The Terrors of the Future

     The next 5 or 10 years are tame when it comes to the terror of my imagination on what could end humanity. Sometimes I have a thought exercise, if I could place myself and humanity in an ideal period of time where the progress of technology could be frozen where would it be? After some thought the answer that came to me was somewhere around the 1910s or 20s where the technological tradeoff had been decisively to the benefit of humanity, where illnesses that once ravaged us like malaria and plague had been cured and the populations of the world were trending upwards. The greatest war known to man at that point only killed about 2.2 percent of the global population before exhausting all of the great powers, some into collapse. Why the early 20th century and not sometime later where more advances in medicine and better commodities were more readily available? The answer to that of course is the invention of the nuclear bomb, technological progress in 1945 reached a point where humanity had been given the ability to end it's own existence in one war. Since 1945 we have all lived on the knifes edge of chance, literally chance where we have relied on the rational saneness of certain state actors not to launch us into Armageddon, so far quite fortuitously we haven't been all killed. 

    The year is 2023 and we are on the verge of a new Cold War, in 30 or 40 years I see us with a distinct disadvantage in technological parity with China. The reason for this is our morality, for all the degeneracy of the population and that goes doubly for the government, we still live off the corpse of Christendom and our subconsciousness is informed by the lessons of our ancestors as testament to this we have placed restrictions on certain areas of scientific research like cloning and stem cell research. China because of its godless atheism and lack of morality has no problem with unethical research reminiscent of that performed by the Japanese in the Second World War. That is to say nothing of course of the world being shut down for 2 years with millions of dead via a Chinese lab security fuckup. While the US is wrangling with its own ethical concerns, China will become the leader of development in things such as gene-editing which will be used to create a race of superhumans, as well as ruthlessly developing its AI programs to increase its internal security making them invulnerable to internal structural change. China is already closing the gap with the United States on research and development with most of our bloated military budget going towards pensions and planes instead of counteracting the threat of China. Humanity moves ever forward all the time, no one country can go ahead and stop the technological march towards extinction because it will put itself at a disadvantage relative to its neighbors. With technology we have reached a point of diminishing returns, the further we go the more we risk the destruction of our species. 

    The far future seems to hold nothing but ever more ways for humanity to eliminate itself in one blow, chief among these possibilities is sentient AI that will seek to eliminate us, or the integration of AI into conventional weapons, as well as various other possibilities such as a far more deadly lab leak than Covid, even so called "good" potential inventions such as the extension of the lifespan by microbes will bring about huge generational strife. The future does not look good, our possibilities include human extinction by scientific hubris and stupidity or Chinese domination. Our only hope is for a decisive defeat of China and quick world unification under a regime that restricts scientific advancements in certain fields or at least slows them to a point where the default in society is not technological advancement at all costs. As well as focuses on developing space travel and colonization for the dispersal of the human race across many planets so as to make mass extinction a remote possibility. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why be a Jacobite?

Image
    Be warned that to be a Jacobite is a lonely existence, there are no jubilees or the commemorative merchandise that characterizes monarchies in the 21st century. There is but only a wistfulness to what might have been and a tiny hope that the true cause might be fulfilled. A good question to start with would be "What does a Jacobite believe in?", to put it simply we are monarchists generally from the anglosphere and paradoxically at least a plurality seem to be American although no in depth study has ever been concluded. What separates us is that we hold that in 1688 in the so called "Glorious Revolution" James II the king of England, was illegally overthrown by the Parliament and usurped by his daughter and son in law, also illegally. And because Parliament has no right to dethrone a reigning monarch, James II and his heirs are the true sovereigns of England, Scotland and Ireland. This also means by extension that the line of rulers since this usurpation is ille...
Read more

The Silent Death of the Death Penalty

     There has been a silent shift among Catholics and maybe even conservatives more broadly on the question of the death penalty. While the death penalty had been a contentious issue in the 70s and 80s with Michael Dukakis having sunk his campaign with not answering YES! unequivocally when asked in a debate on whether he would favor its use in the circumstance of his wife being raped and killed, and then saying that that's why grieving family members shouldn't be in charge of the legal system. The Death Penalty is now one of those supplementary issues ranking somewhere between nuclear arms reduction and environmental conservation, all important issues yes, but issues that have fallen away from the public consciousness.        I have found, however, that there is a new talk of the death penalty less of an actual debate about the issue itself but more of a supplementary rhetorical device when someone is debating abortion. A progressive might say t...
Read more

The Tale of An American Monarchist Part One

Image
       Monarchism did not come naturally to me or any other American Monarchist I suspect; the concept was there, and it wasn’t. It was King Arthur and his Knights; it was Shakespeare, it was something foreign, European in a way that didn’t make sense to our way of life. I was always some sort of conservative even as a youth, but I could never answer that philosophical question of what was conservatism? Was it to conserve something in society in policy? A way of life? Conservatism in 1950 obviously did not look the same as conservatism in 2010 so what then? Was I defending a temperament toward slow and incremental change in society or was I defending actual policy decisions, and if I believed the former the latter couldn’t possibly be true.        Let’s take something like same-sex marriage for example, now that it is the law of the land am I supposed to defend it from the perspective of the institutional conservative? If you look at polling ...
Read more