7 ms·

I've often wondered how much further along we could be as a species if we shared all knowledge with each other and worked towards a common goal instead of compe

I've often wondered how much further along we could be as a species if we shared all knowledge with each other and worked towards a common goal instead of competing and warring with each other. Though I suppose you could argue there would be less incentive and competition and drive to innovate if that were the case. Still interesting to wonder about.

archibaldJ 5y ago
> ... if we shared all knowledge with each other and worked towards a common goal ... I believe that will happen before we reach Type 2 at the Kardashev scale. The question now is how do we reach Type 1 asap (hopefully within the next 50 years)
- sandworm101 5y ago
  >> how do we reach Type 1 asap Kardashev is a measurement of energy access/use. So we build lots of new power plants. Everyone starts driving giant vehicles. That should get our energy consumption up enough for Type 1. It's an old scale that doesn't acknowledge that a very advanced civilization may decide not to use all the energy it theoretically could.
  - archibaldJ 5y ago
    > ... Everyone starts driving giant vehicles. That should get our energy consumption up enough for Type 1. That sounds like optimizing for KPI to me, in which case we'll be doing it wrong. The only way to arrive there naturally is to have more efficient ways of generating energy (fusion, renewable, etc). > ... advanced civilization may decide not to use all the energy it theoretically could Energy generation & consumption (which are both tied to future prices, etc) always appear to be a game-theoretical optimization at geopolitcal and social-economical scales. Even in the current days (eg gazprom, nato, etc.) When we reach Type 1, we would have greatly reduced the cost of energy (resource-cost and enviromental-impact wise) and global economy will become more intervined and convoluted. The social-cultural implication would be fascinating too. Many existing status quos will crumble as the cost-to-transform skyrockets [1]. (Also: eg perhaps that's when crypto finally makes sense and become stable?) [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28331939 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28331939
  - kragen 5y ago
    If you use all your energy on Hummers (or commuter tanks?) you won't be able to keep building power plants. You have to invest a lot of your energy produced in building more energy production capacity.
sandworm101 5y ago
Some knowledge is dangerous. Bomb making isn't very difficult. Any chemistry grad can manufacture explosives from commonplace chemicals. But we don't put the how-to guidebook in highschool libraries. We actively put hurdles in front of such knowledge to regulate its use.
- trasz 5y ago
  Who is “we”, though? This information used to be available in school libraries in Poland, and didn’t result in anything dangerous. If “we” is US, then it’s obviously not working.
- btilly 5y ago
  Let me give a more dramatic example. Using figures from https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/suicide https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/suicide. In 2019, 1.4 million US adults tried to kill themselves. 47,511 died. Why do so many survive? It is because information about effective ways to commit suicide exist but is not well disseminated. Men have a fraction of the suicide attempts of women, and yet commit suicide at several times the rate. Suicide rates are also unevenly distributed across races. By my understanding, the primary reason for these differences is that men and specific races are more likely to pick an effective suicide method. Teenagers are particularly likely to be suicidal and grow out of it. As the parent of such a teenager, I'm perfectly OK with not disseminating knowledge about the most effective ways that she could try to kill herself with common household items. (I'm also happy to disseminate the knowledge that the method you should never use is drinking anti-freeze. You will not kill yourself. You will destroy your liver and kidneys, and will make your life suck a whole lot more than it does already.)
Barrin92 5y ago
Ian Morris wrote a fairly provocative book a few years ago that argues that it is exactly war that drives this progress (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/apr/20/war-what-is-it-good-for-ian-morris https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/apr/20/war-what-is-it...). Here in Germany we owe most of our modern institutions (one of the first healthcare systems, the national education system) to Prussia, in France the Napoleonic code was one of the most important reforms in history, and most of that nation-building was driven by militaristic nation-state competition. The Cold War is another example of course. He argues that war is the primary thing that pushes states to improve the welfare of their populations and it enables larger organization. Israel is probably another good example of a country whose innovation is effectively driven by survival. I think you can make a decent case that the sort of post-Soviet stagnation, lack of reform or interest in taking care of pressing domestic issues, over-financialization etc.. was driven largely by being stuck in a unipolar system without competition.
- mmsimanga 5y ago
  As an African I have always wondered how Sub Saharan Africa got left so far behind in terms of technology. One of my lay mans theories based on listening to older folk and the new maps showing just how big Africa is compared to other continents[1]. You can fit the US, Asia and most of Europe into Africa. Listening to older folk there were lots of migrations. If you had dispute with someone you just took your people and went off to find another spot to live. I theorize that we largely avoided wars therefore there was no need to innovate. Off course there are other things at play but I agree with you when you have to fight to survive in wars you put aside your differences as a country and you get to see true innovation. Its my theory. [1]https://www.visualcapitalist.com/map-true-size-of-africa/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/map-true-size-of-africa/
  - btilly 5y ago
    Jared Diamond's theory in the book Guns, Germs and Steel is that trade, ideas, and technology develop and disperse along routes where agriculture flourished. The basic agricultural package which works from China to England does not work in sub-Saharan Africa. The Bantu people developed one that did work, but it developed a lot later, and there was a sufficient gap between the two to prevent significant commerce, flow of ideas, etc. The result is that Africa was technologically thousands of years behind. The accelerating technological dynamic that put Europe ahead of everyone else along the Silk Road had a different dynamic. One of whose key ingredients was the lack of any central authority who could suppress discoveries and lines of research for whatever political or religious reasons. And once that turned into a runaway train of progress, well, everyone was backwards compared to them!
trompetenaccoun 5y ago
All life competes with one another for the limited resources that we have. Without this there would be little evolution so we might not be further at all, rather the opposite.

