How the engineered social upheavals of the post-Obama era dovetailed into a transhumanist revolution, for the sake of keeping the collapse of the global order at bay.
The old conundrum, how to enrich a parasitic minority at the expense of the majority without the pitchforks being dusted off and heads ending up being piked. Of course in modern times modern tools are used, those the article discusses. To date the program is progressing well, the woke idiocy is either believed or people resist criticism to avoid being ostracized. The financial wheels are also clearly falling off, time will tell how long they can kick that can down road.
The only weak point is that the western militaries have declined and are no longer up to the job of global suppression and bullying. Quite a few people have indicated they support Russia not due to love of it, but due to the disgust in which they hold the direction the West is on. I am not seeing much resistance in my home, Idiocracy in full swing, don't recognize the place. Am currently in a country that straddles the middle ground, hopefully they will resist being a US vassal, we will see. If all pans out expect my family to bail out of our western woke homeland and move here.
Here is where this article goes massively wrong: All this "chipping", "vaxxing", financial, "woke" bullshit has ABSOL-FUCKING-LUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH TRANSHUMANISM.
Neither does this AI hype that's running around these days. That's purely the same corporate AI hype that's been a fixture of computer science since the 1960's, popping up every couple of decades only to founder on the reality that none of these algorithms come close to actually being human-capable intelligence, no matter what the MSM tells you. Extrapolating that as some agenda to weaken the notion of "humanity" is simply bullshit conspiracy theory. In any event, how to deal with so-called "artificial intelligence" has been considered by sci-fi, movies and TV for decades and is not news to the general public.
The biggest result so far has been a plethora of educational courses on "how to make money with ChatGPT and MidJourney"...
I WAS THERE when "transhumanism" was first being considered by people like F. M. Esfandiary (FM-2030 - Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FM-2030) who wrote "Are Your a Transhuman" and "Upwingers" back in the 1970's. I WAS THERE when Max More began publishing Extropy: The Journal of Transhumanist Thought, in 1988 - WAY BEFORE there was any such thing as the Davos agenda. I contributed to the Extropy Institute's email newsletter back during the early 2000's. I followed nanotechnology since K. Eric Drexler wrote "Engines of Creation" in 1986.
I was aware that Julian Huxley coined the term "transhuman" in 1951, defining it as "The human species can, if it wishes, transcend itself — not just sporadically, an individual here in one way, an individual there in another way, but in it's entirety, as humanity. We need a name for this new belief. Perhaps transhumanism will serve: man remaining man, but transcending himself, by realizing new possibilities of and for his human nature."
So you can trust me when I say that if there is ANY connection between the classic concept of Transhumanism and the current crop of corporate globalist cabals, it is merely because some of them - most probably some of our current "tech titans" - have hijacked the concepts involved for their own ends.
Second, let me go on record. There is nothing about "being human" that deserves to be preserved for eternity. Look around you. The proverbial feces is about to hit the propeller. We're on the verge of nuclear war - and no matter how many people tell you that "the banksters" aren't going to let it happen, they can't guarantee that - because "the banksters" don't control everything, no matter what the conspiracy theorists tell you.
This mess we're in is a DIRECT result of human nature, human behavior, and human evolution. And that can NOT be fixed by any amount of "kumbayah" hand holding or religious bullshit about how wonderful it all is to be human.
The entire situation Simplicius complains about in the vast majority of his article is a DIRECT result of BEING HUMAN. It is the result of primate hierarchical social organization and overly emotional human neurochemistry which devolved into the state, into politics, in social control mechanisms, and into the rise of irrational psychopaths trying to control very aspect of every society on the planet.
And as we individualist anarchists know, this is enabled entirely by the pathetic reaction of the majority of the human population bowing down to their masters like the beta chimps do to the alpha chimps in the troop.
You all can continue to fantasize about how all you have to do is "wake people up to the truth" - what's that classic line? "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!" - and form some fanciful political party like "The People's Party" - good luck with that, Jimmy Dore! - and with enough convinced voters just do "change from within".
Which is probably the dumbest, most moronic concept I can imagine - next to sexual monogamy (think about that last some time when you aren't completely asleep.)
The defining characteristic of Transhumanism is the notion that the only way to solve human problems is to solve human nature, specifically by transcending human nature into a state of full rationality and high intelligence.
That is NOT the program the globalists are preparing you for. Neither is it the program the anti-globalists are preparing you for. You need to stop thinking in binary "either/or" concepts and start thinking rationally from base concepts.
I'll be dealing with precisely these issues over at my Substack, "The Five Essentials". We are indeed heading for a "cyberpunk future" - and yes, that will include "our AI overlords" and corporate globalists - but it will also include ways to evade and escape and rise above all that. But I can assure you the means will not include family worship, "back to the land" bullshit, or any of the other "home-spun" belief systems the conservatives, the neoliberals, the far left or far right, the "progressives", the religious, the preppers, or any other social grouping might be trying to sell you.
Remember the classic words of The Firesign Theater album: "Everything You Know Is Wrong."
There are two fundamentally opposed historical lines of thought regarding the problems facing humanity:
(1) Human nature is fundamentally flawed, we need to fix it or escape it.
(2) Human nature is perfect, attempts to escape it are the root of our problems.
We readily see in (1) the core assumption of many western religions, with confession, rituals, faith, etc., offering the remedy of salvation. We also see this underlying eugenics, trans-humanism, etc., in which science and/or technology offers the guidance and/or means to escape our human nature. Neoliberal ideology (a la Hayek) is fundamentally a remedy to replace the role of a "God" with "the Markets" to escape our human nature. Usually (1) is associated with Hobbesian ideas about the state of humans in nature, that humans were brutish and violent, and suffered horrible lives, and that civilization, progress, technology, etc., have dramatically improved our situation (e.g., as championed in modern times by people like Steven Pinker). It is also sometimes used to justify crusades, discovery doctrine, imperialism/colonialism, and the superiority of races and societies oriented around rationality and progress (as opposed to tradition, superstition, etc.). The view (1) sees perpetual progress in our future, colonization of other planets, reliance on AI, and trans-humanism as inevitable if we are to survive. To escape our humanity, we must become Gods.
Paradigm (2) see primordial humans as being cultivated in harmony with nature, and that any deficiencies in their quality of life was an intrinsic part of the balance with the Earth and its life that existed when humans emerged from the evolutionary landscape. This line of thinking tends to emphasize the importance of human nature and relations that naturally evolved as traits in hunter-gatherer type cultures, as being cultivated instinctually and habitually in us over millions of years as a proven model of sustainability. In this view, humanity is not necessarily exceptional or special, but just another part of the Earth system. Attempts to escape traditional norms and harmony are seen as dangerous to this balance, and associated with loss of fundamental humanity (e.g., R. Tagore, On Nationalism). For those in the mindset of (2), the idea of "progress" is met with skepticism or cynicism (e.g., Civilized to Death, by C. Ryan). In modern times it is sometimes associated with a criticism of over-reliance on/misplaced faith in rationality and technocracy (e.g., J.R. Saul, Voltaire's Bastards). Attempts to colonize space are viewed as hopeless and endothermic, making conditions for life on Earth more difficult as these ventures consume valuable resources without regard for sustainability because of the belief that "somebody smart will come along and solve it."
