8 ms·

As humanity gets access to higher and higher technology, more and more smaller scale, non-governmental actors will get access to weapons that can cause asymmetr

As humanity gets access to higher and higher technology, more and more smaller scale, non-governmental actors will get access to weapons that can cause asymmetrical damage. We will definitely get to a point where a single determined person can destroy an entire city. I strongly believe this is basically the great filter faced by all intelligent species in the universe. Only way to overcome this great filter is by adopting policies that provide equal opportunities to each member of the species and create a non-divisive/united society where everyone practically helps each other. Aim would be to colonise other planets as soon as possible to decrease risks of civilisation destruction by technological offshoots. I strongly believe that most of the alien species that achieve interstellar flight and escape the great filter must be benign, united, and highly intelligent for these reasons. I also believe humanity’s chances of escaping the great filter is ~0%.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
otoburb 6y ago
>>I also believe humanity’s chances of escaping the great filter is ~0% That turned dark, quickly. I was nodding my head up until that point. Things may look bleak now, but I live believing that humanity’s chances are higher than a measly ~0%.
- asdff 6y ago
  I think we are fundamentally too tribal and violent as a species. I think there is nothing we can do against millions of years of natural selection favoring the furthering of your kin at the expense of your species. We aren't wired for civilized society, it has to be learned and ingrained and even then, we revert to our tribal tendencies at the slightest encounter with an unknown.
  - phs318u 6y ago
    Without knowing what the actual answer to survive the filter might be, it's worth noting that across the entire universe, it's surely statistically unlikely that not a single species has made it through to the other side. If they have broken through, and assuming that they would view as a positive the breakthrough of other species through the "great filter" (and hence the collective uplift of intelligent life in the universe) - there's an implication that maybe what is required for breakthrough cannot - by definition - be transferred (in a similar way that children have to learn some lessons for themselves no matter what your parenting style). Either that, or they haven't gotten to us yet, or they're species-ist and quite happy to be the only ones past the filter.
7373737373 6y ago
Like our minds, all civilizations might only exist at the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge_of_chaos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge_of_chaos
soared 6y ago
An interesting example (or maybe counterexample) is thinking about how your first paragraph is relevant at any point in history. Compared to sticks, a bow causes asymmetrical damage.
- rurp 6y ago
  I think this is part of what makes it so scary. The current changes are nothing new, it's just that we're approaching the point where these threats can be existential. Once that happens, unless something really massive has changed in human society, it's probably game over.
  - generalizations 6y ago
    And that argument is exhibit A for why Mars colonization is so important. It gives us a second chance to figure out how to live with existential threats.
    - moneytide1 6y ago
      Extra terrestrial expansion will be the magnus opum of a species that has adopted science as a standard. For a few decades, such an inhospitable location will become a mecca for "the best of us" (off world or not). The conditions necessary for successful mission executions will insulate this unique group of colonists from the existential threats created by citizens naturally responding to their failed government (drug cartel would not exist if humanity could find a place and purpose for everyone). I'd imagine that this is our own version of the "filter" described in the root comment. The high standards of heavily funded interstellar ventures will bring together strong-willed, healthy, intelligent, empathetic, curious, and ambitious men&women to operate several light-minutes away from Earth. These are the types of people we should want to be breeding with each other for a few generations in order to produce higher quality citizens that will carry on the project (surely there will be medical implications rearing children in 0.5 G, see lifelong asteroid miner portrayal in "the Expanse").
      - deleted 6y ago
CamperBob2 6y ago
Only way to overcome this great filter is by adopting policies that provide equal opportunities to each member of the species and create a non-divisive/united society where everyone practically helps each other How does this utopian ideal address the lone nutcase who would actually do something like destroy an entire city if he could? The Unabomber wasn't standing up for BLM or fighting income inequality, you know.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Having a social structure where everyone is checked up on, and people who seem to be up to no good can be talked about. Alternatively and additionally, automated, limited, algorithmic surveillance and controls over some technologies. It's certainly difficult, but not completely impossible. There really aren't that many lone wolf nutcases that have the resources and ability to do such damage. It generally turns up warning signs and and/or takes coordinated groups. The Unabomber also wasn't a completely mad act, he had some method to his madness and his crimes ultimately came from his perception of the modern world as a horrible place to live in and a destruction of the environment.
- DethNinja 6y ago
  This is why I said we would need to colonise other planets. It is all about statistics, such crises must be occurring regularly even on highly advanced societies. So long as these events occur rarely, and doesn’t affect other planets, civilisation will continue and thrive. Universe is a large place, statistically speaking there must be criminal empires, psychotic species, and all kinds of other madness that exist but I believe these types of societies would be a considerable rarity as it is hard to pass great filter with such social structures.
generalizations 6y ago
> a single determined person can destroy an entire city That's already true, and has been for a while, if you count medical doctors with a reasonable degree of connectedness.
- Waterluvian 6y ago
  What exactly do you mean by that? Is there some famous story I’m not aware of? ...I can’t help but sense some crazy coming my way.
  - michaelbarton 6y ago
    Not the parent commentator but I assume this is a reference to a medical doctor having access to a significant contagion. For example the CDC keeps stocks of eradicated but virulent diseases.
    - generalizations 6y ago
      Pretty much. It doesn't have to be much more than having access to the contents of a decently large hospital, IIRC.
Waterluvian 6y ago
Consider the possibility that people generally don’t want to destroy. They want to control. Asymmetric power might just force adjustments in control. What does it look like if almost anyone can destroy concentrated populations? Maybe a police state. Maybe everyone spreads out. And then what does that do to power? Etc. I don’t think the end result is necessarily that someone pushes the button and we all die out. I think The Expanse revealed an interesting iteration of this concept: the ability to capture and hurl asteroids at your enemy.
cameldrv 6y ago
Not that providing equal opportunities is a bad thing by any means, but I don't think it solves this problem. In a city of a million people, even a very egalitarian one, the most psychopathic person in the city is going to be pretty psychopathic.
tehjoker 6y ago
I'm just a bit surprised that it's drones that are getting you down when we have an exciting nuclear arms race going on that is barely reported in the media.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

otoburb 6y ago

>>I also believe humanity’s chances of escaping the great filter is ~0% That turned dark, quickly. I was nodding my head up until that point. Things may look bleak now, but I live believing that humanity’s chances are higher than a measly ~0%.

