What makes you such an expert on long lived intelligent species? As far as I know, we're all working from the same sample size of one, with a written history and cultural memory that are evolutionarily insignificant.
For all we know, it may be the only long term path of survival for an intelligent species is to accept absolute dictatorship of a genocidal/eugenicist bent. I hope it's not, but if the 20th century's taught us anything, it's that any kind of non-evidence based wishful thinking towards an abstract ideal is probably the most dangerous thing.
A Phd from Trump University? :-) Seriously though, I don't (and did not) make that claim. I merely state my observation that as technology has advanced it has created opportunities for species annihilation that are both "controlled" by our species and do not exist for nominally 'unintelligent' species.[1]
That said, I'd be interested to understand how you reason from "the 20th century's teachings" to "absolute dictatorship of a genocidal bent". I would also like to understand the characterization of 'non-evidence based wishful thinking'. Happy to walk through the reasoning behind global thermonuclear war resulting in extinction, and sudden massive climate change resulting in the same. Similarly the reasoning for an individually created pandemic can be traced back to the general availability of DNA printers[2] and the ever increasing understanding of genetics and how one might use viruses modify the genetics of living humans [3].
[1] Trust me, the last thing I'd want to do is get into an argument about what constitutes sentience.
If you reduced the global population to 50 million people with a common culture, climate change would become much easier to deal with, the standard of living would be much higher, and a single nation-state with no rivals would have no need for nuclear weapons.
It would also involve wiping out or sterilizing 98%-99% of the species, but in terms of stabilizing the population and avoiding the possibility of a boom-bust extinction or nuclear war, that would be a solution both "hateful" and geared towards species longevity. I think it's better to risk extinction than to actually do that, but if one's sole concern is to avoid extinction...
Meanwhile, a european nun who chooses to live and work in Africa is definitely filled with genuine love for humanity, but their social and economic views would probably destroy our species and certainly any hope of technological progress if practiced universally.
The three points he listed are pretty obvious requirements if you want a long lived species. You don't need a large sample size to know that not killing yourself by failing at one of those three is important.
Comments
What makes you such an expert on long lived intelligent species? As far as I know, we're all working from the same sample size of one, with a written history and cultural memory that are evolutionarily insignificant.
For all we know, it may be the only long term path of survival for an intelligent species is to accept absolute dictatorship of a genocidal/eugenicist bent. I hope it's not, but if the 20th century's taught us anything, it's that any kind of non-evidence based wishful thinking towards an abstract ideal is probably the most dangerous thing.
A Phd from Trump University? :-) Seriously though, I don't (and did not) make that claim. I merely state my observation that as technology has advanced it has created opportunities for species annihilation that are both "controlled" by our species and do not exist for nominally 'unintelligent' species.[1]
That said, I'd be interested to understand how you reason from "the 20th century's teachings" to "absolute dictatorship of a genocidal bent". I would also like to understand the characterization of 'non-evidence based wishful thinking'. Happy to walk through the reasoning behind global thermonuclear war resulting in extinction, and sudden massive climate change resulting in the same. Similarly the reasoning for an individually created pandemic can be traced back to the general availability of DNA printers[2] and the ever increasing understanding of genetics and how one might use viruses modify the genetics of living humans [3].
[1] Trust me, the last thing I'd want to do is get into an argument about what constitutes sentience.
[2] http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/05/07/40446024...
[3] https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/therapy/genetherapy
If you reduced the global population to 50 million people with a common culture, climate change would become much easier to deal with, the standard of living would be much higher, and a single nation-state with no rivals would have no need for nuclear weapons.
It would also involve wiping out or sterilizing 98%-99% of the species, but in terms of stabilizing the population and avoiding the possibility of a boom-bust extinction or nuclear war, that would be a solution both "hateful" and geared towards species longevity. I think it's better to risk extinction than to actually do that, but if one's sole concern is to avoid extinction...
Meanwhile, a european nun who chooses to live and work in Africa is definitely filled with genuine love for humanity, but their social and economic views would probably destroy our species and certainly any hope of technological progress if practiced universally.
The three points he listed are pretty obvious requirements if you want a long lived species. You don't need a large sample size to know that not killing yourself by failing at one of those three is important.