archibaldJ 5y ago

> ... if we shared all knowledge with each other and worked towards a common goal ... I believe that will happen before we reach Type 2 at the Kardashev scale. The question now is how do we reach Type 1 asap (hopefully within the next 50 years)

sandworm101 5y ago
>> how do we reach Type 1 asap Kardashev is a measurement of energy access/use. So we build lots of new power plants. Everyone starts driving giant vehicles. That should get our energy consumption up enough for Type 1. It's an old scale that doesn't acknowledge that a very advanced civilization may decide not to use all the energy it theoretically could.
- archibaldJ 5y ago
  > ... Everyone starts driving giant vehicles. That should get our energy consumption up enough for Type 1. That sounds like optimizing for KPI to me, in which case we'll be doing it wrong. The only way to arrive there naturally is to have more efficient ways of generating energy (fusion, renewable, etc). > ... advanced civilization may decide not to use all the energy it theoretically could Energy generation & consumption (which are both tied to future prices, etc) always appear to be a game-theoretical optimization at geopolitcal and social-economical scales. Even in the current days (eg gazprom, nato, etc.) When we reach Type 1, we would have greatly reduced the cost of energy (resource-cost and enviromental-impact wise) and global economy will become more intervined and convoluted. The social-cultural implication would be fascinating too. Many existing status quos will crumble as the cost-to-transform skyrockets [1]. (Also: eg perhaps that's when crypto finally makes sense and become stable?) [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28331939 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28331939
- kragen 5y ago
  If you use all your energy on Hummers (or commuter tanks?) you won't be able to keep building power plants. You have to invest a lot of your energy produced in building more energy production capacity.

sandworm101 5y ago

Some knowledge is dangerous. Bomb making isn't very difficult. Any chemistry grad can manufacture explosives from commonplace chemicals. But we don't put the how-to guidebook in highschool libraries. We actively put hurdles in front of such knowledge to regulate its use.

trasz 5y ago
Who is “we”, though? This information used to be available in school libraries in Poland, and didn’t result in anything dangerous. If “we” is US, then it’s obviously not working.
btilly 5y ago
Let me give a more dramatic example. Using figures from https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/suicide https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/suicide. In 2019, 1.4 million US adults tried to kill themselves. 47,511 died. Why do so many survive? It is because information about effective ways to commit suicide exist but is not well disseminated. Men have a fraction of the suicide attempts of women, and yet commit suicide at several times the rate. Suicide rates are also unevenly distributed across races. By my understanding, the primary reason for these differences is that men and specific races are more likely to pick an effective suicide method. Teenagers are particularly likely to be suicidal and grow out of it. As the parent of such a teenager, I'm perfectly OK with not disseminating knowledge about the most effective ways that she could try to kill herself with common household items. (I'm also happy to disseminate the knowledge that the method you should never use is drinking anti-freeze. You will not kill yourself. You will destroy your liver and kidneys, and will make your life suck a whole lot more than it does already.)

Barrin92 5y ago

Ian Morris wrote a fairly provocative book a few years ago that argues that it is exactly war that drives this progress (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/apr/20/war-what-is-it-good-for-ian-morris https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/apr/20/war-what-is-it...). Here in Germany we owe most of our modern institutions (one of the first healthcare systems, the national education system) to Prussia, in France the Napoleonic code was one of the most important reforms in history, and most of that nation-building was driven by militaristic nation-state competition. The Cold War is another example of course. He argues that war is the primary thing that pushes states to improve the welfare of their populations and it enables larger organization. Israel is probably another good example of a country whose innovation is effectively driven by survival. I think you can make a decent case that the sort of post-Soviet stagnation, lack of reform or interest in taking care of pressing domestic issues, over-financialization etc.. was driven largely by being stuck in a unipolar system without competition.

mmsimanga 5y ago
As an African I have always wondered how Sub Saharan Africa got left so far behind in terms of technology. One of my lay mans theories based on listening to older folk and the new maps showing just how big Africa is compared to other continents[1]. You can fit the US, Asia and most of Europe into Africa. Listening to older folk there were lots of migrations. If you had dispute with someone you just took your people and went off to find another spot to live. I theorize that we largely avoided wars therefore there was no need to innovate. Off course there are other things at play but I agree with you when you have to fight to survive in wars you put aside your differences as a country and you get to see true innovation. Its my theory. [1]https://www.visualcapitalist.com/map-true-size-of-africa/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/map-true-size-of-africa/
- btilly 5y ago
  Jared Diamond's theory in the book Guns, Germs and Steel is that trade, ideas, and technology develop and disperse along routes where agriculture flourished. The basic agricultural package which works from China to England does not work in sub-Saharan Africa. The Bantu people developed one that did work, but it developed a lot later, and there was a sufficient gap between the two to prevent significant commerce, flow of ideas, etc. The result is that Africa was technologically thousands of years behind. The accelerating technological dynamic that put Europe ahead of everyone else along the Silk Road had a different dynamic. One of whose key ingredients was the lack of any central authority who could suppress discoveries and lines of research for whatever political or religious reasons. And once that turned into a runaway train of progress, well, everyone was backwards compared to them!

trompetenaccoun 5y ago

All life competes with one another for the limited resources that we have. Without this there would be little evolution so we might not be further at all, rather the opposite.