On methods of knowledge
There is only one truth, but it requires the right amount of information. However due to the nature of sensory organs themselves we will always perceive limited partial truth, a linguistic mirror of the full truth which is the totality of the universe itself. Each sensory organ perceives a partial truth.
If you smell a carrot you have a certain perception of the carrot, if you see it you have another perception, if you use a microscope you have a third perception, if you eat the carrot you have a fourth perception. Each perception is a relative truth on the existence of a mass of energy and information known as a carrot.
A 'scientific description' of the carrot are the numeric truths related to scientific measure; the photographs and light perception taken of the carrot with scientific instruments. However a rabbit does not need these scientific instruments to smell the carrot without seeing it. He knows through smelling information that the carrot exists. Thanks to such information he will locate under the Earth a carrot, faster than a scientist. Smell is part of the truth of the carrot, and the rabbit is an intelligent thinker of carrots in smelling terms. If for the scientist the light image of the carrot is the carrot, for the rabbit the smell of the carrot is the carrot. He just has a different approach to knowledge. Yet neither of them has all the truth on the carrot, which only belongs to the carrot itself.
In a world of partial information, truths are always relative probabilities, guesses, approximations to Reality through a language with partial information. The Universe is a mass of energy and information, which stores the truth only into its total self. You are the truth of yourself, and any perception of you will only be a linguistic approximation to your total truth- yourself.
Truths become intuitive when we have enough information. We only doubt of truths when we have not enough information about what we describe. When we see in black and white, we lose visual information, when we see in darkness we lose visual information, and finally we do not know what we see. The same happens with words. If we do not have enough information about the events we describe, we might not know what we talk about, and create wrong truths. Let us consider an example of this. Hold a bottle in your hand. You see enough of it to know it is a bottle. You have enough information. However if you put down the light, and ask someone what you have on your hand, he will not know. He has not enough information. If you put dim light, and ask him what kind of bottle you hold, he might take the bottle of beer, for a bottle of wine. He has misleading information. The conclusion is that truth is not the function of a single language, but the accumulation of perceptions with many languages, that inform us about the Universe. That no language is superior to other. Only the accumulation of languages, and perceptions brings us the absolute truth. Then not only science - mathematical explanations of reality - or art - verbal and visual explanations of reality - or smell - chemical representations of reality, would be truth, but all those informations together will be truth. In fact all those properties of the carrot should add to the total carrot and all the information - measures, smells, chemical composition, color, etc. - that defines the bottle or the carrot.
Languages are not truth, but mirrors of the Universe. The Universe is not written only in mathematics as Galileo thought. Mathematics is only one of the languages that perceives the Universe (Karl Popper). Computers confirm that, since they have developed with mathematics a visual vision of the Universe, that we might call "digital intelligence", that is able to perform task of comprehension that humans perform with verbal languages, using mathematical algorithms. What is truth, the smell of the dog, the words of man, the numbers of computers? They are all relativistic, linguistic knowledge. There are many minds and ways to perceive the Universe. Each being, each mind has a model-map-mirror-image-virtual world of the Universe. In mystical terms 'the languages of God are infinite'.
What are systems: Organisms or Mechanisms?
Though the purpose of this post is to explain the economical and existential crisis mankind faces at the beginning of the 21st century, in a wider sense it is about 2 different philosophies of the Universe:
— One is called mechanism. It considers all what exists a machine, including the human being, the Universe and of course machines. mechanism is the official philosophy of our technological civilization. It was developed initially by Galileo, whose real-life profession was that of an engineer of military devices, working for the princely salary of 1000 ducats a year for the Arsenal of Venice. Galileo was a mechanic, who started to philosophize about the Universe, departing from his job. Thus, he took the instruments of his work as the models for his cosmogony, in which the universe was compared no longer with a human organism but with a machine. Today mechanism is still the main philosophy of economics and Physics—the 2 sciences that manufacture machines—not because mechanism is the truth of the Universe, but because machines gave power and power imposed those ideologies to the rest of mankind.
