LONGECITY

During the Age of Aquarius, the water bearer will pour his pitcher onto the world and cleanse us of the theistic memes that infest the collective conscious and unconscious and that have led the weak of this world astray with ignorance and phantoms.

I feel sorry for the theists. They will suffer immensely (as their own book says). But, it will be by their own choosing if they refuse to use their own free will to free themselves. You can lead a horse to water, but...

Antichrist == anti religion => True, i.e, nothing to worry about for atheists.

P.S. Absolute free will may not exist, but there ARE enough degrees of freedom to allow one to choose not to be a slave to religion.

Sing

The world is already shifting to more liberal social values which appears to be happening adjacent to the exponential increase in technological advancements.

In my opinion in the next few decades as the well being of individuals increases (due to technology) and as more and more people become educated (primarily through the internet) the number of theists (people who support organized religion) will decline (more in the west than in 3rd world countries). The number of non-theistic spiritualists (new agers with Buddhist philosophical tendencies) and nonbelievers will increase rapidly (especially in Europe). By the end of the century, there is no doubt in my mind organized religion will be dead (no more churches, not even virtual ones) and the number of liberal non-theistic spiritualists will be scarce. In the far future the only type of spirituality left will essentially be an awe for nature (as defined by Carl Sagan and Einstein).

As science begins to explain everything and as technology alleviates death and suffering, the supernatural no longer have a place in society. Religion only exists to function primitive tendencies which are no longer needed.

The world is already shifting to more liberal social values which appears to be happening adjacent to the exponential increase in technological advancements.
...

I wish I could be as optimistic. But, I am afraid it may take another 1000 years, at least. This is absolutely insufferable. I want religion gone now.

Now is the time to declare war on religion. Now, while their image is being tarnished further by the Muslims showing their a$$es, we need to call-out all religion. We can't just wait for it to go away on it's own. It is a monster that must be eliminated proactively and with extreme prejudice, but within the rules of a free democratic society, of course. But, it has to be nothing short of WAR.

Most of the organized religions in the world are indeed vile and repulsive, and I sympathize with the wish for the world to be rid of it. Yet, there are fundamental reasons why humans become infected with such memes. It is because of our cognitive biases and our pitiful human condition. Until we transcend both biology and material scarcity, religion will be here to stay. Of course if we ever reached a posthuman and post-scarcity future, we almost almost certainly would have simply traded one batch of problems for another... unless we all begin constructing the type of world that David Pearce speaks of. I am hopeful we will reach that level of excellence, but it is by no means a sure thing.

There is lots of work to be done. Give me Transcendence or give me Death! The suffering in the world is too great for it to redeem itself in its present state. If we do not achieve Transcendence, the project of civilization will have been in vain, and we'd be better off dead.

Just get rid of aging and more liberal values will arise dramatically. There is no need to start a war against people's beliefs which they have developed as a psychological defense mechanicsm against aging and existential risks.

I mean when religion is used to support life and good health, what is then wrong regardless of the basis behind it?. The churches are often the organizations caring most about old people, homeless people etc... If you start confronting religion the way eg Richard Dawkins does I think it will backfire.

Our ability to create technological progress will define how liberal people's way of thinking will be.

There is no need to start a war against people's beliefs which they have developed as a psychological defense mechanicsm against aging and existential risks.

Hmmm, but it's people's beliefs that start wars. I'm not for forcing anyone to do anything. All we have to do is pay attention and acknowledge that our children are being brainwashed. I'm not being rhetorical. The tactics used by Jim Jones is no different than the brainwashing techniques used by any church, group, gang, or sports team, not to mention the typical dysfunction family dynamics. Humans seem to be very reliable at perpetuating engrained knowledge and beliefs and traditions. Changing your old ways is very difficult. Usually, the only way to undo years of brainwashing is through more brainwashing from another cult. All we can do is speak out against ignorance, but it will take a while.

I mean when religion is used to support life and good health, what is then wrong regardless of the basis behind it?. The churches are often the organizations caring most about old people, homeless people etc... If you start confronting religion the way eg Richard Dawkins does I think it will backfire.

