Infinite Growth, is it possible?

[MythOfProgress]

We need infinite growth to further our virtual realities exponentially.

says who? i don't recall this being a life-saving technology so much as it is a pathway for escapism as its finest. not that there's anything wrong with escapism, but if you're telling me this comes first in lieu of actually helping someone out you really need to check your priorities.

As our expectations for virtual realities increase exponentially and the number of people also increases, we will need exponentially more computation. I personally believe in infinite growth, just like some Singularitarians, for example Ray Kurzweil. I just think that some of the timelines are too optimistic in their timing (like the Singularity happening as soon as 2045). We will at least need to create a humongous Matrioshka Brain around our Sun and possibly even something more far-fetching to satisfy our growing needs. We are now accustomed to exponential change and we won't easily accept it being over (at least that's the case with me). But for now, we should concentrate on making computers and other things (like cars or airplanes) more efficient.

like i said, you need to re-prioritize and check your values, because these are extremely speculative concepts that don't have much basis in the real-world and you're settling for the longtermism outlook(which is helping out the hypothetical future humans and waiting for advanced technology, as opposed to say helping out the people that actually exist in the here and now). feel free to drop any scholarly articles that indicate these ideas are plausible, if not logistically possible, otherwise i'll just stick with reality.

I think that degrowth people are cancer.

please elaborate, i don't recall advocating for continuous growth even to the detriment of our environment(which seems to be the case for your ideology, as it concerns itself with spreading it's metaphorical seed everywhere in the effort of expansion and colonizing, not unlike a tumor or cancerous growth).

ook: the more efficient computers get, the more energy they use (such a paradox).

yes, it's called Jevon's Paradox, i've mentioned this a few times before and this isn't the good thing you think it is, any efficiency gains as you mentioned later on in the paragraph are met with a higher demand, which negates the reductions in resource use. thereby, leading to faster depletion of resources on account of increased efficiency gains. it doesn't take a genius to see where this would lead to.

I hate the idea of no exponential growth. Only exponential growth gives any reason to live, learn or do stuff. I subscribe to Julian Simon's statement that infinite (or at least far, far, far greater than today) growth is possible, achievable and will be done. I see no point in contemplating future of degrowth. That's a reason for suicide, not for reading, writing books or working.

believe it or not, videogames, watching pornography, tv shows/movies or in general electronic entertainment aren't required for a good life- sure that's what most people are accustomed to nowadays, but these are avenues of escape(again, not gonna barrage you with how these are bad things, there's nothing wrong with them in particular and im not gonna begrudge folks of enjoying it, we all escape in someway- that being said opting for total escapism and burying your head in the metaphorical sand of comfort is not gonna help anyone, even yourself)- degrowth teaches us to live with less and devote time to things people actually need, like food, water, oxygen, companionship and our environment, as opposed to engaging continuously in consumerist practices and media that only serve to give wealth to our corporate overlords. that said, my statements are all sanitized and i'm probably being too optimistic in assuming this is a choice we can make, as opposed to being an eventuality we'll experience.

[Tadasuke]

Our role is to expand in every dimension, every space, including virtual. To discover, conceive, invent, design, create, build, establish, produce, compose, organize and imagine. Just keep in mind that only in the virtual, you are actually completely boundless and unconfined.


And there wouldn't be Enlightenment without Christianity (doesn't mean it's necessary forever).

[caltrek]

...

That is just one possible translation:

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and every living thing that moveth on the earth.

There is a big difference between "filling" and "replenishing." "Dominion" can also have a greater implication of responsibility and stewardship.

[caltrek]

Then there is the passage that immediately follows:

God also said: "See, I give you every seed-bearing plant all over the earth and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit on it to be your food; and to all animals of the land, all the birds of the air, and all living creatures that crawl on the ground, I give all the green plants for food," And so it happened. God looked at everything he made, and he found it very good. Evening came and morning followed - the sixth day."

Chapter 2

Thus the heavens and the earth and all their array were completed. Since on the seventh day God was finished with the work he had been doing, he rested on the seventh day from all the work he had undertaken.

This also suggests limits, why would God otherwise decide to rest?

It also suggests content with the nature that had been created, and a desire for humans to exercise good stewardship over what had been created. Not a desire to see humans "fill" and replace what had been created with something radically different.

