From: jimruttshow8596
Current Predicament
Humanity faces an existential predicament due to its current path, which is considered unsustainable [01:29:32]. This is characterized by excessive population and consumption, coupled with powerful and globally interconnected technology, leading to a shared fate for all [01:40:00]. This situation is the symptom of an evolutionary process that has yet to be fully named or understood [01:46:00].
The evolutionary process has been driven by an “arms race” where human beings were their own worst competitors [02:32:00]. This competition led to a significant increase in “computing power” — essentially cognitive capacity — which brought both positive and negative characteristics, including a strong capacity for collaboration aimed at increasing competitive ability against other groups [02:53:00]. This drive has now outstripped humanity’s capacity to manage its consequences, leading to a sustainability crisis [03:31:00]. This crisis involves the unsustainable use of resources and waste creation, a mathematical impossibility for indefinite continuation [04:08:00]. Only a “cornucopian” viewpoint would suggest that solutions will magically emerge in due course [04:19:00].
Evidence of Unsustainability
The current state of human impact on the planet highlights the severity of the problem:
- Humans and their domestic animals (primarily cattle) now constitute half of the total mass of all large mammals on Earth [05:15:00].
- Domesticated fowl account for 70% to 80% of the mass of all birds [05:32:00].
- These figures are alarming given that only about 15% of the global population currently enjoys an advanced Western standard of living [05:41:00].
A significant portion of the protein in humans and their domesticated animals is not naturally biological but rather a product of the Haber-Bosch process [06:01:00]. This process uses fossil fuels to convert atmospheric nitrogen into biotically available nitrogen [06:10:00]. Without Haber-Bosch, the Earth’s maximum population capacity would likely be between one and two billion people [06:44:00], starkly contrasting with the current near eight billion, projected to peak at ten or eleven billion [06:51:00]. Initially seen as a “godsend” for food production, the Haber-Bosch process has inadvertently “unleashed a set of patterns that we now not only do we not know what to do about them we don’t even know how to think about them” [08:14:00].
Drivers of Modern Capitalism’s Challenges
The core engine driving the current predicament is the “pursuit of money on money return” [09:57:00], which is powered by psychologically astute advertising that emerged in the 1930s [10:00:00]. This has reached “near perfection” with highly instrumented attention-hijacking systems like interactive social media [10:05:00]. This pursuit has become a “paperclip maximizer,” an uncontrolled optimization process that, while initially leading to societal benefits, now causes “massive self harm” [10:15:00].
Impact of Algorithms
The “AI apocalypse is already upon us,” but it’s not recognized because people expected robots, not algorithms [10:29:00]. These algorithms are “out of control” and cause significant self-harm [10:41:00]. Even those who help write these algorithms take extreme measures to retain control of their own lives, indicating that they do not fully understand what the algorithms do or how they work [11:09:00].
Modern deep learning algorithms are “impenetrably opaque neural simulations,” making it impossible to say with certainty how they operate or what they prioritize [12:12:00]. The market amplifies effective algorithms, regardless of their psychological impact, leading to an unknown effect on humanity’s ability to think collectively and understand its predicament [11:45:00].
For example, dating apps driven by black-box algorithms can influence human evolution by determining affiliations that lead to offspring [13:06:00]. While not affecting genetics, these algorithms influence cultural transmission, shaping how future generations think based on the combinations of cultures they create [14:37:00]. Although some argue this could foster “broad-mindedness,” current evidence suggests an “epidemic of narrow mindedness” and penalization of “heterodox thinkers” [15:31:00].
Erosion of Business Ethics
Around 1975, a significant shift occurred in corporate culture [16:08:00]. Previously, many business leaders, even in publicly traded companies, would not pursue profitable ventures if they deemed them morally wrong [16:13:00]. By the 1990s, the prevailing ethos became that if something was arguably legal and profitable, it should be done, potentially even as a legal duty, with little regard for honor, honesty, or goodness [16:47:00].
By 2019, the standard in corporate America further devolved: actions are taken if, on a risk-adjusted basis, the penalties for getting caught are smaller than the profits from the crime [17:07:00]. This is exemplified by large banks repeatedly busted for money laundering, receiving minimal fines compared to their gains [17:21:00]. A system where honesty and good faith are a “sucker play” creates a “competitive ecosystem engineered for sociopaths” [17:39:00]. It’s estimated that by 2000, 10% of C-level executives and 30% of high-level finance professionals were sociopaths, compared to 1% in the general population [17:55:00].
This breakdown is not a mere “breakdown in values,” but an “evolutionary trajectory” driven by incentives [18:26:00]. The faster one exploited opportunities that were not morally acceptable (or even legal but unprosecuted), the quicker they profited, and their strategy spread [18:45:00]. This is analogous to a creature evolving to exploit a niche [19:07:00]. Before 1975, a “gentlemen’s agreement” and social ethos policed businesses, allowing them to resist these game-theoretical pressures [19:32:00]. However, globalization diminished the influence of local social policing (e.g., “the Country Club”), leading to an “inevitable consequence” of the evolution of ruthlessness [20:19:00].
Potential Paths Forward
The critical question is whether those who understand the urgency can engineer a system that allows opting out of toxic elements without being overrun by those who refuse to opt out [21:14:00].
Game B and Systemic Change
One approach, related to “Game B”, suggests withdrawing and “parasitizing Game A” (the current system) while avoiding its toxins [21:39:00]. Another, from the “Emancipation Party” alternative, emphasizes governance to limit markets, much like containing a fire in a stove instead of letting it burn down the house [21:50:00].
It is argued that these are not two separate roads, but one [22:21:00]. Markets must be utilized as a tool to forge a new system, as revolution is now too destructive [22:26:00]. Governance is needed to structure markets to produce viable, non-self-destructive outcomes [22:48:00].
