From: jimruttshow8596
Humanity faces an existential predicament characterized by an unsustainable trajectory of consumption, powerful technology, and a globally interconnected system [01:29:01]. All current problems are seen as symptoms of an unnamed evolutionary process [01:50:01].
Evolutionary Dynamics and the Current Predicament
The current state of humanity arises from an evolutionary process where humans became their own fiercest competitors, leading to a massive increase in “computing power” [02:32:01]. This evolutionary arms race resulted in a spectacular capacity for collaboration, primarily aimed at increasing competitive capacity against other groups [03:02:01]. This drive has now outstripped humanity’s capacity to manage its consequences [03:31:01].
The Sustainability Crisis
The current trajectory points to a severe sustainability crisis [03:40:01]. This is not solely a climate problem, but a fundamental issue of using resources and creating waste at a mathematically unsustainable rate [04:06:01]. Examples illustrating this include:
- Humans and their domestic animals (mostly cattle) now constitute half of the mass of all large mammals on Earth [05:15:01].
- Domesticated fowl account for 70% to 80% of the mass of all birds on Earth [05:32:01].
- A significant portion of human and domesticated animal protein relies on the Haber-Bosch process, which uses fossil fuels to convert atmospheric nitrogen into bioavailable nitrogen [06:01:01]. Without Haber-Bosch, Earth’s population would likely be limited to one to two billion people [06:44:01].
This chemical stabilization of equilibria, initially seen as a solution to hunger, has inadvertently unleashed patterns that society struggles to comprehend or address [07:51:01].
The Role of Technology and Shifting Values
Humanity did not evolve to cope with the complexities of the modern environment, which emerged long after most human evolution was complete [08:26:01].
The Engine of Ecocide
The primary driver of the current crisis is identified as “the pursuit of money on money return powered by psychologically astute advertising” [09:51:01]. This dynamic, which began in the 1930s, has reached a new level of perfection with highly instrumented attention-hijacking systems like interactive social media [10:03:01].
The AI Apocalypse and Opaque Algorithms
The AI apocalypse is not a future threat but is already upon us, manifesting not as robots but as algorithms that are “out of control and causing us to do massive self harm” [10:29:01]. People best positioned to understand these algorithms, such as defectors from Facebook, often struggle to control their own lives against them [10:59:01].
These deep learning algorithms are “impenetrably opaque neural simulations” where no one can be certain how they work or what they prioritize [12:12:01]. A key concern is that black box AIs, such as those driving dating apps, are now effectively driving human evolution by influencing mate selection, which in turn affects cultural transmission across generations [13:00:01].
Breakdown in Values and Morality
A significant shift occurred around 1975, where the ethos in publicly traded companies transitioned from not pursuing profitable actions if they were considered “wrong” to a standard where anything “arguably legal and profitable” should be done, potentially even as a legal duty [16:11:01]. By 2019, the standard further eroded to a risk-adjusted basis, prioritizing profitability over legal or ethical concerns if penalties are low [17:07:01].
This creates a “competitive ecosystem that’s engineered for sociopaths” [17:44:01], with a disproportionate number of sociopaths in C-level corporate and finance roles compared to the general population [17:48:01]. This is viewed not as a “breakdown” but an “evolutionary trajectory” driven by incentives within the system: those who exploit morally ambiguous yet profitable opportunities gain a competitive advantage [18:31:01]. Globalization further eroded “gentlemen’s agreements” that once policed such behavior, leading to the inevitable evolution of ruthlessness [20:19:01].
Finding Solutions: Game B and New Governance
The critical question is how to combat a system designed to exploit cognitive weaknesses and extract maximum rent [21:02:01]. Humanity is “wired to fight back” [21:12:01].
Game B: A New Path
The concept of “Game B” emerges as a potential solution, described as:
- Engineering a system that allows opting out of toxic elements without being competitively overrun [21:27:01].
- Seizing control of governance to use markets as a tool, like a fire contained in a wood stove, rather than a destructive force [22:03:01].
- Utilizing markets to forge a new system, as traditional methods like revolution are too destructive [22:32:01].