Religion does not care about truth. There are too many negative consequences resulting from ignorance. Ignorance serves no constructive purpose for adults other than for manipulation of others or oneself. Truth can do no harm other than the harm to an ego. The revelation of truth, no matter what the consequences, should be the highest endeavor.

Observing objective reality is already a hard problem to begin with. What good reason could there possibly be to muddy the waters even more?

So, I disagree. There are no constructive uses for telling lies other than to a mortal enemy or to someone you wish to control.

Most of the organized religions in the world are indeed vile and repulsive, and I sympathize with the wish for the world to be rid of it. Yet, there are fundamental reasons why humans become infected with such memes. It is because of our cognitive biases and our pitiful human condition. Until we transcend both biology and material scarcity, religion will be here to stay. Of course if we ever reached a posthuman and post-scarcity future, we almost almost certainly would have simply traded one batch of problems for another... unless we all begin constructing the type of world that David Pearce speaks of. I am hopeful we will reach that level of excellence, but it is by no means a sure thing.

There is lots of work to be done. Give me Transcendence or give me Death! The suffering in the world is too great for it to redeem itself in its present state. If we do not achieve Transcendence, the project of civilization will have been in vain, and we'd be better off dead.

Which causes what? Does scarcity cause brutal competitive behavior and suffering? Or, does brutal competition cause scarcity? I think scarcity was the initial cause. However, the lies that are born out of competition are actually stiffling progress. With over 5 billion minds on the planet, solutions to scarcity can be discovered much more quickly if everyone were enlightened and free from illusion. It's hard to argue against this. However, our "old ways" are keeping us back, imo. I know for certain that if alien beings dropped by and left us with technology to serve all of our needs, the greedy of the world would be quick to secure it for themselves for the purposes of having ultimate power and ruling the world. And, of course, they would feel justified in their theft because they know that they cannot not trust the rest of us and our evil stupid ways. Therefore, our minds have to change first, not the level of scarcity... IMO. Our whole civilization is the product of our minds.

The world is already shifting to more liberal social values which appears to be happening adjacent to the exponential increase in technological advancements.
...

I wish I could be as optimistic. But, I am afraid it may take another 1000 years, at least. This is absolutely insufferable. I want religion gone now.

Now is the time to declare war on religion. Now, while their image is being tarnished further by the Muslims showing their a$$es, we need to call-out all religion. We can't just wait for it to go away on it's own. It is a monster that must be eliminated proactively and with extreme prejudice, but within the rules of a free democratic society, of course. But, it has to be nothing short of WAR.

There doesn't need to be a war. Religion can disappear as little as a 100 years. Despite the media, religious fundamentalists are actually few in the world. The most christian fundamentalists are found in the US and fanatical muslims are no more then a 1 million compared to the 1 billion muslims world wide.

As science begins to explain everything and as technology begins to make life better by increasing well being and expunging death, disease and suffering; generation after generation will find religion less and less appealing. It's happening now and by the 22nd or 23rd century I do not think there will be any churches left. Religion may seem dominant now, but just wait till the singularity to see how the explosion of technology will radically change everything!
Edited by Cyberbrain, 21 November 2009 - 06:33 PM.

There doesn't need to be a war. Religion can disappear as little as a 100 years. Despite the media, religious fundamentalists are actually few in the world. The most christian fundamentalists are found in the US and fanatical muslims are no more then a 1 million compared to the 1 billion muslims world wide.

As science begins to explain everything and as technology begins to make life better by increasing well being and expunging death, disease and suffering; generation after generation will find religion less and less appealing. It's happening now and by the 22nd or 23rd century I do not think there will be any churches left. Religion may seem dominant now, but just wait till the singularity to see how the explosion of technology will radically change everything!

Cyberbrain, the singularity will bring Armageddon, i.e., massive war and death. You don't need to entertain the notion of psychic powers to realize that the Abrahamic end-times prophecies will simply be of the self-fulfilling kind. Orthodox religious views will/do clash head-on with any form of H+. Now, 20 years ago I might have given-in to the optimistic thought that Armageddon would simply be a "spiritual" war only. But, after considering the toxic nature of the Islamic faith, you can throw that fantasy out the window. The Muslims may be few (not really) but they managed to stifle a Dutch newspaper and make much of the rest of the world think twice about printing a few cartoons.