[Tadasuke]

I will go by my preferable translations. I find the idea that God created this Universe for us to have infinite fun in it appealing and reasonable. In order to achieve that we just need to make machine learning empower us, instead of overpower us. If we were supposed to be in the Garden of Eden, we would still be there. There an open Universe of infinite possibilities around us and we are not making a use of it (but making progress). I don't believe in aliens. I believe we are alone in the entire Universe and that it is for us, not for someone else. It doesn't mean "kill all animals", but we are certainly the most important ones. We can be more ethical than animals and we will be. By 2050, all meat and other animal-derived products are going to be created artificially. Animals will be either in the wild, in zoos (in better conditions than now) or kept as pets (also in better conditions than now). By 2050, animal suffering caused by humans will end. It's just simple economics. When smartphones became profitable (circa 2011), I noticed them turning up everywhere around me (except for that one friend and some old people). When photovoltaic panels became profitable (circa 2019), I noticed them popping up everywhere around (including my family). And soon that will happen to electric cars (look at Norway for example). Artificial leather will be better in every way than animal leather, etc. Steven Pinker in his book "Enlightenment Now" shows how the Enlightenment worked and is still happening around the world and that's why the world has been becoming better and better since the 18th century. The media wants you to be angry or afraid, that's how the get their views. I refuse to succumb to their nasty strategy. I see the world as it is - horrible, but getting better every year. People in 2072 will look at 2022 like we today look at 1822 - that's how primitive we will seem.

[MythOfProgress]

Our role is to expand in every dimension, every space, including virtual. To discover, conceive, invent, design, create, build, establish, produce, compose, organize and imagine. Just keep in mind that only in the virtual, you are actually completely boundless and unconfined.


And there wouldn't be Enlightenment without Christianity (doesn't mean it's necessary forever).

this doesn't have anything to do with the original topic(at least in terms of the technical knowledge, this is just more or less in the realm of philosophy), but im not entirely surprised elements of christian ideology pervade your thought space when it comes to transhumanism, after all they are similar doctrines that are human-centric and place emphasis on expansion, conquering and dominating the environment, oftentimes with a lack of regard for other life as we've accustomed to nowadays.

that said, christianity does like to take credit when the going is good, as in at numerous points throughout history opposition to the sciences has always been an integral part of its past, i won't deny it played its part in the evolutionary nature of science when it comes to a few of the notable thinkers, scientists and philosophers but i'll have to ask you the weird question, at what point throughout history was it safe to be an apostate?

because it's pretty clear to me if you went against the word of God, the Bible or any of the sacred texts- you'd be putting yourself in danger, being excommunicated, shunned by others or worse burned at the stake- most folks aren't going to reveal their belief systems(or lack of one) when doing so puts them at risk. this is leaving aside the fact that 16th century scientists lived centuries prior to the scientific theory of evolution's prominence, which meant they definitely didn't have much of a framework in terms of naturalistic explanations for how human beings came to exist.

that said, i'm not gonna say in particular these men were atheists, so much as it is they didn't much of a choice in terms of their outward belief, because between the peasent uprisings occuring in the lower class of society and the catholic church carefully scrutinizing their texts and studies, these aristocrats often tip-toed the line between getting thrown to the wolves so folks could eat the rich or get burned at the stake for expressing views that were contradictory to the catholic church.

keep in mind the catholic church controlled(or at the very least tried their damnedest to control) the printing press which meant they decided which kind of information arose and destroyed anything that went counter to their views. it was only 4 centuries later that the catholic church would eventually admit wrongdoing in killing and oppressing it's scientists(such as Giordano Bruno, Galileo Galieli or Nicolas Copernicus)

the notion that western civilization has "thrived" because of "christian values" to me is quite frankly being ignorant of the actual history behind the enlightenment, which is to say we've thrived in spite of it(christian values), not because of it. the video you posted ignores(or rather misinteprets) the dawn of Enlightenment occurring in christian europe as a sign that christians were responsible for "progress", completely ignoring the fact that we had travelers going in & out and visiting other countries, cultures and nations at the time- to which they'd bring back their knowledge with them and share it with us, the explosion of knowledge and intellectual inquiry didn't just happen because folks were twiddling with their thumbs and investing themselves in the spiritual world.

knowledge by the ancient Greeks was lost and suppressed by christian authoritarianism for good amount of time before resurfacing sometime during the 13th century, then the renaissance would occur in the 14th century- when people would start(or rather once again like the Greeks and Romans before them) looking outwards towards the natural world(the world that we live in) for a reference as opposed to looking inwards for the spiritual world(a false or make-believe one if you will).

with the advent of the printing press in the 15th century which meant an easier time for reading, writing and distributing sources of information this meant proto-scientists(for lack of a better word that is escaping me at this current moment) and intellectuals could share information and build upon each other's work(early forms of peer reviewed work would start here), accelerating the very progress and its ideals that you hold near and dear to your heart.

i'm not a fan of how some christian folk are attempting to rewrite the history of their religion, it's your religion-own the shit you've done and move on- trying to sanitize the atrocities and barbaric practices committed in the past by earlier Christians just comes across as intellectually dishonest and is a poor attempt at framing yourselves as our superior counterparts.

moving onto the video's point about the soviet union's supposed atheists, he's definitely referring to the communist practices(or rather state-capitalist practices) of the Soviet Union, again he makes a fallacious statement as correlation is not causation, Joesph Stalin was a member of the Russian Orthodox Church, there are plenty of records of him seeking counsel and discussing God in his inner circle.

this is an incredibly oversimplified if not somewhat reductive explanation(mostly for the sake of brevity), but i will challenge the thought that christanity is responsible for the progress we've witnessed throughout the centuries, you can lie to yourself and keep going around in circles and circles about things that don't have any bearings on our natural world(like virtual realities which is looking inwards) or you can take a step off the roller-coaster and look at this for what it is, this is the only world we have- wasting it on petty delusions of grandeur isn't gonna help anyone but ourselves- eventually even this will come back to bite us in the ass.