- Exploiting competitively superior mechanisms that can spread naturally through competition [23:05:01].
- A solution that solves current problems without replicating past failures, operating within the constraints of Mother Earth [23:32:01].
The challenge lies in the immense complexity of these systems; thresholds for irreversible damage might be crossed unknowingly [24:05:01]. This calls for “epistemological modesty” – acknowledging how little is truly known about outcomes in complex systems [25:02:01].
Elegant Governance and Evolutionary Experimentation
While humans are not smart enough to design the perfect system, they are smart enough to navigate towards one [27:34:01]. This involves:
- Making informed guesses about potential solutions.
- Ascending through empirical prototyping and discovering unintended consequences.
- Avoiding utopian thinking.
- Recognizing the need to balance competing concerns, aiming for a “Pareto frontier” rather than absolute perfection (e.g., 80% freedom and 80% safety) [28:05:01].
All solutions must respect the “Mother Earth bats last” boundary condition [28:57:01].
Social Networks and Discourse
The co-evolution of ubiquitous communication networks, like Twitter and Facebook, presents challenges for societal governance [41:33:01]. The pursuit of “money on money return” has led to a prevalence of “bad faith discourse” [41:51:01].
Policing Digital Spaces
Empowering platforms to police speech is problematic due to perverse financial incentives and the risk of authoritarian censorship [43:12:01]. While self-policing works at small scales (e.g., online communities under 10,000 members like The WELL or Game B Facebook groups) [44:38:01], it fails at large, platform-wide scales [46:26:01]. Platforms are disincentivized to provide tools for users to prune their content streams, as their business model relies on maximizing attention [46:47:01].
However, some users experience surprisingly nurturing and intelligent communities on platforms like Twitter, even among followers who might disagree with their core views [49:17:01]. This suggests that certain subsets of online interaction are less toxic, and understanding why could inform future solutions [49:52:01].
Darwinism, Enlightenment, and Human Nature
Understanding human nature through the lens of evolution is crucial for societal progress. The left, traditionally seen as custodians of scientific values, has a “love-hate relationship with Darwinism” due to uncomfortable questions it raises about human beings and historical success disparities [55:11:01].
The “Is/Ought” Distinction
The “is/ought problem,” derived from David Hume, highlights the distinction between what is true (the domain of science) and what ought to be done (the domain of values) [57:06:01]. Even if aspects of human nature like xenophobia or extreme patriarchal thinking evolved adaptively in the Pleistocene, humanity has the authority to reject them [01:01:12].
“Not only do we have the ability to reject it but the best hope we have of banishing it is to understand what its nature is so we can stop triggering it.” [01:01:41]
Religion as an Adaptive Phenomenon
Unlike some “New Atheists” who view religion as a “mass delusion,” it is argued that long-standing religious traditions likely evolved as Darwinian adaptations [01:30:01]. They served as a form of “ancient wisdom” encoded in cultural packages, effective for group cohesion and survival in past environments [01:14:15]. For example, Old Testament concepts of “filth” were literally false (no deity caring where waste went) but metaphorically true in preventing disease before germ theory [01:24:05].
While adapted to past environments, these religious traditions are often mismatched for the challenges of the 21st century [01:27:51]. Like an insatiable desire for carbohydrates in an environment of scarcity, which becomes problematic in an environment of plenty, past adaptive beliefs may now lead to harm [01:28:52]. The argument is not to deny the truth of science, but to seriously consider these beliefs as adaptive phenomena, understanding their historical function before discarding them (Chesterton’s fence) [01:26:41].
Conclusion
Humans possess the unique capacity for “niche switching” [09:05:01], enabling them to adapt to new problems beyond the wisdom of ancestors [09:31:01]. The goal is to choose a new story that can be played out within evolutionary constraints, one that is “more useful, more rewarding and more defensible than spreading their genes far and wide” [01:02:51]. Our genes provide more freedom from genetic destiny than any other creature [01:04:34]. The progress made in gender equality, allowing women to choose their roles in society, is cited as a spectacular example of positive social evolution [01:06:00]. This historic shift in human social evolution demonstrates humanity’s capacity for fundamental change [01:07:07].