The Abrahamic End Times prophesies will be self-fulfilling by the very fact that any global force that is threatening enough to the religious meme will fit the description of the Antichrist perfectly. As a result, these religious fundamentalists are always prepared for war themselves. It would behoove us to snap to the realization that any significant anti-theistic or Transhuman movement made possible through something like the Singularity will be responded to as an act of war; not just any war, but a holy war, a war with extreme prejudice. So, it's war whether we like it or not. And, when the huge change comes, it will move too fast for most peoples' comfort level. I can't see a smooth transition knowing what I know about human nature.

That being said, I wish it would get here already. Right now, it's like humanity is bloated and constipated with intestinal parasites sapping us of our energy. Of course, a parasite is exactly what a meme is and it's not just going to die willingly.

imho

Cyberbrain, the singularity will bring Armageddon, i.e., massive war and death. You don't need to entertain the notion of psychic powers to realize that the Abrahamic end-times prophecies will simply be of the self-fulfilling kind. Orthodox religious views will/do clash head-on with any form of H+. Now, 20 years ago I might have given-in to the optimistic thought that Armageddon would simply be a "spiritual" war only. But, after considering the toxic nature of the Islamic faith, you can throw that fantasy out the window. The Muslims may be few (not really) but they managed to stifle a Dutch newspaper and make much of the rest of the world think twice about printing a few cartoons.

The Abrahamic End Times prophesies will be self-fulfilling by the very fact that any global force that is threatening enough to the religious meme will fit the description of the Antichrist perfectly. As a result, these religious fundamentalists are always prepared for war themselves. It would behoove us to snap to the realization that any significant anti-theistic or Transhuman movement made possible through something like the Singularity will be responded to as an act of war; not just any war, but a holy war, a war with extreme prejudice. So, it's war whether we like it or not. And, when the huge change comes, it will move too fast for most peoples' comfort level. I can't see a smooth transition knowing what I know about human nature.

That being said, I wish it would get here already. Right now, it's like humanity is bloated and constipated with intestinal parasites sapping us of our energy. Of course, a parasite is exactly what a meme is and it's not just going to die willingly.

imho

As an engineer and global studies minor I can see the pace of technological change and it's affect on people and society at large. I honestly have no idea how to convince you that there won't be any war or clashes imo (though there will be some small opposition from neoluddites, but that's always existed) so I'll just let time show you. I really can't debate someone who thinks of humanity like a parasite and thinks that the Apocalypse is inevitable.
Edited by Cyberbrain, 21 November 2009 - 08:57 PM.

The world is already shifting to more liberal social values which appears to be happening adjacent to the exponential increase in technological advancements.

In my opinion in the next few decades as the well being of individuals increases (due to technology) and as more and more people become educated (primarily through the internet) the number of theists (people who support organized religion) will decline (more in the west than in 3rd world countries). The number of non-theistic spiritualists (new agers with Buddhist philosophical tendencies) and nonbelievers will increase rapidly (especially in Europe). By the end of the century, there is no doubt in my mind organized religion will be dead (no more churches, not even virtual ones) and the number of liberal non-theistic spiritualists will be scarce. In the far future the only type of spirituality left will essentially be an awe for nature (as defined by Carl Sagan and Einstein).

As science begins to explain everything and as technology alleviates death and suffering, the supernatural no longer have a place in society. Religion only exists to function primitive tendencies which are no longer needed.

The presence of the church will never cease to exist entirely. True believers are are not the least bit swayed by technologies or the internet. A good part of our technological advances will turn out to be complete disasters. May turn some people back to the church.

You can look to a lot of areas of the world with problems that are framed in terms of religious disputes. But do you really think that religion is the cause of those disputes? I tend to think that at least religion is an organizing principle that allows a modicum of order, reducing the nature of strife to a few critical points that incidentally happen to be framed in religious terms. Look at the poverty, resource scarcity, undeveloped social infrastructure, and other inherent limitations on the development of social structures in these areas of the world. Can you really imagine that they would be any better off without religion?

The disputes are ugly, but I think they would be uglier without people submitting their personal egoic natures to a larger organizing principle. After enough development, the present organizing principle of religion will no longer be necessary.