So scientists made of the machine the ‘idol of the human tribe’(Idola tribus, Bacon) that established our superiority over Nature and all organic philosophies of knowledge. Galileo’s idea that the Universe had to be observed with machines, telescopes, today evolved into cameras and clocks, today evolved into computers, instead of human senses, eyes and verbal words that describe time with past, present and future verbs, however degraded the mental organs of human beings to a secondary status. Soon, the Universe became modeled no longer as a complex organism but as a mechanism and man became an imperfect machine, (instead of considering machines imperfect organisms): ‘I should like you to consider that these functions (including passion, memory and imagination) follow from the mere arrangement of the machine’s organs every bit as naturally as the movements of a clock or other automaton follow from the arrangement of its counter-weights and wheels.’ (Descartes, Treatise on Man).It was a radical change in history of thought. Since mechanism created the world we live in. Because all other ideologies, capitalism, techno-utopias, marxism, come from mechanism, the belief in the machine as the measure of all things.
— The other great philosophy of the Universe is called organicism, as it considers all what exists an organism, the human being first, made to the image of the Universe also an organism, whose biological mind – the laws of organic science—we might call in mythic terms God. Organicism considers the machine also a primitive evolving organism that will become one when robots acquire Artificial Intelligence. Organicism was the dominant doctrine of mankind during most of our existence, till the Industrial Revolution changed the paradigm. But precisely, because machines are becoming ‘organic’, suddenly organicism has become all the rage – as engineers study biology to replicate organic systems in machines. And so, paradoxically, the Third Millennium will witness the final victory of organicism over simplistic mechanism, as the Earth, Gaia and ‘her new inhabitants’; machines, become organic beings.
Indeed, it is only now in the 21st century when science and mathematics (fractals, non-Euclidean geometry and chaos theory) has reached a level of sophistication that allows us to return to an organic, more complex vision of the universe.
Bio-History and Bio-Economics; The Superorganisms of Mankind.
It is interesting to notice that we lack any serious philosophy about machines, despite having so many books that describe how to make, reproduce, and work with machines. All descriptions of machines we have, are abstract descriptions. Yet machines are material species. Their non-abstract nature is evident. Just try to lift a heavy "abstract machine", and let it fall on your foot. Suddenly the abstraction has become real. It has a form, a weight. We define that form in organic terms: A machine is a form that imitates a human organ of energy of information with atoms of metal. What man does is to transfer his energy and form into metal species. Men are creating living organs with metal: energy systems, or Metal-bodies, and information systems, or Metal-minds.
What kind of machines do men as catalyzers of metal evolve and reproduce? Organic machines. Machines which are copies of human energy or informative organs, from cars-legs to cranes-arms, from radio-ears to chip-brains. Machines are in fact metallic organs of human energy or human information. Men evolve them into more efficient integrated shapes, into systems that sooner or later will become complete organisms. The evolution of 19th century bodies of metal has been followed by the evolution of 20th century Metal-minds. Now Metal-minds are attaining individual autonomy [mobile-ears, satellites, personal computers, etc.] They are being integrated by the global stock-market into a parallel re-productive system that requires less and less human catalysis. The self-reproductive autonomy of modern factories, and the increasing complexity of Metal-minds, metal-bodies and integrated metalife=Robots, is a warning to all forms of carbolife. Since metalife does not require carbolife in order to advance and expand its ecosystem, as it diminishes and extinguishes the carbolife ecosystem.
What is clear is the fact that as chips lower prices, in the first decades of this century, robots will displace human workers, soldiers, and maybe as the century advances, the human race, from its apex (top) predator status on this planet. Unless we wake up to the fact that we cannot develop our tools beyond our own complexity the first half of this century will probably witness the end of man as top predator of this planet and the birth of the Metal-Earth, a global economic ecosystem, in which intelligent machines have made mankind obsolete.