asdff 6y ago
I think we are fundamentally too tribal and violent as a species. I think there is nothing we can do against millions of years of natural selection favoring the furthering of your kin at the expense of your species. We aren't wired for civilized society, it has to be learned and ingrained and even then, we revert to our tribal tendencies at the slightest encounter with an unknown.
- phs318u 6y ago
  Without knowing what the actual answer to survive the filter might be, it's worth noting that across the entire universe, it's surely statistically unlikely that not a single species has made it through to the other side. If they have broken through, and assuming that they would view as a positive the breakthrough of other species through the "great filter" (and hence the collective uplift of intelligent life in the universe) - there's an implication that maybe what is required for breakthrough cannot - by definition - be transferred (in a similar way that children have to learn some lessons for themselves no matter what your parenting style). Either that, or they haven't gotten to us yet, or they're species-ist and quite happy to be the only ones past the filter.

7373737373 6y ago

Like our minds, all civilizations might only exist at the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge_of_chaos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge_of_chaos

soared 6y ago

An interesting example (or maybe counterexample) is thinking about how your first paragraph is relevant at any point in history. Compared to sticks, a bow causes asymmetrical damage.

rurp 6y ago
I think this is part of what makes it so scary. The current changes are nothing new, it's just that we're approaching the point where these threats can be existential. Once that happens, unless something really massive has changed in human society, it's probably game over.
- generalizations 6y ago
  And that argument is exhibit A for why Mars colonization is so important. It gives us a second chance to figure out how to live with existential threats.
  - moneytide1 6y ago
    Extra terrestrial expansion will be the magnus opum of a species that has adopted science as a standard. For a few decades, such an inhospitable location will become a mecca for "the best of us" (off world or not). The conditions necessary for successful mission executions will insulate this unique group of colonists from the existential threats created by citizens naturally responding to their failed government (drug cartel would not exist if humanity could find a place and purpose for everyone). I'd imagine that this is our own version of the "filter" described in the root comment. The high standards of heavily funded interstellar ventures will bring together strong-willed, healthy, intelligent, empathetic, curious, and ambitious men&women to operate several light-minutes away from Earth. These are the types of people we should want to be breeding with each other for a few generations in order to produce higher quality citizens that will carry on the project (surely there will be medical implications rearing children in 0.5 G, see lifelong asteroid miner portrayal in "the Expanse").
    - deleted 6y ago

CamperBob2 6y ago

Only way to overcome this great filter is by adopting policies that provide equal opportunities to each member of the species and create a non-divisive/united society where everyone practically helps each other How does this utopian ideal address the lone nutcase who would actually do something like destroy an entire city if he could? The Unabomber wasn't standing up for BLM or fighting income inequality, you know.

sudosysgen 6y ago
Having a social structure where everyone is checked up on, and people who seem to be up to no good can be talked about. Alternatively and additionally, automated, limited, algorithmic surveillance and controls over some technologies. It's certainly difficult, but not completely impossible. There really aren't that many lone wolf nutcases that have the resources and ability to do such damage. It generally turns up warning signs and and/or takes coordinated groups. The Unabomber also wasn't a completely mad act, he had some method to his madness and his crimes ultimately came from his perception of the modern world as a horrible place to live in and a destruction of the environment.
DethNinja 6y ago
This is why I said we would need to colonise other planets. It is all about statistics, such crises must be occurring regularly even on highly advanced societies. So long as these events occur rarely, and doesn’t affect other planets, civilisation will continue and thrive. Universe is a large place, statistically speaking there must be criminal empires, psychotic species, and all kinds of other madness that exist but I believe these types of societies would be a considerable rarity as it is hard to pass great filter with such social structures.

generalizations 6y ago

> a single determined person can destroy an entire city That's already true, and has been for a while, if you count medical doctors with a reasonable degree of connectedness.

Waterluvian 6y ago
What exactly do you mean by that? Is there some famous story I’m not aware of? ...I can’t help but sense some crazy coming my way.
- michaelbarton 6y ago
  Not the parent commentator but I assume this is a reference to a medical doctor having access to a significant contagion. For example the CDC keeps stocks of eradicated but virulent diseases.
  - generalizations 6y ago
    Pretty much. It doesn't have to be much more than having access to the contents of a decently large hospital, IIRC.

Waterluvian 6y ago

Consider the possibility that people generally don’t want to destroy. They want to control. Asymmetric power might just force adjustments in control. What does it look like if almost anyone can destroy concentrated populations? Maybe a police state. Maybe everyone spreads out. And then what does that do to power? Etc. I don’t think the end result is necessarily that someone pushes the button and we all die out. I think The Expanse revealed an interesting iteration of this concept: the ability to capture and hurl asteroids at your enemy.

cameldrv 6y ago

Not that providing equal opportunities is a bad thing by any means, but I don't think it solves this problem. In a city of a million people, even a very egalitarian one, the most psychopathic person in the city is going to be pretty psychopathic.

tehjoker 6y ago

I'm just a bit surprised that it's drones that are getting you down when we have an exciting nuclear arms race going on that is barely reported in the media.