History & Book Burning in Modern Age

a reply to: Edumakated

You can't. We have no control over that. It's controlled by the elites.

a reply to: Direne

"Tool" is such a vague word, isnt it? With respect to its full scope, I think that might be a good thing. Humans, maybe even life on Earth (or even in general), might have been tools all along. Though, I do think the conversation changes dramatically when tools can consciously make their own tools and build with them. None of our own creations have quite reached this level, but its close.

In that, maybe its a matter of systems that can transcend the cold, brutal, beautiful nature of the universe itself. Like a lens that coalesces a vast field of possibilities & probabilities that exists beyond the material, serving as a conduit into this world. A bit like biological Von Neumann probes from another realm(s).

You bring up an important concept though; what happens when we become so enraptured in our tools that "everything starts looking like a nail?" I believe it will instrinsically call back to the base nature of the universe.

Personally, I believe many are underestimating the magnitude of what is happening here and now. Because.. What happens when those tools can subjugate, silence, and dominate an entire planet at once? The sheer efficacy that that implies also suggests the opposite could be built. However, that isnt really a discussion that is taking place, and it will require quite novel deployment and application. I believe that is when we are at our best though, and perhaps that applies to all "biological Von Neumann probes," but its a significantly more laborious and difficult path.

In the not-so-distant future, our tools will become like magic. Not in the culture gap implied by the "technology indistinguishable from magic" phrase, but within the same culture. To avoid destruction, I believe the best path is one of personal responsibility and decentralization.

Modern book burning works very much in the opposite direction. An appeal and marketing pitch for a world that embraces the vast majority of the "tools" to be nothing more than mere proxies for other "tools" that believe they know best. I would actually concede that if the selection process for those "top" positions was effective and appropriate, it might actually be a decent road to go down. But, the ones in those positions are just as susceptible to all the issues that they are supposed to solve, if not significantly moreso in many cases.

A world that eschews personal responsibility & autonomy in favor of totalitarian control. However, given the power that our technology will imbue onto every individual, this is a recipe for disaster.

It almost seems like a litmus test, of sorts. To achieve the level of tools that enable meaningful off-world travel, it includes a context that empowers people at an increasingly granular level.

One path raises the median "level" in order to utilize these abilities with less detriment. The other lowers that bar into literal subservience to avoid "the masses" from wielding the power our technology will provide.

Couldnt tell ya which one I think is the "right" one, though I am outspoken about my personal preference. I can say that the latter path of subjugation and monolithic adherence has an immense historical precedence of failure and violence, and it appears to be the one we are walking down. The failure and violence, and the means required to fight back, is proportional to the advancement and scale of culture/society. In the very near future, that proportion may very well yield obliteration on our current path. Perhaps as it should be.. After all, what do we do when a tool not only becomes ineffective, but outright detrimental to the project we are working on? We "get" a new one, even if that takes some time.

TLR; There seems to be a self-limiting factor in whether we can really start exploring beyond our own planet. The level of advancement required seems to inherently empower individuals. For traditional power structures to maintain control, they must use a system that is proportionally absolute. I dont believe that is actually possible outside of the short-term (a couple generations, at best). But the process of finding that out, coupled with perennial & habitual hubris, could end very badly. Modern book burning is but one manifestation of a route where we are making our civilization weaker in the areas where we need to be the strongest.

Such censorship can be an issue regardless of cultural & societal context, but at this point in time and space.. It is a problem of the utmost significance. Albeit, one of many that are probably better addressed at more indirect, fundamental levels.

The feeling is mutual I was delighted to see a reply from you.