4 ms·

When Elon Musk said in his interview with Tim Pool that "if we don't get off planet earth right now then we never will" I thought immediately that he was talkin

When Elon Musk said in his interview with Tim Pool that "if we don't get off planet earth right now then we never will" I thought immediately that he was talking about exactly what Peter Thiel is talking about here. (Not surprising Elon has moved that way considering all the trouble he has been having with the government lately). I think they have both concluded that the Great Filter in the Fermi Pardox is simply technology advancing to the stage where one person or entity can enslave the rest of humanity forever. People can't have a revolution if their labor isn't needed for anything. Revolutions only work when those in power need those they rule over. Once one world government takes over, humanity will stagnate and stop progressing, just like happened every other time in history a single government took over an entire area. The only difference is this time it will be permanent, their power ensured by their robot technology that they long ago forgot how it works.

raxxorrax 5y ago
I disagree. A critical mass of completely disenfranchised people will always topple any ruling class. Even in the depth of any bunker. Fleeing the planet might work, but that is still out of reach. Aside from that todays robots still tend to disappoint. Chatbots are the most impressive thing overall.
- danjac 5y ago
  History says otherwise. A mass of disfranchised people can stay disenfranchised indefinitely. A ruling class tends to be toppled by some external cause - such as a foreign invasion (e.g. Iraq in 2003) or long-term changes that slowly undermine their power base. Successful revolutions and coups tend to be carried out by a small, disciplined cadre that is able to seize the moment, such as the Bolsheviks, or a clique of military officers. Unfortunately, that usually results in "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" as far as it goes for the disenfranchised masses. Peasant revolts however generally end in failure.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    I think empirical evidence suggest there is no such eternal civilization and there were a lot of absolute autocrats, monarchs and whatnot. For one reason or another they came to an end. Libya might be a better example. Gaddafi is still the most recently successful dictator if you measure time of ruling. Allegedly he had good instincts to sense coming revolutions and other dangers. But I have no doubts that he wouldn't have been toppled at some point. I also think he was so paranoid that he didn't really have potential successors. There are some dynasties that survived falling civilizations, but their influence is limited.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
tsimionescu 5y ago
> just like happened every other time in history a single government took over an entire area. Not sure why you think this, because, if anything, the opposite is true. Scientific and technical progress almost always arise from stable, wealthy, large societies. The Chinese empire was a leader of science theoughput much of its history. The Roman empire as well. The Arab Caliphates became bastions of science once it had conquered enough to have a massive stable area. The USA became a massive source of innovation after it had settled it's half of the continent. The only major exception I know of for scientific progress in times of war (that is not simply weapons advancement) is the wake of WWII.
- danjac 5y ago
  The early modern period - Renaissance, Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution - occurred among highly competitive, constantly warring European states.
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    That's almost like rejecting my example of current US inventions (or at least those from 10 years ago) because the US is technically at war in Irak or Afghanistan. The Renaissance, Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution happened in the propsperous centers of those European countries, in cities that hadn't heard of conquest for a century or more. They were also often the result of international relationships between thinkers and artists across the continent. Competition surely provided some motivation for the Industrial Revolution, but it was not the main impetus, nor was it a major factor for the others.
    - danjac 5y ago
      > The Renaissance, Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution happened in the propsperous centers of those European countries, in cities that hadn't heard of conquest for a century or more https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Wars
- jokethrowaway 5y ago

raxxorrax 5y ago

I disagree. A critical mass of completely disenfranchised people will always topple any ruling class. Even in the depth of any bunker. Fleeing the planet might work, but that is still out of reach. Aside from that todays robots still tend to disappoint. Chatbots are the most impressive thing overall.

danjac 5y ago
History says otherwise. A mass of disfranchised people can stay disenfranchised indefinitely. A ruling class tends to be toppled by some external cause - such as a foreign invasion (e.g. Iraq in 2003) or long-term changes that slowly undermine their power base. Successful revolutions and coups tend to be carried out by a small, disciplined cadre that is able to seize the moment, such as the Bolsheviks, or a clique of military officers. Unfortunately, that usually results in "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" as far as it goes for the disenfranchised masses. Peasant revolts however generally end in failure.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  I think empirical evidence suggest there is no such eternal civilization and there were a lot of absolute autocrats, monarchs and whatnot. For one reason or another they came to an end. Libya might be a better example. Gaddafi is still the most recently successful dictator if you measure time of ruling. Allegedly he had good instincts to sense coming revolutions and other dangers. But I have no doubts that he wouldn't have been toppled at some point. I also think he was so paranoid that he didn't really have potential successors. There are some dynasties that survived falling civilizations, but their influence is limited.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

tsimionescu 5y ago

> just like happened every other time in history a single government took over an entire area. Not sure why you think this, because, if anything, the opposite is true. Scientific and technical progress almost always arise from stable, wealthy, large societies. The Chinese empire was a leader of science theoughput much of its history. The Roman empire as well. The Arab Caliphates became bastions of science once it had conquered enough to have a massive stable area. The USA became a massive source of innovation after it had settled it's half of the continent. The only major exception I know of for scientific progress in times of war (that is not simply weapons advancement) is the wake of WWII.

danjac 5y ago
The early modern period - Renaissance, Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution - occurred among highly competitive, constantly warring European states.
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  That's almost like rejecting my example of current US inventions (or at least those from 10 years ago) because the US is technically at war in Irak or Afghanistan. The Renaissance, Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution happened in the propsperous centers of those European countries, in cities that hadn't heard of conquest for a century or more. They were also often the result of international relationships between thinkers and artists across the continent. Competition surely provided some motivation for the Industrial Revolution, but it was not the main impetus, nor was it a major factor for the others.
  - danjac 5y ago
    > The Renaissance, Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution happened in the propsperous centers of those European countries, in cities that hadn't heard of conquest for a century or more https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Wars
jokethrowaway 5y ago