As a scientist myself, I've spent much of my life with my head in paradigm (1), but as I've aged the ideas in (2) have become more compelling. However, I don't think the best path forward lies in either extreme. I don't believe that science/technology is a silver bullet, since we are the ones who ultimately wield these as tools and if we are imperfect then so is our application (this is inescapable). But I also don't think we can return to our hunter-gatherer roots, we crossed the Rubicon long ago, and we would all like to keep those fruits of science and technology that have dramatically improved our quality of life.
I do see humanity as existing only by geological consent, and that we can be taken out at any time by any number of natural events that have occurred numerous times in our planet's history. In terms of sustainability, we will either learn to live in balance with those bio-/geo-systems that are an intrinsic part of our larger planetary metabolism, or the balance will be imposed on us by brutal forces that will rub us out to extinction without any care...we'll just become another part of the fossil record, perhaps to be discovered by future allegedly "intelligent" species who may once again repeat the same mistakes as ourselves.
How to reconcile these contradictions and the conflicting paradigms of humanity? I don't have the answer...once I find something compelling, I'll write a book.
"I don't believe that science/technology is a silver bullet, since we are the ones who ultimately wield these as tools and if we are imperfect then so is our application (this is inescapable)."
That is incorrect. The fact that humans are imperfect and much (if not most - and I'm not sure about the degree, but it is large) of our technology sucks rocks doesn't mean there isn't a way out of the impasse via science and technology. What is certain is that the other flow leads to stagnation, not utopia and represents a reversal of everything which has driven humans forward since its evolution.
There are also two main flows of spiritual thought: the Right-Hand Path and the Left-Hand Path, as the occultists refer to them. One leads to religion, society, the state and our current mess. The other leads to individual freedom, science, and personal and species immortality.
The only question of importance is whether the advances in science that are made will be used to free us from human limitations - or impose harsher human limitations. Given human nature, the latter is most certainly a threat. However, also given human nature, that doesn't mean the threat can not be opposed and possibly thwarted before it can become real (or real for everyone.)
But to do that requires an entirely different mode of thinking than is common. Above all, it requires a mode of thinking that does not lead to dead-ends which is precisely where the binary concept of two historical flows leads. It is the two spiritual flows that are more important. But even the Left-Hand Path needs to be grounded in what I call "The Five Essentials": 1) Philosophy, 2) Attitude, 3) Knowledge, 4) Skills and 5) Technology.
Perhaps our thinking diverges around the nature of science itself. It is good to explain what I mean, particularly because science has become so politicized and abused in recent years.
In my view, science is only a learning process, just a tool, rooted in trial and error (hypothesis and empirical test). Science does not exist independently of our conception and application of this tool. And this leads to several considerations...like any tool,
(1) science is only as effective as the one who wields it,
(2) science is only effective for particular tasks,
(3) science does not have any direction (logical, moral, etc.) other than that provided by the wielder.
If the only tool we have is a hammer, then everything is shoehorned into being a nail. This is one of the issues with the application of science (and rational structures more broadly, according to J.R. Saul).
Science is a verb, rather than a noun. Science is not a body of facts. There is no such thing as "settled science." Science is rooted in skepticism and disbelief. Furthermore, science never arrives at "truth." (Truth itself is like infinity, it exists only as an idealization, a limit, rather than being a destination.) Science only moves along a particular branch of a conceptual evolutionary tree. There is no unique solution provided by science, nor a unique path, nor a unique end point. The path followed by science is tightly bound to the prevailing thought and trends of the culture/society in which it is employed, reflecting its ethos, biases, and priorities.
I am a scientist and a professor, and this is what I teach my students. I'm not pulling that out as an expression of authority, just to say that it is something I have spend decades thinking about in great detail. However, a significant number of my own colleagues (many of whom are excellent accomplished scientists) do not possess a solid philosophical understanding of science...they just do it. This lack of philosophical grounding does not harm their ability to do science, however, it does make them easier to manipulate and control because they don't understand that they are just cogs in a bigger machine that is managed for a particular purpose. And in the bigger picture, this is the key point: science has largely been co-opted by powerful interests in our societies. They decide which fields get funding, who gets hired to prominent posts, who gets a boost to a high profile in the mass media, and so on. And the vast majority of scientists are just interested in what is right in front of them, and if they become prominent they are typically bogged down with administrative duties and other BS that destroys their productivity and prevents them from rocking the boat.
Anyways, hope this makes sense, and maybe you can understand why I would be concerned about the notion of placing our faith in science.
I agree with most of your characterizations of science. Nonetheless, science is process with logical rules and procedures, even if not always adhered to by scientists who are, as you note, quite human. I distinguish the failures of scientists from the failures of science.
Nonetheless, science and its handmaiden technology, do provide "facts" which are effective in producing results of value to human survival. This is all it needs to do. There is no such thing as "truth" which is another one of those airy concepts humans like to wave around along with their hands. I am solely concerned with indefinite effective existence .
I am unconcerned with the philosophy of science per se, only with its results as long as those results are of use to me. As long as it produces results which can extend my lifespan and possibly enable the achievement of a post-human condition while not getting me killed in the process via a war or some fatal accident, that is all I require of it. In that sense, science as far as I am concerned has both a direction and a task. How effective it will be at those remains to be seen.
Fair enough, probably you realize that it is you that has given science the direction: "extend my lifespan and possibly enable the achievement of a post-human condition." There it is.
Of course. But I suspect that many more people - and scientists - will eventually realize that it is the only logical direction.
It reminds me of a comment a character in a fiction novel said once. He said it was once a legitimate career choice to spend one's life studying Sumerian script. He proposed that such a life was more license than discipline.
In short, science serves the species. There are some things more important to the species than other things. Those things should be the main focus of science, not some general notion of just studying anything that happens to come to mind. Granted, there are a lot of things that, while not directly leading to life extension, need to be understood; most of the physical universe, of course. But there is a limited amount of scientific and technological resources and those resources need to be directed, not left to the whim of unfocused people or worse corporate profit from pointless commercial gadgetry.
So a little more focus on issues of importance should be emphasized in your classes, I suspect.
"Nonetheless, science and its handmaiden technology, do provide "facts" which are effective in producing results of value to human survival. This is all it needs to do. There is no such thing as "truth" which is another one of those airy concepts humans like to wave around along with their hands. I am solely concerned with indefinite effective existence ."
That is literally the WEF's platform for itself. You pompously proclaim that nobody -especially not the WEF- have the slightest clue as to what true trans-scotsmanism.... er... trans-humanism is and then you literally proclaim a set of bullet points that could be from the WEF's own internal literature. Are you a parody account? Is there some subtle joke I am missing out on?
mankind is flawed unable to provide a solution which itself is not flawed. So then, I’ll just leave here; try as they might humankind are incapable of correcting (fixing) themselves.
The comments section is reminiscent of the “talk back sessions” where people had an opportunity to tell you what they thought about what you said and on some occasion could even say what they thought about you the communicator.
And I always loved these talk back sessions I suppose that’s why I enjoy the comments section as well.
What about the person who goes on someone’s blog calls what they write “bullshit” in an agitated high sounding rant and then invites them over their blog...
I thought it was hilarious...
I suggest you find a different word for “bullshit” it distracts from your subject negatively maybe it’s because you use it so often.
"mankind is flawed unable to provide a solution which itself is not flawed."
Conclusion does not proceed from the premise. Or at the very least, it has not yet been proven.
As for "agitation", I am annoyed by people coming along in the last decade or less talking about Transhumanism as if they had a clue about the previous fifty years of discussion on the subject and assuming that some tech billionaire has any clue about it either.
This is the standard PTB means of derailing opposition and induce confusion and paranoia: hijack a valid concept, attach it to their agenda, then sit back as people who never understood the concept in the first place attack it, thus undermining their own objective interests. I see even ostensibly intelligent people fall for this trick over and over.
Bullshit is bullshit and I call it out when I see it.
Well, I agree with at least one thing: supreme reason within each individual is the answer. How we achieve that and what happens after that is detail work.
"I WAS THERE when Max More began publishing Extropy: The Journal of Transhumanist Thought, in 1988 - WAY BEFORE there was any such thing as the Davos agenda."
You go on and on about how nobody but you knows the precise history of anything - let alone transhumanism - yet you clearly don't have the first clue about the WEF and Davos. The very publicly available (i.e. Wikipedia) fact of the matter is WEF has been meeting at Davos since WEF's creation in 1971. So spare me your obscure, hipster "I was there" mustache-waxing references from 1988. I know you probably have like 10,000 vinyl records of crappy bands that nobody actually likes and even fewer have heard of, but maybe calm down and bit and don't be so condescending when you can't even get pretty easily researched dates and facts down.
Firstly, thanks for delving into the data. These various analyses are indeed staggering. However, let me add a few observations showing that, as Ecclesiastes writes, 'there's nothing new under the sun'. The 'introduction' of 'diversity' as instrument of political warfare was already well used in the early 2000's in the UK, thanks to the Blair government.
Also, the use of 'direction' of what is and isn't 'news' to be reported goes back 90 years, to the set-up of Goebbel's 'Ministry of Enlightenment [yes, really!] and Propaganda' where newspaper editors were firstly forced to join a 'professional' group, else they were forbidden to publish, and where a daily round of meetings in that ministry gave 'guidance' as to what and how 'news' were to be written about. And there were also such 'professional' groups for entertainers, actors, directors ... so that film studios were to ld what films to make and what shouldn't;t be touched.
The only difference to today is that we now have the internet and AI.
However, there are two points which the globalists, generally Westerners or western-educated, have overlooked. Their 'guidance' will be useless because 'not applicable' in places where there's a state religion, i.e. islam. The other point is that the Schwabs et al don't seem to realise that they cannot get both a huge increase in AI, needing ever larger server farms, and 'Net Zero' at the same time. People might be willing to sell their human birthright for a bowl of potage - but the potage must be forthcoming. Shivering in the drake sting grass and insects while AI servers run to 'govern' them won't do it.
And then there's always 'fate', here in the form of a CME which is bound to occur ...
Well said, I've noted most of this intensely over the last 15 years. I recall being swept up in the moment of Obamas election only to be deflated 2 days after when I realized Rahm Emannuel was going to be chief of staff. That was an accurate marker of what was to come. My last comment a few days ago on substack recalled laughing at the dems trying to appropriate the sentiment of occupy. The jokes on us now... I was the guy who saw the Trans craze working up other anarchists since the 2010s and realized there had to be some deep state consensus manufacturing this fervently held opinion. It erases women and countless self professed feminists were all about it. A very unpopular opinion at this point and our comradeship is long expired. However it is the precursor to transhumanism and human augmentation. I bristled at the thought of advocating for lifetime hormone replacement and all the subsequent issues that would come from brute forcing chromosomes to run against that kind of environmental modification. Couple this with the mRNA vaccine being a mass social medical experiment in the same vain. And yes the entire thing is a ruse for people who realize most of us are in Hariris useless eater category and anything they do to defile us is proof to them of our unworthiness to live. Its no surprise a focus on economic reform or radical change is off the table while the inclusion orgy has been turned into a totalizing divide and conquer strategy in play and going for the kill
On a long enough time horizon there is always a subsystem that gains control of 80% of its host system, destroys it, and takes whatever is useful of the remaining 20% into itself to become the new system. Civilization is young. It will happen.
Incidentally, a lot of this ideological insanity has had the opposite effect. Someone like myself, who grew up pretty Blue America, and largely believed in it all, and supported or at least tolerated all the "right" causes, is now so far off the rails, Red-Pilled or what have you, and I'm never coming back.
I grew up in a "dictatorship" and know what it means to be lied to day in and day out. I would look West as an imperfect but well-intended place for Truth and Freedom. Not anymore.
in order for what you write to become the ''default'' reality on planet earth.... that there can be only ONE where ALL holdouts submit. the ukraine war demonstrates to EVERYONE EVERYWHERE the western elites pushing this agenda lack the military and manufacturing power to compel obedience or destroy those unwilling to submit and without THAT power agenda 2030...transhumanism..... is just so much deluded bullshit with no future.
agenda 2030 is merely the latest incarnation of the tower of babel myth and we all know how that effort ended.
It is interesting that we used to define what a human being was through religion: We have souls that live forever and are Children of God. I have heard WEF people say directly there is no God. "Now that we can hack the human brain, we know there is no mysterious soul." Everyone Woke wants to write "god" as if its all a myth. Gone is not only Jesus and God the Father, but God as Holy Spirit. We are all one in the Body of Christ. With the inflow of Eastern mysticism, we are supposed to know there is a God and we are all one, and Spirit exists and can be experienced. Is religious philosophy dead, of no value in polite arguments any more? I dislike this soulless WEF religion less that of Constantine's.
Way back in the 60's, Ford Motors launched the flop "Edsel."
It was a watershed flop and financial disaster.
According to John Kenneth Galbraith, "The New Industrial State" (1967), corporations were determined thereafter to engineer the consumer to ensure success of a product.
Now the corporations have the technological tools to truly engineer and even forcibly manage both demand and consumption.
"Oh brave new world, that has such (trans) people in't!"
Is the de-dollarization of international banking a bug or a feature for "U.S." banks?
