I do not believe I mis-understand your post. Perhaps you mis-understood mine?
So your rebuttle to all the detail of the problem I fleshed out was basically…
“If somebody comes up with a solution that works, then we will have a solution that works.”
And you believe that solution is likely to do with primarily focusing on the end point of the human brain/mind/consciousness.
Um, okay, so I agree that everything is always possible. Now what?
Where’s the DETAILS of this possible solution that overcome the details of the problem I fleshed out?
Without those details, we don’t have an actual solution.
We just have agreement that humanity is still searching for a solution.
Also, your “sandbox” “parent vs. children” worldview violates the principle of Einstein’s quote.
That was the 20th century and current model of virtually all major society-level activity.
We’re about to enter a world where every “child” in the sandbox has as much power, resources, and independence as the “grownups” standing by.
This 21st century sandbox is loaded with military grade weapons just sitting all around.
And it takes 1 uncontrollable child to unpin and drop a hand grenade inside the sandbox and blow all the parents and children to pieces.
Where’s the details of what your proposing?
How exactly do you overcome the fundamental logistics, economics, competition, and security issues I raised to install and operate your solution planet-wide across all individuals, corporations, and governments?
Yes. I agree that everything is possible.
Patrick and I started off by questioning the very nature of this reality. This could all just be a simulation, etc.
But, for this matter, if we accept some conventional physics and the real world objective of preserving humanity, then accomplishing such things in the world is extremely tough and rare to pull off.
Just try to run a small commercial company and bring a new consumer technology to market for 1 million people. If everybody was cooperative and nobody was competing against you, and R&D, and materials, and manpower, and distribution, and marketing, etc were all super cheap, then it wouldn’t be that hard. Yet, it’s not easy, even for successfully building and operating something like a small company.
All the people you’ve referenced have failed to rid the world of violence. And that’s the minimum level of power needed to have a good shot at overcoming this.
Not knocking the people here. Just focused on what the problem requires to be overcome in the real world.
What those people have accomplished is several orders of magnitude lower than the challenge of successfully tackling the problems of massively powerful planetary destruction. Mere crumbs compared to what it will take to solve a problem more massive and powerful than anything ever faced by humanity before. A true paradigm shift.
Yes… anything and everything is “possible”.
Yes… I am happy that you personally feel creative and optimistic.
Yes… I am happy that you are on the side of wanting solutions.
But unless there is a detailed answer to overcome this near impossible problem, then we don’t have anything even remotely close yet.
If I’m wrong and you see the DETAILS of HOW to overcome all of this, then please don’t let me stop you from sharing those logically sound details.
Maybe at the end of the day our different arguments come down to this…
You seem focused on trying to present the issue as totally open and solvable to encourage the human spirit of yourself and others.
I was once at that level, but I am now past the “general” phase and am trying to understand and relay the dynamics and power of this massive problem, so that I and others can actually counter the problem and advance the detailed engineering of feasible solutions.
Good spirits won’t overcome this. An array of detailed technical solutions, maybe, possibly, hopefully can.
But one must focus their mind on the detailed power dynamics, logistical dynamics, and technical dynamics of the problem.
One must face the true reality of the problem if they’re serious about the details of solving it.
I’d invite you to really take a hard look at what it takes to get creation/invention/order/security implemented and sustained in the world and how the basic “math” is upside down in this emerging 21st century world, compared to conventional global problems.
I haven’t seen any detail in your arguments that take these things into account yet.
If you want to make real progress on figuring this out, then you’ve got to be able to resolve the detailed pitfalls on a robust, real world, planetary scale.
Whatever solutions you propose will be going up against the most powerful destabilizing and destructive forces known human history this century.
Or if you want to primarily stay on the sidelines and do positive cheerleading for those of us seriously dedicating our minds to working on these detailed problems, I would suggest not hampering those doing so, regardless if they share your optimistic, anything is possible demeanor and worldview. If they’re really working on the level of the detailed “engineering” issues of the problem, then it doesn’t help with a solution. Maybe going out to more neophyte minds and recruiting them to learn and grow and work on this stuff in greater detail is a better application of such optimism and generalized visions.
Personally, I invite you to on to the field, where the realities are a lot rougher and more messy, and also where solutions that look nice on the sidelines rarely work out in practice.
Thus is the reality of all creation/order/engineering in life.
Infinite ways to produce and sustain randomness/chaos/failure.
Quite rare to figure out how to produce and sustain truly robust creation/order/success in this world.
Especially when trying to engineer against the most powerful destabilizing and destructive forces known human history.
Maybe you could personally think of a way to better prepare minds to mentally handle the level of challenge and complexity this level of problem requires, than blunt positivity and optimism. Because those things, while they get people feeling motivated, also too often cause people not to face the realities of such hard, complex, and destructive challenges when assessing real world solutions.
Make no mistake. This is one of the most tough, powerful, and ugly challenges humanity has ever come up against.
There is a reason, other than just corruption, that the business of governments is one of the most ugly and tough businesses in the world.
Though, this coming paradigm shift will make governments irrelevant as entities, and dump an even bigger, nastier version of exponentially compounded human violence upon us all.
I’m open to detailed solutions. But not addressing the details, is just not a workable solution.
Encouragement/cheerleading/optimism is just that. A sideline supporting function. I don’t see it being what actually produces the real world technical solutions that can or will directly save us.