[Tadasuke]

The thing is, that my belief system is caused by what I require to have an incentive to get up in the morning and do stuff during the day. Otherwise, I would have no motivation to live. Perhaps your belief system would just make me kill myself. Exponential progress or nothing. I love Ray Kurzweil's ideas and I fully agree with him. I just think that his timeline is too optimistic (as evident by what happened during the last 20 years), but the goals and results will be the same, whether in 30 years or 100 years.

[MythOfProgress]

The thing is, that my belief system is caused by what I require to have an incentive to get up in the morning and do stuff during the day. Otherwise, I would have no motivation to live. Perhaps your belief system would just make me kill myself. Exponential progress or nothing. I love Ray Kurzweil's ideas and I fully agree with him. I just think that his timeline is too optimistic (as evident by what happened during the last 20 years), but the goals and results will be the same, whether in 30 years or 100 years.

again, i'm not trying to take your beliefs away from you, that doesn't mean you settle for outright falsehoods and perpetuate them despite the erroneous consequences and maladaptive frameworks they pose.

[Tadasuke]

The thing is, that my belief system is caused by what I require to have an incentive to get up in the morning and do stuff during the day. Otherwise, I would have no motivation to live. Perhaps your belief system would just make me kill myself. Exponential progress or nothing. I love Ray Kurzweil's ideas and I fully agree with him. I just think that his timeline is too optimistic (as evident by what happened during the last 20 years), but the goals and results will be the same, whether in 30 years or 100 years.

again, i'm not trying to take your beliefs away from you, that doesn't mean you settle for outright falsehoods and perpetuate them despite the erroneous consequences and maladaptive frameworks they pose.

You see, I think that I am fairly reasonable and you are insane and wrong. I'm not settling for any falsehoods.

The wealthier people are, the more they care about the environment, I see that even in my neighborhood. Poor people don't care at all. You think that for example a poor country would ever install filters everywhere and carbon capturing devices? No, they would spew as much pollutants as they need to, just like the so called "developed countries" used to do. Look at the wealthiest countries and observe that in the 21st century their pollution has been going down each year. The real evil are marxist environmentalist, because they clearly want the world to become worse with their beliefs.
Watch this:

[MythOfProgress]

You see, I think that I am fairly reasonable and you are insane and wrong. I'm not settling for any falsehoods.

i mean you did say in your previous post your worldview is influenced by your belief system, and that it gives you an incentive to "live", so i'd argue you're mostly coming from a place of faith as opposed to "reasoning" like you keep mentioning; and that belief in belief(the benefits of believing) doesn't necessarily cancel out the concept of people killing and committing violent/barbaric/hostile acts in the name of their doctrines.

The wealthier people are, the more they care about the environment, I see that even in my neighborhood.

unsure if there's a good source for this, but assuming you're right there's a lot of missing context to this statement, as it's ignoring the notion that most folks in poverty are mostly going to care about their immediate surroundings and socioeconomic situation- they're not gonna be busy worrying about long-term situations like the climate collapsing when they can barely afford food, water or shelter(or a combination of all these things and more).

another problematic sentiment i'm seeing in this statement is that you're trying to place blame on developing countries/poor folk as if they're responsible for the majority of emissions these past few decades, you can search it up for yourself(or not) and see that developed countries are responsible for a significant portion of global emissions generated.

any of the measures taken to assist in de-carbonizing and being more sustainable by developed countries is almost equivalent to putting a band-aid on a broken arm or large wound- we've already done the damage and trying to be more environmentally-friendly is more often then not wrought with green-washed projects and technology that hurts the environment more than it helps.

Poor people don't care at all. You think that for example a poor country would ever install filters everywhere and carbon capturing devices?

well thanks for unveiling your casual dislike of poor folks, i'm not surprised someone such as yourself would leap to playing the blame game as opposed to recognizing that we're all apart of the problem(some more so than others of course)- carbon capture technology is an ineffectual attempt at recreating something that trees do on a daily basis- requiring massive amounts of energy and shutting down constantly without much in the way of actually absorbing carbon in the atmosphere considering the scale it works at.

The real evil are marxist environmentalist, because they clearly want the world to become worse with their beliefs.

hmm, if you're using the buzzword(marxist) in the way i think you are, then chances are my attempts to reason with you are mostly futile at this point. i'm not gonna engage with someone who's got preconceived notions and is fully invested in conspiracy theories, cheers.