In other words, are U. S. financial institutions (and corporations) so internationalized and hedged that the destruction of the U. S. system presents new opportunities for grift and graft among the cliques and claques?
Or will a U. S. financial collapse take the banks down with it?
I agree with the past analysis. I’m not sure about the future prediction.
They’re that depraved but I don’t think they’re that smart and there are forces beyond their control which has a likely chance of stopping whatever they think will happen
The premise that they will do anything to distract from the inevitability of collapse of the financial system and rich/poor divide is correct.
However, what Covid showed is that even if they gained more control over a certain segment of the population they woke up a lot more.
Even though they got to mass test the mRNA shots as a platform for inoculation against a biowarfare attack on an adversary (since they can’t use overt kinetic war), this platform will NEVER work - scientifically speaking.
The issue here is that even if they come clean about reality most people will not want to accept the painful consequences and actions needed to fix this. I’m not making excuses for the elites but they have a choice. 1) tell people how they screwed up, what the reality of the situation is, and the hard work needed to fix it or 2) gaslight them and introduce more controls to preserve their power - the populace be damned.
They’re choosing 2. But what if they choose 1? Do you think the majority of people are willing to do the hard work and make the sacrifices necessary to make things right again? I don’t think so. Decades of neoclassical economic theory, narcissistic messaging, and psychoactive medication produced a generation that is incapable of thinking beyond the next vacation let alone the welfare of their children and grand children (which they probably will never have).
And if by a miracle a leader says it as it is, doesn’t get removed one way or another by the “elites”, and starts to implement the hard decisions that actually benefit humanity (not the bullshit solutions they propose), the positive effects won’t be felt for years but the immediate effect will be pain, and the messenger will be “shot”, then back to the old guard.
People want to be lied to and told everything will be ok, they don’t want to accept the pain of the hard work needed - they don’t want the truth. Hence we keep getting the same leaders and things continue to slowly but surely get worse.
I’m not trying to be a downer but human nature entails sometimes hitting rock bottom. We avoid pain and seek pleasure, even if that pain is temporary.
I’m not saying this can’t be fixed. I’m saying we haven’t hit the bottom yet. When it happens, then WE (as in the majority) have the opportunity to implement real change. I still hope though enough of us see this before then.
This has already been demonstrated with inflation and deflation. Every time deflation is tried to undo inflation, it causes major pain, and just before it might start easing up, people can't take it anymore, so inflation starts again, and so on.
Simplicius you don't seem to account the the big picture predicting: "The coming AI boom..."
Nope: resources are the bedrock of ALL technology, in particular energy, which we're over half way through, (peak oil) i.e. we're on the downslope of the bell curve which like all resources supply over time curves, is always is far steeper than the up-curves are. This means at best, over the next half dozen or so decades global economies will crash to same net energy available in the c1750s with global populations less than 2 billion.
Further, over that time span, something as obscure as helium will also run out = no more chip manufacture = no more AI fantasies.
Granted, in the mean time the furious race for control of 'public opinion' you so well document will continue by those in control of those rapidly evaporating resources and raw mined materials.
@ Brevet private billy masterson - unfortunately the laws of thermodynamics prohibit humans or robots they might build to fulfil any foolish will to "begin a switch to solar and asteroid mining..." i.e. it is impossible due to the gravity well we live in to get sufficient mining machinery and materials and energy up into orbit and beyond, or shield astronauts from radiation, and then return with anything at all except dead bodies and an empty ship with its empty fuel tank.
Why shoot the messenger? You can research orbital mechanics yourself and you will quickly work out that significant economically viable mining i.e. returning resources in bulk back to the earths surface will never be possible in orbital space outside our gravity well :-)
@ brevet, if you wanted to "calibrate the technical level of my response" why didn't you say so when you asked me the question, instead of leaving it open to other equally valid interpretations, such as 'shooting the messenger' ?
You made the original claim, lamenting the failure of humans to "begin a switch to solar and asteroid mining..." implying that significant quantities could have been mined if only those pesky humans had concentrated harder. Thus the burden of proof lies with you.
So my response was to suggest the laws of thermodynamics (in a closed system i.e. bottom of the earth's gravity well) exposes such a claim as impossible i.e. the quantities that could be returned to earth with the available resources down here are insignificant.
In particular, nobody needs a degree to work out that rocket engines can't get into orbit on anything but fossil fuels e.g. needed to make H2 and O2 (for liquid fuel) and Al (for solid fuel engines) and all the hardware to safely and economically bring back 1000's of tonnes of rocks from space, refine them and make stuff to improve net wealth for humans down here.
Since humans are today more than half way through available fossil fuels, please show us your calculations (or links to anyone who has) to back up your claim that the net energy resource - available to humans on THIS planet at the bottom of its gravity well, is sufficient to mine 'significant' economically viable quantities of raw materials from asteroids, bring them back, and positively affect the global economy, without critically impacting other uses of fossil fuels whilst we watch global populations die off to under 2 billion by end of this century? (Unless you have a backup replacement for high energy density fossil fuels?)
I simply gave (non technical) links that anybody reading this thread could quickly get the main points to show how hard the task you have set your self (by making the claim) is.
So if one takes all the engineering variables into account, yes it is a "flat out impossibility" to return SIGNIFICANT quantities of space minerals back to earth - of course we can argue about what significant means. But it took six Apollo missions bring back 381 kilograms moon rocks which I suggest is economically utterly insignificant.
the problems faced by western societies, all really but more western than any other stem from the mathematical mismatch inherent in the linearity of compound interest (associated with debt) and the cyclicality of societies economic growth potential which underpins the ability to service and ultimately pay off the debt. the west has reached the end of the line in this regard and now faces either defaulting on the debt or inflating it away, both choices with unknowable consequences if you are a ruling elite in control of the bulk of societies assets.
literally EVERY utopian scheme sold to the public or used to try and scare the public (anthropogenic global warming bullshit) is predicated on the fact stated above and is pushed to ensure those in power NOW remain those in power AFTER the whole shitshow falls apart.
everything else is misdirection. if you fail to see this you have been bamboozled into getting caught up in the weeds.
if you want a solution that benefits the most you do what was done for millenia before the roman empire. you declare a debt jubilee and right it all off and start again. who loses and who gains in this scenario tells you all you need to know about WHY it is never spoken of or been possible to implement. a tiny bit of this was the goal to write off some college loan debt and we all know where that effort went..........nowhere
I don't believe at this point and time in history that anyone can truthfully say, 'life is boring'.
The old conundrum, how to enrich a parasitic minority at the expense of the majority without the pitchforks being dusted off and heads ending up being piked. Of course in modern times modern tools are used, those the article discusses. To date the program is progressing well, the woke idiocy is either believed or people resist criticism to avoid being ostracized. The financial wheels are also clearly falling off, time will tell how long they can kick that can down road.
The only weak point is that the western militaries have declined and are no longer up to the job of global suppression and bullying. Quite a few people have indicated they support Russia not due to love of it, but due to the disgust in which they hold the direction the West is on. I am not seeing much resistance in my home, Idiocracy in full swing, don't recognize the place. Am currently in a country that straddles the middle ground, hopefully they will resist being a US vassal, we will see. If all pans out expect my family to bail out of our western woke homeland and move here.
Yup, I just secured my permanent residency..SOB, that is South of…the “Amerika”, whomp, whomp💚🇲🇽❤️
Here is where this article goes massively wrong: All this "chipping", "vaxxing", financial, "woke" bullshit has ABSOL-FUCKING-LUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH TRANSHUMANISM.
Neither does this AI hype that's running around these days. That's purely the same corporate AI hype that's been a fixture of computer science since the 1960's, popping up every couple of decades only to founder on the reality that none of these algorithms come close to actually being human-capable intelligence, no matter what the MSM tells you. Extrapolating that as some agenda to weaken the notion of "humanity" is simply bullshit conspiracy theory. In any event, how to deal with so-called "artificial intelligence" has been considered by sci-fi, movies and TV for decades and is not news to the general public.
The biggest result so far has been a plethora of educational courses on "how to make money with ChatGPT and MidJourney"...
I WAS THERE when "transhumanism" was first being considered by people like F. M. Esfandiary (FM-2030 - Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FM-2030) who wrote "Are Your a Transhuman" and "Upwingers" back in the 1970's. I WAS THERE when Max More began publishing Extropy: The Journal of Transhumanist Thought, in 1988 - WAY BEFORE there was any such thing as the Davos agenda. I contributed to the Extropy Institute's email newsletter back during the early 2000's. I followed nanotechnology since K. Eric Drexler wrote "Engines of Creation" in 1986.
I was aware that Julian Huxley coined the term "transhuman" in 1951, defining it as "The human species can, if it wishes, transcend itself — not just sporadically, an individual here in one way, an individual there in another way, but in it's entirety, as humanity. We need a name for this new belief. Perhaps transhumanism will serve: man remaining man, but transcending himself, by realizing new possibilities of and for his human nature."
So you can trust me when I say that if there is ANY connection between the classic concept of Transhumanism and the current crop of corporate globalist cabals, it is merely because some of them - most probably some of our current "tech titans" - have hijacked the concepts involved for their own ends.
Second, let me go on record. There is nothing about "being human" that deserves to be preserved for eternity. Look around you. The proverbial feces is about to hit the propeller. We're on the verge of nuclear war - and no matter how many people tell you that "the banksters" aren't going to let it happen, they can't guarantee that - because "the banksters" don't control everything, no matter what the conspiracy theorists tell you.
This mess we're in is a DIRECT result of human nature, human behavior, and human evolution. And that can NOT be fixed by any amount of "kumbayah" hand holding or religious bullshit about how wonderful it all is to be human.
The entire situation Simplicius complains about in the vast majority of his article is a DIRECT result of BEING HUMAN. It is the result of primate hierarchical social organization and overly emotional human neurochemistry which devolved into the state, into politics, in social control mechanisms, and into the rise of irrational psychopaths trying to control very aspect of every society on the planet.
And as we individualist anarchists know, this is enabled entirely by the pathetic reaction of the majority of the human population bowing down to their masters like the beta chimps do to the alpha chimps in the troop.
You all can continue to fantasize about how all you have to do is "wake people up to the truth" - what's that classic line? "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!" - and form some fanciful political party like "The People's Party" - good luck with that, Jimmy Dore! - and with enough convinced voters just do "change from within".
Which is probably the dumbest, most moronic concept I can imagine - next to sexual monogamy (think about that last some time when you aren't completely asleep.)
The defining characteristic of Transhumanism is the notion that the only way to solve human problems is to solve human nature, specifically by transcending human nature into a state of full rationality and high intelligence.
That is NOT the program the globalists are preparing you for. Neither is it the program the anti-globalists are preparing you for. You need to stop thinking in binary "either/or" concepts and start thinking rationally from base concepts.
I'll be dealing with precisely these issues over at my Substack, "The Five Essentials". We are indeed heading for a "cyberpunk future" - and yes, that will include "our AI overlords" and corporate globalists - but it will also include ways to evade and escape and rise above all that. But I can assure you the means will not include family worship, "back to the land" bullshit, or any of the other "home-spun" belief systems the conservatives, the neoliberals, the far left or far right, the "progressives", the religious, the preppers, or any other social grouping might be trying to sell you.
Remember the classic words of The Firesign Theater album: "Everything You Know Is Wrong."
There are two fundamentally opposed historical lines of thought regarding the problems facing humanity:
(1) Human nature is fundamentally flawed, we need to fix it or escape it.
(2) Human nature is perfect, attempts to escape it are the root of our problems.
We readily see in (1) the core assumption of many western religions, with confession, rituals, faith, etc., offering the remedy of salvation. We also see this underlying eugenics, trans-humanism, etc., in which science and/or technology offers the guidance and/or means to escape our human nature. Neoliberal ideology (a la Hayek) is fundamentally a remedy to replace the role of a "God" with "the Markets" to escape our human nature. Usually (1) is associated with Hobbesian ideas about the state of humans in nature, that humans were brutish and violent, and suffered horrible lives, and that civilization, progress, technology, etc., have dramatically improved our situation (e.g., as championed in modern times by people like Steven Pinker). It is also sometimes used to justify crusades, discovery doctrine, imperialism/colonialism, and the superiority of races and societies oriented around rationality and progress (as opposed to tradition, superstition, etc.). The view (1) sees perpetual progress in our future, colonization of other planets, reliance on AI, and trans-humanism as inevitable if we are to survive. To escape our humanity, we must become Gods.
Paradigm (2) see primordial humans as being cultivated in harmony with nature, and that any deficiencies in their quality of life was an intrinsic part of the balance with the Earth and its life that existed when humans emerged from the evolutionary landscape. This line of thinking tends to emphasize the importance of human nature and relations that naturally evolved as traits in hunter-gatherer type cultures, as being cultivated instinctually and habitually in us over millions of years as a proven model of sustainability. In this view, humanity is not necessarily exceptional or special, but just another part of the Earth system. Attempts to escape traditional norms and harmony are seen as dangerous to this balance, and associated with loss of fundamental humanity (e.g., R. Tagore, On Nationalism). For those in the mindset of (2), the idea of "progress" is met with skepticism or cynicism (e.g., Civilized to Death, by C. Ryan). In modern times it is sometimes associated with a criticism of over-reliance on/misplaced faith in rationality and technocracy (e.g., J.R. Saul, Voltaire's Bastards). Attempts to colonize space are viewed as hopeless and endothermic, making conditions for life on Earth more difficult as these ventures consume valuable resources without regard for sustainability because of the belief that "somebody smart will come along and solve it."