The “Game B” answer involves exploiting “competitively superior mechanisms” that spread naturally through competition, contrasting with the current parasitic mechanisms [23:02:00]. This solution must address the current problems without replicating past failure modes, and it must do so within a short timeframe, as a disastrous crash due to ecosystem limits could occur within 80 years, or much less [23:34:00].
Navigating Complexity and Trade-offs
Complex systems, such as societal ones, are difficult to comprehend [24:09:00]. Thresholds beyond which there is no plausible return may be crossed invisibly [24:13:00]. A key takeaway from complexity science is “epistemological modesty” – acknowledging how much less we know about what will happen in a complex system [25:02:00].
Despite their complexity, these systems are run by “simplicity of the basic principles” [25:34:00]. The goal for civilization should be an “elegant governance structure” that modulates society, rather than a highly complicated one [26:21:00]. However, it’s “in principle impossible to accurately determine the emergencies that you will actually get from the simple underpinnings” of a complex system [26:53:00].
Therefore, an approach to Game B should be “tentative modesty” and an “experimental and evolutionary perspective” [27:20:00]. Humanity is “smart enough to navigate” rather than design the needed system [27:37:00]. This involves making educated guesses, empirically prototyping, discovering unintended consequences, and avoiding utopian thinking [27:42:00]. The aim is a system that balances competing concerns (e.g., 80% freedom and 80% safety), far exceeding grand hopes without being unrealistic, and within the constraints of Earth [28:24:00].
Evolutionary and Cultural Dynamics
In evolution, trade-offs are fundamental, operating similarly to engineering and economics [29:22:00]. Desirable characteristics within a system or organism have a trade-off function [30:41:00]. While innovation can temporarily reduce the cost of a trade-off, creating a “super species,” ultimately, physical and chemical laws provide limits that cannot be exceeded [34:19:00]. The goal is to balance competing concerns as elegantly as possible [31:51:00].
In the context of a “Game B” economics, the idea of “eliminating trade-offs” is viewed as implausible, as trade-offs are fundamental to the nature of reality [33:55:00].
Challenges of Large-Scale Communication
The recent co-evolution of the ability for everyone to communicate with everyone via filtered networks (e.g., Twitter, Facebook) has led to “bad faith discourse” [41:33:00]. The proposed cure of platforms acting as censors is seen as dangerous, potentially worse than bad faith discourse, especially given the financial motives of these private entities to alter thought [42:38:00].
While self-policing works at small scales (e.g., groups under 10,000 members like The WELL or Game B Facebook groups) [44:38:00], it fails at the scale of Facebook or Twitter [46:26:00]. This highlights the need for scalable tools to prune behavior without leading to authoritarian control [46:41:00]. However, platforms may have a disincentive to provide such tools if their business model relies on maximizing attention [46:57:00].
Despite these challenges, some large online communities, like those following certain individuals on Twitter, exhibit unexpected generosity, nuance, and self-policing, even among those with differing viewpoints [47:12:00]. This suggests that a different, less toxic experience is possible online [49:52:00].
Critiques of Postmodernism and Modernity
A notable aspect of contemporary societal dynamics is the shift in political alignment. Individuals who are deeply committed to science and evidence-based thinking, particularly in areas like evolutionary biology, sometimes find themselves mislabeled across the political spectrum [51:58:00]. For example, some progressive thinkers are perceived as right-wing by today’s left for holding views on free speech, gun rights, or qualified acceptance of multiculturalism, while remaining radically left on economic issues [52:31:00].
This phenomenon extends to the relationship between the left and Darwinism [55:11:00]. While traditionally custodians of scientific enlightenment, the left has a “love-hate relationship” with Darwinism because it raises “uncomfortable questions about what human beings are” and disparities in success among populations [55:17:00]. There is a fear of applying evolutionary theory too directly to human history or even using basic biological terms like “genotype” or “phenotype” when discussing humans [56:06:00]. This is seen as a betrayal of scientific principles [57:00:00].
The idea that our psychology is Darwinian is often misinterpreted as implying condemnation to an evolutionary story or dictating how one should think [01:00:54]. However, understanding the Darwinian tools inherited through evolution sets the bounds of what is possible, but does not dictate how to act or who to be [01:00:38]. The best way to banish undesirable aspects of human nature, like xenophobia or patriarchy, is to understand their evolutionary nature so they can be consciously countered [01:41:00].
Evolution of Religion and its Implications
Religion is viewed through an evolutionary lens as an adaptation, suggesting that long-standing religious traditions have a Darwinian meaning [01:13:30]. This perspective contrasts with “New Atheists” who often dismiss religion as delusion [01:12:00]. While religious traditions may not be a guide for modern circumstances due to differing environments from which they evolved, they represent a form of “ancient wisdom” encoded in cultural packages [01:13:56].
The argument is that religion shows “all of the harm of being a Darwinian adaptation” and therefore deserves a proper Darwinian treatment, like an eye or a wing [01:15:26]. While acknowledging that supernatural claims are literally false, the beliefs persisted because they were “effective” [01:23:56]. For example, Old Testament rules about “filth” were metaphorically true, preventing disease long before germ theory [01:24:05].
Therefore, while beliefs from the past (like religion, xenophobia, or patriarchy) may have been adaptive and useful in their time, particularly the Pleistocene, it is now time to “pitch them” [01:25:57]. However, moving forward, the argument for what “must be done” should be grounded in the deepest available science, taking these historical phenomena seriously as adaptive phenomena rather than pathologies or delusions [01:28:07]. This scientific understanding of human evolution has lagged behind other fields, and humanity has gained more freedom from genetic destiny than any other creature, exemplified by shifts in gender roles and acceptance of homosexuality [01:04:29].