I guess my argument is that it's a necessary impurity in the world, just as if you tapped a well for the first time and the water is dirty but your only other option is having no water at all. You don't destroy the well simply because it would be preferable to have clean water.
Edited by bmud, 22 November 2009 - 07:50 AM.

Which causes what? Does scarcity cause brutal competitive behavior and suffering? Or, does brutal competition cause scarcity? I think scarcity was the initial cause. However, the lies that are born out of competition are actually stiffling progress. With over 5 billion minds on the planet, solutions to scarcity can be discovered much more quickly if everyone were enlightened and free from illusion. It's hard to argue against this. However, our "old ways" are keeping us back, imo. I know for certain that if alien beings dropped by and left us with technology to serve all of our needs, the greedy of the world would be quick to secure it for themselves for the purposes of having ultimate power and ruling the world. And, of course, they would feel justified in their theft because they know that they cannot not trust the rest of us and our evil stupid ways. Therefore, our minds have to change first, not the level of scarcity... IMO. Our whole civilization is the product of our minds.

This is a good point, though I did clearly mention that cognitive biases and human limitations are one of the flaws. Though I think that as we gain the powers to modify our bodies, we will for the most part use it wisely, and perhaps we will soon have logic checkers which are as easy as spell checkers, and other such auxiliary intellectual defense mechanisms. Yet even large groups of smart people can make terrible decisions.... we learned that in the Cold War and the recent financial crisis.

Though, given the rapid advancement of technology, I'm even more concerned about lone kooks. I don't believe in the perfectability of humanity in its entirety, since that task is simply insurmountable and attempting to accomplish that goal would inherently lead to intolerable conditions.

Given all this, I think a suitable evolutionarily stable state for our civilization would be one in which all humans are free to pursue their own interests, be they wonderful or horrible, in personal virtual worlds. It is a sort of preference utilitarian utopia where the harm principle is never violated. It would be a messy, imperfect, and often repugnant world, but it would be far better than today.
Edited by progressive, 22 November 2009 - 08:47 AM.

As an engineer and global studies minor I can see the pace of technological change and it's affect on people and society at large. I honestly have no idea how to convince you that there won't be any war or clashes imo (though there will be some small opposition from neoluddites, but that's always existed) so I'll just let time show you. I really can't debate someone who thinks of humanity like a parasite and thinks that the Apocalypse is inevitable.

I think you misunderstand me, so I'll tone down the rhetoric. Humanity is not a parasite; the religious meme is. But, whatever the cause of humanities inability to skake-off irrational cognitive processes, it is a real tough bastard. And, when I say there will be death and destruction, I don't necessarily mean in the Biblical sense, but definitely through simple economics and societal pressures and policies. Someone always suffers from massive change whether they are simply out-competed in the workplace or because of their ignorance they are incapable of making the proper decisions best for their long-term survival. Obviously, most of those who will suffer will be the poor and uneducated. Don't your studies touch on these issues? The Singularity will not just bring an era of new gizmos. Any kind of rapid change will cause pain and discomfort for many and even death for some. It's just a fact. Discussing these issues on a board like this should not be considered distasteful.

On top of that, war is pretty much the norm as it is right now and for as long as history can recall! Armageddon is mostly just more war. Does more war really sound so unrealistic???

I agree that your scenario is the most likely given a slow pace of improvement, but the Singularity will simply be too fast of a change to not cause tremendous strife. That's really what my argument boils down to; the speed of change.
Edited by Singularity, 22 November 2009 - 01:04 PM.

This is a good point, though I did clearly mention that cognitive biases and human limitations are one of the flaws. Though I think that as we gain the powers to modify our bodies, we will for the most part use it wisely, and perhaps we will soon have logic checkers which are as easy as spell checkers, and other such auxiliary intellectual defense mechanisms. Yet even large groups of smart people can make terrible decisions.... we learned that in the Cold War and the recent financial crisis.

Though, given the rapid advancement of technology, I'm even more concerned about lone kooks. I don't believe in the perfectability of humanity in its entirety, since that task is simply insurmountable and attempting to accomplish that goal would inherently lead to intolerable conditions.

Given all this, I think a suitable evolutionarily stable state for our civilization would be one in which all humans are free to pursue their own interests, be they wonderful or horrible, in personal virtual worlds. It is a sort of preference utilitarian utopia where the harm principle is never violated. It would be a messy, imperfect, and often repugnant world, but it would be far better than today.