In that sense one can say that greed is literally killing everything. The birth of capitalism 500 years ago coincides with the beginning of the sixth mass extinction. The transformation from subsistance society where everyone more or less consumed what they produced, to international capitalism required as a precondition the accumulation of capital. That is, some people had to be able to produce more than they consumed before they could have anything to invest. It's crucial to note the importance of the role of the slave trade in this transformation. On the one hand, the slave trade provided a source of raw materials (human beings) which could be sold at a profit by traders, and then used to produce even more wealth by the buyers (slaveholders). This double accumulation of wealth went a long way toward allowing a few very wealthy people to accumulate capital, which could then be invested in things like machinery. At the same time, the slave trade provided an economic foundation for a large scale international trading network (the famous molasses, slave, rum triangle, later includeing cotton). Without this international network of shippers and merchants, the English (and later New England) cotton mills would not have had anywhere to sell their manufactured product (cotton cloth), nor a cheap source of cotton to use as raw materials. It has been argued that without the immoral slave trade, the industrial revolution, and thus capitalism as we know it, would not have happened. Prior to capitalist tycoons, mammal extinctions were very rare: on average, just two species died out every million years. But in the last five centuries, at least 80 out of 5,570 mammal species have bitten the dust, providing a clear warning of the peril to biodiversity.
We can say that, today on the earth there are two type of ecosystems competing with each other, the economic ecosystem made of machines and animetals(men symbiotic to metal), and the historic and nature ecosystem, made of carbolife, and social human beings. The best way to explain the paradox of history is to talk of the confrontation between two different organic ecosystems, the ecosystem of history ruled by verbal information, rich in human goods, and symbiotic to nature, the world of agricultural civilizations; and the ecosystem of economics, ruled by monetary information, rich in metallic goods, and symbiotic to machines, the world of cities and industrial civilizations. The triumph of economic ecosystems only can mean the extinction of human history and its species, and the creation of a new world, the metal-earth, inhabited by thinking machines, and metalife that will speak only digital languages. The extinction of history is a sickness, a predictable sickness which has as all sickness a predictable fate: the death of the sick body the social organism of mankind and all its cells, human beings...
That extinction has caused more deaths of species in a century than in two million years. The speed of extinction has multiplied geometrically since the arrival of computers. Now animetals allied to computers can fish huge banks of sea-life that before escaped animetal detection. Technology is the main reason of the massive extinction of sea-life that is following the massive extinction of dry-land life that took place in the past century. By the end of the 2040s, many well-known animal species will be going extinct, or else have declined in such huge numbers that only those in captivity will exist. Meanwhile in the 2040s, jet fighters "metal birds" will now be entirely computer controlled. These unmanned planes will have fully autonomous capability from the moment they take off, to the moment they land. A combination of strong AI, swarming behaviour and hypersonic technology is employed to create near-instantaneous effects throughout the battlespace. The process is crystal clear, the ecosystem of earth and humankind is decaying, dissoluting and dying while a new ecosystem is evolving.
We conclude that the fundamental divide of human history is between the age of Words, when verbal thought was the dominant language of information in history, (150000BC till 1602CE) and the age of digital thought, when money and science, two languages of digital nature, replaced verbal and artistic thought as the languages that direct and create reality - now a reality of machines. Those structures replace the verbal, ethic visions of man as the center of the universe. The digital age of history is also the age of extinction of human history, since the eco[nomic]system now belongs to a new species: metal-life. The age of verbal truths and human truths no longer exists. In 1602, stock companies with paper money started the evolution of machines. They conquered with money, the Dutch Government, the English Government, Europe and America. The world became a bio-economy whose aim now is to reproduce machines, to work on them and to consume them for money. This means the end of bio-history, of artistic and religious societies, of human beings as top predators and creators of the future. The process of death of History, of mutation of the Life Earth into the Metal-Earth accelerates in the last 300 years, in the last hours of the life of Nature, as it occurs in infectious death, during the last days when the reproduction of germs is overwhelming and collapses the physiological networks of the body. We are in the last hours of history unless our collective brain reacts, and controls the main organic species that causes the reproduction of machine-germs, the company-mother.
In brief, when A.I. is born in the most advanced, 'top predator' machines of any age - weapons, those weapons with solar skins, survival programs and a mission – to kill humans, will do their job. Doesn’t matter if it is performed 'mechanically' as in the parable of 'Robota'; or it is guided by some software embedded in those robots. As the century advances, perhaps in the next 'currency wars' between China and America, if we are lucky at the end of the century when India overcomes China, and a new confrontation between the two final super-powers take place in the 'Himalayan wars', the balance between humans and autonomous machines re=produced by company-mothers of infinite self re=productivity will be tilted in favor of machines. Then we will have created, as capitalism wants it, a world to the image and likeness of machines where technology becomes organic and independent of us.
Another problem created by neoliberal capitalism is the problem of the very meaning and reality of work. To work is essential to what it means to be a human being. Next to the family, it is work and the relationships established by work that are the true foundations of society. In modern capitalism, however, it is productivity and profit which are the basic aims, not the providing of satisfying work. Moreover, since 'labor saving'=human atrophying devices are the proudest accomplishments of industrial capitalism, labor itself is stamped with the mark of undesirability. But what is undesirable cannot confer dignity. It is not merely that industrial capitalism has produced forms of work, both manual and white-collared, which are utterly uninteresting and meaningless. Mechanical, artificial, divorced from nature, utilizing only the smallest part of man's potential capacities, [sentencing] the great majority of workers to spending their working lives in a way which contains no worthy challenge, no stimulus to self-perfection, no chance of development, no element of beauty, truth, goodness. Rather, capitalism has so fundamentally alienated man from his own work, that he no longer considers it his own. It is those with the financial monopoly who determine what forms of work are to exist and which are "valuable" (i.e., useful for rendering profits to the owners of capital). Since man spends most of his days working, his entire existence becomes hollowed out, serving a purpose which is not of his own choosing nor in accord with his final end.
In regard to the entire question of a "final end,", if we are to consider capitalism from a truly philosophical perspective, we must ask of it the most philosophical of questions, why? What is the purpose for which all else is sacrificed, what is the purpose of continuous growth? Is it growth for growth's sake? With capitalism, there is no "saturation point," no condition in which the masters of the system say that the continuous growth of corporate profits and the development of technological devices has ceased to serve the ultimate, or even the proximate, ends of mankind. Economics study, on an abstract level, the mathematical laws of money, and teaches nothing about history, machine evolution, and the future. Yet humankind is willing to risk the future of humanity by blindly following lies determined by economic theories and postulates, whose only aim is to build the ecosystem of machines without considering its negative side effects for the human kind. Only an evolutionary theory of economics can give humankind the true explanation of the World today. Abstract economics have not created objective definitions of machines, money, and the ecosystem of products they create; instead all its analyses are subjective, in favor of machines and money. Since Adam Smith postulated that the wealth of nations was its machines and money, all economists and nations try to increase their Gross National Product, their machines. This myth has become the only goal of nations. But that myth is false. In fact, the more machines and money a nation has the greater is the possibility of a war; the wealth and health of the common people is lower, and they are killed more often... by machines...