As a scientist myself, I've spent much of my life with my head in paradigm (1), but as I've aged the ideas in (2) have become more compelling. However, I don't think the best path forward lies in either extreme. I don't believe that science/technology is a silver bullet, since we are the ones who ultimately wield these as tools and if we are imperfect then so is our application (this is inescapable). But I also don't think we can return to our hunter-gatherer roots, we crossed the Rubicon long ago, and we would all like to keep those fruits of science and technology that have dramatically improved our quality of life.
I do see humanity as existing only by geological consent, and that we can be taken out at any time by any number of natural events that have occurred numerous times in our planet's history. In terms of sustainability, we will either learn to live in balance with those bio-/geo-systems that are an intrinsic part of our larger planetary metabolism, or the balance will be imposed on us by brutal forces that will rub us out to extinction without any care...we'll just become another part of the fossil record, perhaps to be discovered by future allegedly "intelligent" species who may once again repeat the same mistakes as ourselves.
How to reconcile these contradictions and the conflicting paradigms of humanity? I don't have the answer...once I find something compelling, I'll write a book.
Nice recap of the two main flows of thought.
"I don't believe that science/technology is a silver bullet, since we are the ones who ultimately wield these as tools and if we are imperfect then so is our application (this is inescapable)."
That is incorrect. The fact that humans are imperfect and much (if not most - and I'm not sure about the degree, but it is large) of our technology sucks rocks doesn't mean there isn't a way out of the impasse via science and technology. What is certain is that the other flow leads to stagnation, not utopia and represents a reversal of everything which has driven humans forward since its evolution.
There are also two main flows of spiritual thought: the Right-Hand Path and the Left-Hand Path, as the occultists refer to them. One leads to religion, society, the state and our current mess. The other leads to individual freedom, science, and personal and species immortality.
The only question of importance is whether the advances in science that are made will be used to free us from human limitations - or impose harsher human limitations. Given human nature, the latter is most certainly a threat. However, also given human nature, that doesn't mean the threat can not be opposed and possibly thwarted before it can become real (or real for everyone.)
But to do that requires an entirely different mode of thinking than is common. Above all, it requires a mode of thinking that does not lead to dead-ends which is precisely where the binary concept of two historical flows leads. It is the two spiritual flows that are more important. But even the Left-Hand Path needs to be grounded in what I call "The Five Essentials": 1) Philosophy, 2) Attitude, 3) Knowledge, 4) Skills and 5) Technology.
Which is why you don't have an answer and I do.
Perhaps our thinking diverges around the nature of science itself. It is good to explain what I mean, particularly because science has become so politicized and abused in recent years.
In my view, science is only a learning process, just a tool, rooted in trial and error (hypothesis and empirical test). Science does not exist independently of our conception and application of this tool. And this leads to several considerations...like any tool,
(1) science is only as effective as the one who wields it,
(2) science is only effective for particular tasks,
(3) science does not have any direction (logical, moral, etc.) other than that provided by the wielder.
If the only tool we have is a hammer, then everything is shoehorned into being a nail. This is one of the issues with the application of science (and rational structures more broadly, according to J.R. Saul).
Science is a verb, rather than a noun. Science is not a body of facts. There is no such thing as "settled science." Science is rooted in skepticism and disbelief. Furthermore, science never arrives at "truth." (Truth itself is like infinity, it exists only as an idealization, a limit, rather than being a destination.) Science only moves along a particular branch of a conceptual evolutionary tree. There is no unique solution provided by science, nor a unique path, nor a unique end point. The path followed by science is tightly bound to the prevailing thought and trends of the culture/society in which it is employed, reflecting its ethos, biases, and priorities.
I am a scientist and a professor, and this is what I teach my students. I'm not pulling that out as an expression of authority, just to say that it is something I have spend decades thinking about in great detail. However, a significant number of my own colleagues (many of whom are excellent accomplished scientists) do not possess a solid philosophical understanding of science...they just do it. This lack of philosophical grounding does not harm their ability to do science, however, it does make them easier to manipulate and control because they don't understand that they are just cogs in a bigger machine that is managed for a particular purpose. And in the bigger picture, this is the key point: science has largely been co-opted by powerful interests in our societies. They decide which fields get funding, who gets hired to prominent posts, who gets a boost to a high profile in the mass media, and so on. And the vast majority of scientists are just interested in what is right in front of them, and if they become prominent they are typically bogged down with administrative duties and other BS that destroys their productivity and prevents them from rocking the boat.
Anyways, hope this makes sense, and maybe you can understand why I would be concerned about the notion of placing our faith in science.
I agree with most of your characterizations of science. Nonetheless, science is process with logical rules and procedures, even if not always adhered to by scientists who are, as you note, quite human. I distinguish the failures of scientists from the failures of science.
Nonetheless, science and its handmaiden technology, do provide "facts" which are effective in producing results of value to human survival. This is all it needs to do. There is no such thing as "truth" which is another one of those airy concepts humans like to wave around along with their hands. I am solely concerned with indefinite effective existence .
I am unconcerned with the philosophy of science per se, only with its results as long as those results are of use to me. As long as it produces results which can extend my lifespan and possibly enable the achievement of a post-human condition while not getting me killed in the process via a war or some fatal accident, that is all I require of it. In that sense, science as far as I am concerned has both a direction and a task. How effective it will be at those remains to be seen.
Fair enough, probably you realize that it is you that has given science the direction: "extend my lifespan and possibly enable the achievement of a post-human condition." There it is.
Of course. But I suspect that many more people - and scientists - will eventually realize that it is the only logical direction.
It reminds me of a comment a character in a fiction novel said once. He said it was once a legitimate career choice to spend one's life studying Sumerian script. He proposed that such a life was more license than discipline.
In short, science serves the species. There are some things more important to the species than other things. Those things should be the main focus of science, not some general notion of just studying anything that happens to come to mind. Granted, there are a lot of things that, while not directly leading to life extension, need to be understood; most of the physical universe, of course. But there is a limited amount of scientific and technological resources and those resources need to be directed, not left to the whim of unfocused people or worse corporate profit from pointless commercial gadgetry.
So a little more focus on issues of importance should be emphasized in your classes, I suspect.
"Nonetheless, science and its handmaiden technology, do provide "facts" which are effective in producing results of value to human survival. This is all it needs to do. There is no such thing as "truth" which is another one of those airy concepts humans like to wave around along with their hands. I am solely concerned with indefinite effective existence ."
That is literally the WEF's platform for itself. You pompously proclaim that nobody -especially not the WEF- have the slightest clue as to what true trans-scotsmanism.... er... trans-humanism is and then you literally proclaim a set of bullet points that could be from the WEF's own internal literature. Are you a parody account? Is there some subtle joke I am missing out on?
The human predicament:
mankind is flawed unable to provide a solution which itself is not flawed. So then, I’ll just leave here; try as they might humankind are incapable of correcting (fixing) themselves.
The comments section is reminiscent of the “talk back sessions” where people had an opportunity to tell you what they thought about what you said and on some occasion could even say what they thought about you the communicator.
And I always loved these talk back sessions I suppose that’s why I enjoy the comments section as well.
What about the person who goes on someone’s blog calls what they write “bullshit” in an agitated high sounding rant and then invites them over their blog...
I thought it was hilarious...
I suggest you find a different word for “bullshit” it distracts from your subject negatively maybe it’s because you use it so often.
"mankind is flawed unable to provide a solution which itself is not flawed."
Conclusion does not proceed from the premise. Or at the very least, it has not yet been proven.
As for "agitation", I am annoyed by people coming along in the last decade or less talking about Transhumanism as if they had a clue about the previous fifty years of discussion on the subject and assuming that some tech billionaire has any clue about it either.
This is the standard PTB means of derailing opposition and induce confusion and paranoia: hijack a valid concept, attach it to their agenda, then sit back as people who never understood the concept in the first place attack it, thus undermining their own objective interests. I see even ostensibly intelligent people fall for this trick over and over.
Bullshit is bullshit and I call it out when I see it.
Well, I agree with at least one thing: supreme reason within each individual is the answer. How we achieve that and what happens after that is detail work.
"I WAS THERE when Max More began publishing Extropy: The Journal of Transhumanist Thought, in 1988 - WAY BEFORE there was any such thing as the Davos agenda."
You go on and on about how nobody but you knows the precise history of anything - let alone transhumanism - yet you clearly don't have the first clue about the WEF and Davos. The very publicly available (i.e. Wikipedia) fact of the matter is WEF has been meeting at Davos since WEF's creation in 1971. So spare me your obscure, hipster "I was there" mustache-waxing references from 1988. I know you probably have like 10,000 vinyl records of crappy bands that nobody actually likes and even fewer have heard of, but maybe calm down and bit and don't be so condescending when you can't even get pretty easily researched dates and facts down.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irCUvLD1t5U
Firstly, thanks for delving into the data. These various analyses are indeed staggering. However, let me add a few observations showing that, as Ecclesiastes writes, 'there's nothing new under the sun'. The 'introduction' of 'diversity' as instrument of political warfare was already well used in the early 2000's in the UK, thanks to the Blair government.
Also, the use of 'direction' of what is and isn't 'news' to be reported goes back 90 years, to the set-up of Goebbel's 'Ministry of Enlightenment [yes, really!] and Propaganda' where newspaper editors were firstly forced to join a 'professional' group, else they were forbidden to publish, and where a daily round of meetings in that ministry gave 'guidance' as to what and how 'news' were to be written about. And there were also such 'professional' groups for entertainers, actors, directors ... so that film studios were to ld what films to make and what shouldn't;t be touched.
The only difference to today is that we now have the internet and AI.
However, there are two points which the globalists, generally Westerners or western-educated, have overlooked. Their 'guidance' will be useless because 'not applicable' in places where there's a state religion, i.e. islam. The other point is that the Schwabs et al don't seem to realise that they cannot get both a huge increase in AI, needing ever larger server farms, and 'Net Zero' at the same time. People might be willing to sell their human birthright for a bowl of potage - but the potage must be forthcoming. Shivering in the drake sting grass and insects while AI servers run to 'govern' them won't do it.
And then there's always 'fate', here in the form of a CME which is bound to occur ...
Well said, I've noted most of this intensely over the last 15 years. I recall being swept up in the moment of Obamas election only to be deflated 2 days after when I realized Rahm Emannuel was going to be chief of staff. That was an accurate marker of what was to come. My last comment a few days ago on substack recalled laughing at the dems trying to appropriate the sentiment of occupy. The jokes on us now... I was the guy who saw the Trans craze working up other anarchists since the 2010s and realized there had to be some deep state consensus manufacturing this fervently held opinion. It erases women and countless self professed feminists were all about it. A very unpopular opinion at this point and our comradeship is long expired. However it is the precursor to transhumanism and human augmentation. I bristled at the thought of advocating for lifetime hormone replacement and all the subsequent issues that would come from brute forcing chromosomes to run against that kind of environmental modification. Couple this with the mRNA vaccine being a mass social medical experiment in the same vain. And yes the entire thing is a ruse for people who realize most of us are in Hariris useless eater category and anything they do to defile us is proof to them of our unworthiness to live. Its no surprise a focus on economic reform or radical change is off the table while the inclusion orgy has been turned into a totalizing divide and conquer strategy in play and going for the kill
From time immemorial men have dreamed of ruling the world. They have always, without exception, failed.
On a long enough time horizon there is always a subsystem that gains control of 80% of its host system, destroys it, and takes whatever is useful of the remaining 20% into itself to become the new system. Civilization is young. It will happen.
Incidentally, a lot of this ideological insanity has had the opposite effect. Someone like myself, who grew up pretty Blue America, and largely believed in it all, and supported or at least tolerated all the "right" causes, is now so far off the rails, Red-Pilled or what have you, and I'm never coming back.
I grew up in a "dictatorship" and know what it means to be lied to day in and day out. I would look West as an imperfect but well-intended place for Truth and Freedom. Not anymore.
in order for what you write to become the ''default'' reality on planet earth.... that there can be only ONE where ALL holdouts submit. the ukraine war demonstrates to EVERYONE EVERYWHERE the western elites pushing this agenda lack the military and manufacturing power to compel obedience or destroy those unwilling to submit and without THAT power agenda 2030...transhumanism..... is just so much deluded bullshit with no future.
agenda 2030 is merely the latest incarnation of the tower of babel myth and we all know how that effort ended.
It is interesting that we used to define what a human being was through religion: We have souls that live forever and are Children of God. I have heard WEF people say directly there is no God. "Now that we can hack the human brain, we know there is no mysterious soul." Everyone Woke wants to write "god" as if its all a myth. Gone is not only Jesus and God the Father, but God as Holy Spirit. We are all one in the Body of Christ. With the inflow of Eastern mysticism, we are supposed to know there is a God and we are all one, and Spirit exists and can be experienced. Is religious philosophy dead, of no value in polite arguments any more? I dislike this soulless WEF religion less that of Constantine's.
Way back in the 60's, Ford Motors launched the flop "Edsel."
It was a watershed flop and financial disaster.
According to John Kenneth Galbraith, "The New Industrial State" (1967), corporations were determined thereafter to engineer the consumer to ensure success of a product.
Now the corporations have the technological tools to truly engineer and even forcibly manage both demand and consumption.
"Oh brave new world, that has such (trans) people in't!"
Great article Simplicius!
Here's a question that is nagging me.
Is the de-dollarization of international banking a bug or a feature for "U.S." banks?
In other words, are U. S. financial institutions (and corporations) so internationalized and hedged that the destruction of the U. S. system presents new opportunities for grift and graft among the cliques and claques?
Or will a U. S. financial collapse take the banks down with it?
This article is a keeper - you convinced me - I subscribed.
I agree with the past analysis. I’m not sure about the future prediction.
They’re that depraved but I don’t think they’re that smart and there are forces beyond their control which has a likely chance of stopping whatever they think will happen
The premise that they will do anything to distract from the inevitability of collapse of the financial system and rich/poor divide is correct.
However, what Covid showed is that even if they gained more control over a certain segment of the population they woke up a lot more.
Even though they got to mass test the mRNA shots as a platform for inoculation against a biowarfare attack on an adversary (since they can’t use overt kinetic war), this platform will NEVER work - scientifically speaking.
The issue here is that even if they come clean about reality most people will not want to accept the painful consequences and actions needed to fix this. I’m not making excuses for the elites but they have a choice. 1) tell people how they screwed up, what the reality of the situation is, and the hard work needed to fix it or 2) gaslight them and introduce more controls to preserve their power - the populace be damned.
They’re choosing 2. But what if they choose 1? Do you think the majority of people are willing to do the hard work and make the sacrifices necessary to make things right again? I don’t think so. Decades of neoclassical economic theory, narcissistic messaging, and psychoactive medication produced a generation that is incapable of thinking beyond the next vacation let alone the welfare of their children and grand children (which they probably will never have).
And if by a miracle a leader says it as it is, doesn’t get removed one way or another by the “elites”, and starts to implement the hard decisions that actually benefit humanity (not the bullshit solutions they propose), the positive effects won’t be felt for years but the immediate effect will be pain, and the messenger will be “shot”, then back to the old guard.
People want to be lied to and told everything will be ok, they don’t want to accept the pain of the hard work needed - they don’t want the truth. Hence we keep getting the same leaders and things continue to slowly but surely get worse.
I’m not trying to be a downer but human nature entails sometimes hitting rock bottom. We avoid pain and seek pleasure, even if that pain is temporary.
I’m not saying this can’t be fixed. I’m saying we haven’t hit the bottom yet. When it happens, then WE (as in the majority) have the opportunity to implement real change. I still hope though enough of us see this before then.
This has already been demonstrated with inflation and deflation. Every time deflation is tried to undo inflation, it causes major pain, and just before it might start easing up, people can't take it anymore, so inflation starts again, and so on.
Simplicius you don't seem to account the the big picture predicting: "The coming AI boom..."
Nope: resources are the bedrock of ALL technology, in particular energy, which we're over half way through, (peak oil) i.e. we're on the downslope of the bell curve which like all resources supply over time curves, is always is far steeper than the up-curves are. This means at best, over the next half dozen or so decades global economies will crash to same net energy available in the c1750s with global populations less than 2 billion.
Further, over that time span, something as obscure as helium will also run out = no more chip manufacture = no more AI fantasies.
https://resourceinsights.blogspot.com/2009/05/lets-party-til-heliums-gone.html
Granted, in the mean time the furious race for control of 'public opinion' you so well document will continue by those in control of those rapidly evaporating resources and raw mined materials.
@ Brevet private billy masterson - unfortunately the laws of thermodynamics prohibit humans or robots they might build to fulfil any foolish will to "begin a switch to solar and asteroid mining..." i.e. it is impossible due to the gravity well we live in to get sufficient mining machinery and materials and energy up into orbit and beyond, or shield astronauts from radiation, and then return with anything at all except dead bodies and an empty ship with its empty fuel tank.
Why shoot the messenger? You can research orbital mechanics yourself and you will quickly work out that significant economically viable mining i.e. returning resources in bulk back to the earths surface will never be possible in orbital space outside our gravity well :-)
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ftsa&q=orbital+mechanics&ia=web
https://maxpolyakov.com/space-mining/
https://www.sciencealert.com/why-earth-is-actually-our-cosmic-prison-and-how-to-escape-it
https://maxpolyakov.com/space-mining/
@ brevet, if you wanted to "calibrate the technical level of my response" why didn't you say so when you asked me the question, instead of leaving it open to other equally valid interpretations, such as 'shooting the messenger' ?
You made the original claim, lamenting the failure of humans to "begin a switch to solar and asteroid mining..." implying that significant quantities could have been mined if only those pesky humans had concentrated harder. Thus the burden of proof lies with you.
So my response was to suggest the laws of thermodynamics (in a closed system i.e. bottom of the earth's gravity well) exposes such a claim as impossible i.e. the quantities that could be returned to earth with the available resources down here are insignificant.
In particular, nobody needs a degree to work out that rocket engines can't get into orbit on anything but fossil fuels e.g. needed to make H2 and O2 (for liquid fuel) and Al (for solid fuel engines) and all the hardware to safely and economically bring back 1000's of tonnes of rocks from space, refine them and make stuff to improve net wealth for humans down here.
Since humans are today more than half way through available fossil fuels, please show us your calculations (or links to anyone who has) to back up your claim that the net energy resource - available to humans on THIS planet at the bottom of its gravity well, is sufficient to mine 'significant' economically viable quantities of raw materials from asteroids, bring them back, and positively affect the global economy, without critically impacting other uses of fossil fuels whilst we watch global populations die off to under 2 billion by end of this century? (Unless you have a backup replacement for high energy density fossil fuels?)
I simply gave (non technical) links that anybody reading this thread could quickly get the main points to show how hard the task you have set your self (by making the claim) is.
So if one takes all the engineering variables into account, yes it is a "flat out impossibility" to return SIGNIFICANT quantities of space minerals back to earth - of course we can argue about what significant means. But it took six Apollo missions bring back 381 kilograms moon rocks which I suggest is economically utterly insignificant.
Some homework:-
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9js5291m
https://energyskeptic.com/category/energy/eroei-energy-returned-on-energy-invested/
https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/dont-know-these-10-facts-you-re-energy-blind-679fe8cc7997
https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpress.com/
the problems faced by western societies, all really but more western than any other stem from the mathematical mismatch inherent in the linearity of compound interest (associated with debt) and the cyclicality of societies economic growth potential which underpins the ability to service and ultimately pay off the debt. the west has reached the end of the line in this regard and now faces either defaulting on the debt or inflating it away, both choices with unknowable consequences if you are a ruling elite in control of the bulk of societies assets.
literally EVERY utopian scheme sold to the public or used to try and scare the public (anthropogenic global warming bullshit) is predicated on the fact stated above and is pushed to ensure those in power NOW remain those in power AFTER the whole shitshow falls apart.
everything else is misdirection. if you fail to see this you have been bamboozled into getting caught up in the weeds.
if you want a solution that benefits the most you do what was done for millenia before the roman empire. you declare a debt jubilee and right it all off and start again. who loses and who gains in this scenario tells you all you need to know about WHY it is never spoken of or been possible to implement. a tiny bit of this was the goal to write off some college loan debt and we all know where that effort went..........nowhere