‘Humanity’s Phase Shift’, Daniel Schmachtenberger
Good hearing your voice again.
While I largely agree with many aspects of your definition of the problem space facing us, you do overstate too many things, and each such instance reduces credibility of the argument overall, rather than enhancing it.
1:05 – “So our process of civilisation is one that has inherently self-terminating dynamics built into it”.
Not sure that is a valid generalisation.
One can say accurately that the dynamics of civilisations from the past have all lead to collapse, and it is very interesting and instructive to look at the details of why that is so.
In all cases it seems that such civilisations were essential built up “slave labour”, and that has continued to be essentially true of modern capitalism, and fully automated systems offer a way out of that particular dynamic.
1:38 “In 150 years of industrialised fishing we have removed most of the large fish species.”
We have removed most of the large individuals of most large species.
We have reduced the numbers of many large species – some to critical levels.
There are no known extinctions of large entirely marine fish species.
And certainly we have largely replaced many of them as predators in the systems they once dominated.
There is one known instance of a medium sized fish that was partially marine, partially riverine, going extinct – the NZ grayling, and that was probably largely due to predation and competition of the river based juveniles from introduced trout species.
“Go to an ecosystem there are no open loops, everything is the food for something else, there is no unremovable resource, no waste.”
Certainly true that there are far fewer open loops in ecosystems.
And we are getting better at recycling, and that will shift to a new level when atomic level precision of mining and manufacturing becomes a reality.
And we’re are not there yet – still a decade or so away.
“The self termination … that people feel and sense right now are not different in kind than the ones we have been facing since the beginning of what we call civilisation, they are different in magnitude, and in the speed of process, factoring in the exponential curves involved.”
Some truth in that statement, and some falsity.
There are new factors present this time, allowing new risk mitigation strategies to be effective; and they must be actually instantiated to work (as you note later).
And there are many more levels of things at play than you have enumerated or hinted at.
When you frame it as an issue of “control” then what you say is correct.
If you reframe it, as an issue of the coexistence of independent yet communicating and networked systems cooperating and negotiating agreements in an uncertain reality, then the issues and dynamics are very different.
Agree in general with new systems.
21:20 – Nailed it.
You did not explicitly mention the role of cooperation in the emergence of complexity – that is fundamental to the transition emerging.
In my estimation most of the current crop of major issues come from the dominant framing of evolution as a competitive process, entirely ignoring the increasing role of cooperation as the levels of complexity increase.
Given the levels of complexity embodied in us and our systems, it is more accurate to charactise evolution at our level as a process of the emergence of new levels of cooperation, with competition only being a bit player in the process.
And it is seriously complex – 20+ levels of complex adaptive systems coexisting simultaneously in some of us.
build a new system.
26:00 you state the need for collaboration accurately, but do not frame it in an evolutionary context that makes it natural and logical.
That needs doing.