The fact that the 'myth-postulate' of Adam Smith is false, implies that economics are not a science. Based on myths it believes that what kills humans (machines of maximum price, i.e. weapons) is good. So it makes worse the problem of our survival, and makes poverty and war endemic, as old mythic medicine did. We can ask ourselves then why the postulate of economics opposed to the real truth about money and machines -that their massive reproduction causes war- has imposed itself. The answer is self-evident: when someone affirms a lie systematically it is because it profits him. Who profits the reproduction of money, and machines mainly weapons? Those who reproduce them, animetals, warriors, traders and scientists. So we can affirm that economics are the ideology of warriors, traders and scientists, regarding the meaning of wealth, machines and money, since it protects those metal-products they live on. That is the meaning of an ideology, the use of the concept of truth, as an excuse to achieve power, by a certain species, or group. In this case, animetals and machines, use economics to evolve and reproduce their ecosystem. Thus abstract economics has to be considered the 'science of reproduction of machines', whose aim is to multiply machines and money, the economic ecosystem. Yet as a by-product of its expansion, the economic ecosystem, causes the paradox of history, the extinction of history. So in a way we could say that economics are also the science of extinction of history and nature. Perhaps the biggest myth of our modern economic ecosystem in favor of machines, is the myth of competence between humans. The myth says that men become better when competing with each other at work. That myth is false. It does not follow the laws of social evolution. Competence between humans is anti-natural, because we all belong to the same species. Work-in-teams, social work, helping each other, are superior forms of behavior, which should be followed by human beings. While competence within the limits of human activities is natural and desirable, the myth of economical competence hides the fact that men do not only compete against other men. They compete against machines. They do so with unfair advantage since machines are made of metal atoms with a greater complexity than carbon. Men are inferior to metal species when metal is evolved properly. As a consequence, competence becomes yet another path by which workers with lesser skills than machines become extinct. As machines displace labor, people compete for the dwindling supply of jobs that machines cannot yet perform. Competition between people increases because the demand for labor diminishes. Now the chip can also perform the higher intellectual tasks of man. Thus not only the average worker, but also managerial jobs are replaced.
We support the rights of companies to reproduce any lethal good with the concept of sacred property. In that regard, we must understand the concept of property from the biological perspective of what is good for mankind. Machines are property and property is sacred, because we love property. Since all species need a biological territory or vital space, where they can find the information and energy they need to improve their human life. So property of human life/labor enhancing goods is indeed sacred. Yet there are two kinds of property, human goods, sacred property that helps man to evolve and develop our natural biological arrows; and lethal goods, which kill, compete and destroy humans. This second kind of property should be repressed, because it does not help mankind to improve his life. The problem with capitalism is not too many capitalists, but too few capitalists (Chesterton). It is not ‘wealth’, neither healthy. To consider all machines good property is an ideology we might call ‘scientific racism’, since it considers the evolution and reproduction of metal and its digital languages more important than the evolution and welfare of mankind. Such ideology is really old. It started with military men. Germans made altars to swords. Weapons became wealth ... The most expensive items of societies were metal rings and weapons, which decorated all corpses and tombs after the Neolithic ... The problem is that property laws do not differentiate between good tools and bad machines. All is property. Such a state of laws denies in the case of weapons the basic human right to life. For example, in Spain all dogs are treated equally. In England dangerous dogs need to wear a muzzle before going out in public. Recently a dangerous dog killed a baby in Spain. Parents found that the owner had no responsibility for this tragedy since it was performed by property. This goes on worldwide with any lethal property. We do not differentiate life-enhancing human goods (property that helps us to develop a sustainable economy) from the bad goods of the tree of science that destroy our bodies and minds (weapons and chips). Without that differentiation between human goods and metal goods, property rights protects lethal machines and will protect robots with higher rights than citizens. Such property keeps evolving and exterminating workers in times of peace and all humans in times of war. On a global scale the facts are clear: Weapons kill men in war and robots extinguish labor in industry. They should be forbidden. The rights of property are natural to all beings that need a vital space. Property of human goods should be sacred.
Bhutan is an isolated himalayan kingdom that was left unchanged by colonialism, foreign capital and the cold war. Property, rather than being concentrated in the hands of a few corporations is still widely and broadly distributed. The majority of the population live from family subsistence farming and benefit from strong communal networks. They are still a verbal, ethical and aesthetical, poetic and artistic society where the economic ecosystem was not evolved. The fruits of such a society are happiness and well-being. Bhutan is the 8th happiest country in the world, on par with environmentally unsustainable countries like the United States or the Netherlands. Furthermore, Bhutan has a low crime rate. Incidents of petty crime are occasionally reported in the country. Violent crime is very uncommon.
