forsyth: (Default)
The world and the universe are both vast and awesome in size and variety. Leaving aside all of the weird stuff that's implied by extrapolating the laws of physics, and even the weird stuff we've seen and confirmed, hell, leaving aside everything beyond the bounds of the solar system, the world is full of all sorts of interesting and strange things. Just the Earth alone is mind-bogglingly huge (humans seriously suck at comprehending numbers outside what can easily be visualized, that's why we love metaphor so much) there's an amazing variety of ways which people have created to deal with the many and varied repeated tropes of human existence, including all sorts of ways to make really big numbers into something comprehensible.

That's awesome. In the literal sense, inspiring awe. The thing about awe, it can turn into wonder, or fear. Which makes sense, as big awe-inspiring things like avalanches, giant water features, sabertooth tigers, or mammoths used to also be deadly. And still can be, if you're not careful. So I suppose bit of fear is a healthy thing our genes are happy we have.

What I really don't understand are the people who look at this kind of awesome variety and endless possibility, and then pretend it doesn't exist. People who (sometimes more, sometimes less) metaphorically stick their fingers in their ears and shout "LA LA LA LA LA!" Not just like the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal, which thinks if you can't see it, it can't see you, they think if they don't acknowledge the world, it doesn't exist. Or, at least, it's Somebody Else's Problem Though in many ways, this seems to be a fairly common human trait, it's applicability to aliens is based on extrapolating from a sample of one.

But I guess, what I really don't get is the why. Why someone would chose to treat the awesome wonders of the world as if they didn't exist. Why someone would choose a life that was deliberately smaller, that was deliberately less interesting, that was deliberately full of less possibilities. Maybe fear of the unknown is that strong. Maybe it's the comfort of familiarity. Maybe it's fear of feeling small and tiny and insignificant. I don't know, like I said, I don't get it. I can sort of get my brain to that place, but not really get it.

I am only human, after all, and I can only be shaped by what I know and what I've done. And growing up, the unknown wasn't ever presented as something terrifying and scary. The giant emptiness of space, or the variety of the world wasn't something to fear, it was something to explore.

When it comes down to it, I'm an optimist. Partially by temperament, and partly by choice. I have faith in humanity as a whole, for all the ways we such and fail, we're persistent and bloody clever and can be our better selves. We're not perfect, and probably will be, but we are better than we once were, and we can be better still. We can be smarter, we can be more compassionate, we can be stronger, we can be more just, we can be better. Yes, our monkey brains evolved to throw sticks and stones may eventually be able to comprehend the workings of the universe, or at least come up with better and better models, there's always a twist. So all the weirdness and distance and STUFF out there is something to figure out, something to appreciate, something to discover.

And I guess that's why I don't get the people who want a little universe, with them at the center. I just don't see the point, when there's so much more out there. Imagine if there really where dragons in all those "here"s.
forsyth: (Default)
A few years ago, while I was traveling across the country, I was also reading David Brin's Earth (obligatory Amazon link), and I realized what I wanted to do with my life.

I want to save the world.

Or, at least, I want to hack the world. I'm only being slightly melodramatic when I say that, too. Truly, there's nothing we humans can (yet) do to the entire world, it's a giant ball of molten rock and metal, even all our nukes couldn't do much more than scratch the surface. So, yeah, the Earth itself? It'll be fine.

Our civilization, however, may not. So that's what made me decided on what I wanted to study and head back to school, not just take the random gen-ed classes any more. Now I'm trying to finish up engineering, the large scale kind, buildings and cities and regions and things. Our systems are big.

Hacking the whole world is a big project, which will need lots of help. It's the ultimate open-source project, too! Everyone is contributing already. But if you walk into a project without an idea where you're going, you're going to end up making mistakes until you figure things out, and then you're going to have to fix them to get where you wanted to go. And so far we've been all too often bumbling in the dark, and making some awful big mistakes. I wanna help clean those up, and keep from making them again.

But where do I want to go? Well, I've been shorthanding it as the "Star Trek Future", not because I want or expect anything exactly like Star Trek to happen, but because it's more familiar than terms like Bright Green Future as coined by the folks over at Worldchanging. Since it's what I'm devoting a lot of time and thought to, it ought to be reflected here, too.

That didn't come out quite as clear as I was hoping. I'm going to spend the next few posts hopefully clarifying, starting with the twin poles of where we ought to be going, and where we are now, some of which I covered in a post a while ago about the Grim Meathook Future. There's a few other snippets on these thoughts all tagged as "the future", including this one about defining win conditions.

One final thought, from Finite and Infinite Games. Finite games are played until somebody "wins" and the game ends. An infinite game's whole purpose is to keep the game going. Life is an infinite game.
forsyth: (Default)
A post, over on Salon, called "The Utopian Economics of "Star Trek" lays out part of the foundation for a Star Trek future. The defining part of the Star Trek future, for me, is the optimism of it. Part of the optimism is Star Trek is a future largely without scarcity. Even before the replicators of TNG, most resources are easily available. The only limits are energy, and some rare elements, especially the dilithium, the handwavium that makes the nearly-limitless energy available. And once most things aren't scarce, current economics falls apart, as the cots of everything would approach 0.

Which, frankly, is not really that unreasonable, for a spacefaring civilization that's managed to spread beyond a single solar system. Think of the Kardashev scale. The Federation's obviously at least Type II.

To get to a Star Trek future, there's lots of problems to be solved, some technological, but just as many social, political, economic, and everything else. There's room for everybody to work to make a better world.

A Question

Mar. 27th, 2008 10:20 pm
forsyth: (Default)
What kind of future do you want to live in? What does it look like? How does it happen? What does it mean? How does it smell? What does it sound like?

Not the kind of future you think we're headed to, or the future you dread, the future you want to live in. I want to define win conditions, a thread of an idea I stole from WorldChanging.

Profile

forsyth: (Default)
Forsyth

May 2018

S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
202122 23242526
2728293031  

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 30th, 2025 08:09 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios