only to leave other species "in charge" of Planet Earth. Through starvation, contamination, violence and putting oneself into danger, slowly but surely the human race wouldn't be able to recover and repopulate the planet back to what it once was. However, the second meaning of the Superthreats is a more subtle one. As was pointed in the comments, the Superthreats have the potential to bring down humanity - the Logikon part of ourselves in the traditional Greek definition of human beings, that which makes us more than animals. As others have stated before us, all that stands between us and savagery is a roof on our heads and three meals a day. The real challenge, thus, is not to survive : instead, it is to survive humanely, by remembering that it is the good of the many that must prevail, not the good of the few or of the one. Whoever said TV shows couldn't be inspirational ? ;)

    I agree with you in principle, ARK, but as far as our collaborative purpose here is concerned, I don't think it matters. GEAS is a social construct; as far as GEAS is concerned, total social collapse=armageddon. The tools to ensure your personal survival are accessible through here, as well as tools to contribute to the stability of a broader civilization.

    Modern Human Culture is almost synonymous with Humanity. We are collaborative, tool using animals. All of our Art, Culture and science does little to elevate us above Yeast organisms. Just like yeast in a bottle we are fast approaching a tipping point where there is too many of us and too little of what we need to survive as a modern human culture. If the goal is every human for himself then the rules of Game Theory apply. However, if cooperative survival is the mission critical goal then humans have to find a way to transcend Game Theory. Humans are not well adapted to become collective organisms.

    Thorn, I disagree with you and this is exactly what I'm talking about. The divide here is between people who believe that humans are "not well adapted to become collective organisms" vs. people like me who think that they are. Further, I'm willing to contend that this divide can be simplified by saying it's between people who believe humans are inherently evil (calously selfish) vs. good (benevolent and generous)

    Foundation, Everyone who chooses to join a collective is free to do so in my opinion. However, organizationally adapting humans, especially north american types, to form a collective is a huge challenge. Furthermore, if you consider that most collective organisms are primarily populated by sexless drones then you have to admit that adapting humanity into a collective to solve an immediate extinction crises is an exercise in futility.

    Let us not forget back in 2008 when photos of an Amazonian Tribe untouched by civilization was found http://abcnews.go.com/International/Weather/wireStory?id=4961155 . Before that they had existed without civilization, for as long as civilization had existed. Since that time the tribe has been experiencing cultural loss at the expense of civilization. Civilization was the threat to their culture. Were they not humanity then if humanity is to be defined by its art and culture? Absolutely not. Rather it is the arrogance of civilization which believes it is the end all be all of human existence.

    What's wrong with saying that certain scenarios threaten a lot of individual humans? Screw humanity, and screw civilization. Try to tell a mom who just lost her son all about how important it is that prints of Cezanne survive forever.

    I agree that the situation is not as dire as the GEAS report makes out. The combination of the superthreats, along with any additional "straw that broke the camels back" which is likely to occur are not enough to cause the extinction of the human species. Humanity will survive, even if most humans do not. Let's be honest with ourselves and admit that we aren't worried about what happens to 'humanity' in any of these scenarios; we are worried about what happens to us, our families, and our friends.

    My solution is Project ARK, the last line of defense against extinction. The problem is not population dips, but the fact that populations are so intimately interconnected. Survivors will be the people who live in geographical and economic isolation, unfortunately in a modern world these people also tend to be unskilled. My solution is to shift the knowledge base out into remote and isolated places, where it's safe from the major problems.

    Apart from personal considerations what would be so bad about the human race going extinct?




    Nominate For A Badge

    Badge:
    More detail on badges



    NOMINATE CANCEL