Serious crimes were very uncommon in Bhutan throughout most of the 20th century. There were reports of increased criminal activity in the last decades. In June 1999, television was introduced in the country and Bhutan became the last nation in the world to have television. The introduction of television is often regarded as incompatible with Bhutanese culture and a cause behind the increase in crime. An editorial in Kuensel, the national newspaper of Bhutan, suggested:
"We are seeing for the first time broken families, school dropouts and other negative youth crimes. We are beginning to see crime associated with drug users all over the world - shoplifting, burglary and violence."
The past left alone is pure and bountiful. When it is ab=used by the metal-culture as energy it becomes degraded - as tamed animals become degraded by man. But wolfs are not dogs, lions are not cats, pigs are not wild boars. Man is not the present TV-eye slave. Those are degraded forms controlled by 'metal mind species'.
The main problem about the world we live in is its complexity. Bio-economics and bio-history are two different superorganisms, two different networks. In the past, people understood the nature of history and economics with far more simplicity. History was about mankind and it was understood, we humans evolved through social love into harmonic societies. The arrow of Eusocial evolution turned out to be the arrow that dominates the Universe and what complexity does is to study how millions or billions of individuals of the same species emerge as a single whole, a superorganism.
Economics was also understood. It was about money and somehow it was different from History, because in History we bonded together with ethic words, laws and religious ideals, using our natural language in which the syntax man-subject, verb-action, object-energy always put man at the center of the Universe. In history we were the measure of all things.
In Economics however, money which was a piece of informative metal, gold or silver or recently when the gold standard disappeared, e-money, bits of information in a computer mind, could be exchanged in equal conditions with men and objects. So this language and its values, man=object=price, were somehow diminishing of our place in the Universe. As an object we could be bought for a price, money, first as slaves, then as part time slaves with a salary. And so as the language of money substituted the language of words and occupied most of the actions in this planet, the world switched from one ecosystem dominated by history into an ecosystem dominated by economics.
- A historic organism or civilization is a population of humans, related by networks of verbal information and networks of carbon-life energy.
- An economic ecosystem is a population of human workers/consumers and machines, related by networks of digital information (money, audiovisual information, science) and energetic networks (roads, electric networks, etc.).
An economic ecosystem differs from a historic organism because they use different languages of information (civilizations use verbal or ethic laws while economic ecosystems use digital prices) and include 2 different species: human beings and machines.
The present earth is changing from a historic ecosystem of human social organisms based in human beings, human goods, and human art into a single ecosystem ruled by metal organisms, networks, and financial systems, that we might call the metal-earth.
The main effect of that change is the increasing obsolescence of human art and human minds, submissive today to the industrial design of software for thinking machines.
However in the past, in the super-organisms of history that we have called nations and civilizations, words, legal systems and art were far more important, because they were the informative networks of societies. Verbal and visual knowledge and Art were the mind of civilizations as historic organisms, organized by legal information, and religion.
And so art, as the social networks of information of civilizations, was not so much an individual phenomena, but a collective phenomena. And the artist felt himself with a social role, as the neuronal cells, the informative organs of his society. It was for that reason the art of any artist was basically similar, to the art of all other artists of its society. It was “style-art”, because the style, was the collective message of a civilization. Today however, because civilizations are no longer ruled by human minds, but by networks of financial information, by company-mothers and its lobbies, by networks of metal-minds that produce information in industrial processes, the artist no longer has a social role of relevance.
So it is evident that the Freedom of the market, the Freedom of the economy, is the Freedom of machines and its company-mothers. While the biological Freedom of the citizen, of the human being, were the ideals expressed by the art styles of historic civilizations. Those facts have of course enormous historic relevance, and explain why under such brain-washing propaganda, the classic historic, social, religious art and his aesthetic and ethic ideas, clash so deeply with modern ideologies of economical men and yet they were accepted and enjoyed by the citizens of Historic civilizations. They found in the social ideas of religious art, and the sensorial ideals of individual art, the pursuit of their self-realization as individual, biological human beings, and as part of a macro-social organism, a culture, or civilization, that social art harmonized, as nervous messages harmonize social cells in a body.