Yes, having our own sandbox to create our own worlds in would be divine... as long as my survival is not linked to this new Internet and I can escape it at anytime. I am not an IP address. I am a free man!

But, something even more dangerous than the lone kook scenario is simply the hell that will be unleashed if the Singularity is born out of a military black project, defense department agency (DARPA), or even from a profit-motivated corporation. Any autonomous strong AI will not be a free agent and will have the values and goals of it's creator. This I am sure of. When all morality is subjective, then morality is a matter of choice and arbitrary. One set of values and goals is no better than the rest. But, from what my research shows me, an intelligent agent needs some kind of motivation for the simplest of actions. These motivations will be engineered into it by the owning company/agency/consortium/foundation/etc.. If the Singularity is a product of DARPA, unlike what happened with the Internet, the world will descend into total darkness and we can kiss our dream of staying forever-young goodbye. It will NOT have our best interests in mind. It will be a super intelligence that only knows about war and profit. I am a capitalist like any other, but this will spell disaster for all but the handful of the elite.

We may even end up with a battle between two or more AI's, one good, one bad, which starts to sound more like end-times prophecy ironically.

Singularity,

I tend to think AGI is overhyped and what really matters is the modification of human beings. Even if AGI likely to be created, and even if once it is created a "fast takeoff" is - counter to my intuitions - likely to occur, then there are still more important things to be worrying about. As you mention yourself, AGI will emerge from a society with a certain structure. Since most of us aren't smart enough to build AGIs or powerful enough to initiate manhattan projects on the topic, the area in which our influence is the greatest is the reshaping of our social institutions. Open Source governance could have a bright future.

http://watch.usnowfilm.com/
Edited by progressive, 23 November 2009 - 09:03 AM.

Singularity,

I tend to think AGI is overhyped and what really matters is the modification of human beings. Even if AGI likely to be created, and even if once it is created a "fast takeoff" is - counter to my intuitions - likely to occur, then there are still more important things to be worrying about. As you mention yourself, AGI will emerge from a society with a certain structure. Since most of us aren't smart enough to build AGIs or powerful enough to initiate manhattan projects on the topic, the area in which our influence is the greatest is the reshaping of our social institutions. Open Source governance could have a bright future.

http://watch.usnowfilm.com/

That video is relevant. I keep trying to figure out how to make an online global voting/polling free service work that keeps a pulse on what the people of the world really think and feel about issues. Anyone could twitter yea or nay about any noun or simple statement, such as Bush, Obama, Iraq War, Stem Cell Research, etc.. It would be highly visual with maps that show time-lapsed sentiment waves. And easy for anyone to create a poll item. But, making it hack-free and organized is the hard part.

Singularity,

I tend to think AGI is overhyped and what really matters is the modification of human beings. Even if AGI likely to be created, and even if once it is created a "fast takeoff" is - counter to my intuitions - likely to occur, then there are still more important things to be worrying about. As you mention yourself, AGI will emerge from a society with a certain structure. Since most of us aren't smart enough to build AGIs or powerful enough to initiate manhattan projects on the topic, the area in which our influence is the greatest is the reshaping of our social institutions. Open Source governance could have a bright future.

http://watch.usnowfilm.com/

That video is relevant. I keep trying to figure out how to make an online global voting/polling free service work that keeps a pulse on what the people of the world really think and feel about issues. Anyone could twitter yea or nay about any noun or simple statement, such as Bush, Obama, Iraq War, Stem Cell Research, etc.. It would be highly visual with maps that show time-lapsed sentiment waves. And easy for anyone to create a poll item. But, making it hack-free and organized is the hard part.

There were centralized attempts at this going back to the 70s. http://en.wikipedia....roject_Cybersyn

Today there are services like Google Analytics to track trends in search history, and similar ones for twitter. Of course some have tried to use these things to push certain agendas, like the Web Bot project which is involved with the 2012 doomer scene.

The key, I think, would be to have a more open, decentralized project. Can't have a closed system to foster openness... that makes no sense.

Google Wave is going to be quite decentralized and open. Perhaps plugins for Wave could foster open governance.