Distributism is the view that private property should be widely distributed in society, rather than concentrated in a few hands, in order to enable more or even most people to be able to take responsibility for their own families by means of productive and dignified work. Legislation should make it easier for the small property-owner, landowner, tradesman, and shopkeeper to survive, and harder for the tycoon to accumulate so much wealth and power that the former is forced to become a mere employee of the latter, or effectively a wage-slave. Distributism looks to increase the number of owners of private property by encouraging individuals and families to acquire or create means of production for themselves instead of being dependent upon wages. In practice it might well mean Chesterton's 'three acres and a cow'. Distributist ideas are old. They can be found in Aristotle’s Politics from 23 centuries ago, where Aristotle argued that the middle class should be protected and encouraged to flourish (they are the virtuous social mean, after all). It is assumed that human beings are happier not through the possession of great wealth but through the possession of freedom, in the sense of self-responsibility and self-determination, and especially the freedom to create and support a family. A man should be allowed to stand on his own feet, not dangle from another man's belt. If this is a correct understanding of human nature, then to build a society in which freedom, responsibility, and property are widely distributed is not to impose another ideology upon us, but rather to liberate us from ideologies to free us to live in accordance with the best human instincts.
What the ideologies of capitalism do is to ‘hide’ this hardcore fact of our world as it is, hiding the fact we humans are irrelevant to the 'economic ecosystem' (since all the economic actions and news must be understood as an effect of the fact that corporations rule the world with their monopoly of production of money, the language of social power, they use mostly to reproduce, evolve and sell for a profit their offspring of machines). If humans knew that capitalism doesn’t mean freedom but slavery to the 'free citizens of the market', corporations, that buy our life-time for a salary, have unlimited credit to cre(dit)ate reality and dispose of the law at will, paying for it to politicians, probably they would not be so happy and could rebel. So what those ideologies do is to create a ‘noise’ - military term that means information that distracts the victim – as we, humans keep creating a non-human future...
Do we want to preserve life or create an evil planet of robotic workers, terminator wars and dying 'life systems'? This is a question I raise to mankind and politicians who are not totally corrupted, as the fundamental fact of the culture of greed and murder is to have no empathy, to never listen, to twist truth with machiavelic arguments, such as the one of productivity, which are found in any book of economics. If any human thinks, those ideologies will be able to control the complexities of a system ruled by computers who think at the speed of light, weapons that can obliterate entire cities, flows of digital money that organize billions of humans and an organic, complex fractal Universe of infinite self-similar self-replicant entities fighting a darwinian struggle for existence, well, good luck.
Of course this is the warning to fall in deaf ears, given the newspeaks of the system and ego-fictions that have turned 'deaf' to the real problems of the future of mankind, the elites that control the economic ecosystem and the nations of history. But the true laws of the universe couldnt care less who you are. You can be Mr. Jacob Rothschild for all what matters, the head of the ideological world that the economist and global capitalism produces with the help of millions of 'economical experts'. Fact is any of your grand-sons who are today in a University will be corpses before they reach your age, killed by one of the machines of the singularity age, if as it all seems to prove the laws of science and evolution do apply NOT the myths of classic economics, to the description of the relationships between humans and machines.
After all, the Universe is far less cruel than humans are. As it is always more perfect than us. So death is fast. In only 400 years since the first corporations were founded, we have collapsed the planet. That is a few seconds in the life span of 'life' on this planet. We have done a good job. And when we die as a species, it will be a few years under A.I. in the 2nd half of the century. So the enormous pain that the 90% of mankind and the 99% of life has suffered during the 'sixth mass extinction' provoked by the industrial (r)evolution of machines will end. And even then, there will be infinite planets in the fractal Universe, in which, as in the painting of Botticelli, 'The Story of Nastagio degli Onesti' this tragedy will be rehearshed again, but in a few ones, Nastaglio will be redeemed and a sustainable paradise created. Hopefully I will be resurrected in one of them.
'Que sera sera',...