This is part of our inaugural special issue on Progress: how it happens, how we nurture it and how we stifle it, and what changes are required in how we approach our most serious problems to ensure greater progress for all. Videos: "Will Civilization Collapse?" with Kevin Kelly: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-nJ0VmT0D8ew.html "Can America make a comeback?" with Tyler Cowen : ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-3LI8O1ZJx3Q.html "3 tools for predicting 2122" with Peter Schwartz: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-EAPXM50wy_U.html Playlist: ru-vid.com/group/PL5uULy4b0kV4HAE84o_StVH66U1awDy9L Articles: "An End to Doomerism" by Hannah Ritchie: bigthink.com/progress/pessimism-is-a-barrier-to-progress/ "The Great, Progression, 2025-2050" by Peter Leyden: bigthink.com/progress/the-great-progression-peter-leyden/ "We Need a New Philosophy of Progress" by Jason Crawford bigthink.com/progress/a-new-philosophy-of-progress-jason-crawford/ "Expert Roundtable: What does progress look like?" bigthink.com/progress/progress-agenda/ And more available at bigthink.com/special-issues/the-progress-issue/
I respect an optimistic perspective, and appreciate it, but I have serious doubts that those who innovate and shape the world have the best interests of anyone but themselves at heart. Corporate greed is running amok. The only thing that matters to these powers is profit, not progress.
You're not wrong! That's why it falls on us, the consumers, to direct them towards roads that mean actual progress for civilization. We can enforce a "technological selection" by being conscientious about our choices. I'm being too optimistic, aren't I?
I am unlikely to change your mind so won't even try. I'll just suggest you check out various playlists I have for content from other channels. Now onto the main point I wanted to make. The Dystopias of the Political Compass. Far Left Perverted Socialism aka Stalinism: Enslaved to work for the government by a tyrannical dictator, with no option of being your own boss, ever. Crony Communism, that has historically been racist, anti-semitic, misogynistic, homophobic. Also, caused mass poverty, famines, and Cannibalism. In his case, the infamous Holodomor. Authoritarian Turbo-Capitalism: Fascist perversions of the original Corporatism like Mussolini. Anarcho-Communism: A truly lovely dream. Sincerely. I share this dream, but dream it for the long-distant future, because I realise technology will be necessary to make it possible. Totally Sustainable Fully Automated Infinite Energy Luxury Global Space Communism with Humanity united as one. A more realistic ambition is similar to this Marxist dream, an international federalism where we'll be allowed our own countries, cultures, religions, beliefs, and thoughts. Too lovely a dream for now. Any country that tries full-on Anarcho-Communism WILL be crushed by invaders within ten minutes due to wetbag hippies. Anarcho-Capitalism: Dominated by Billionaires with no regulation, democracy destroyed to get out of paying taxes. Neo-Feudalist, Charter City, Hybrid Regime. Not even charity to help the less fortunate. Notice how Far Left, Far Right, and Anarcho-Capitalism all arrive at the same terrifying destination of Stalinism? And so this is why I'm in the hilarious position of British, Left-Liberal, Social Democrat, hated by Marxists and Trumptards who think they're totally opposite to each other. "Russian Communism is the illegitimate child of Karl Marx and Catherine the Great" - Sir Clement Attlee, legendary, lovely Social Democrat. Labour Party PM of Post-WW2 Britain. He made this quip because: Karl Marx was a casually racist anti-semite in his letter to Engels 30th July 1862, a womanising misogynist who had a secret son with his maid behind his Noble wife's back, and chuckled with Engels in 1869 about a rival homosexual German Socialist getting arrested for homosexual activity. Eerily similar to Donald Trump! Then we have lovely Lenin using chemical weapons against peasant farmers in the Tambov Rebellion. Lovely Lenin. Man of The People. Also rumoured to have owned several luxury cars, and all the Russian peasants got out of his tenure was starvation and being taught to read. Read Tankie propaganda that is. Stalin. Oh my days. He was even worse than the NSDAP high command, all by himself, and if the paranoid german dictator hadn't betrayed him, America would be the last land of freedom that remains, but likely would've increased its own Fascism it already had in those days. Kruschev was a bit of a problem but he was a far better leader of the USSR than ANYONE they had before him, including Lenin.
I love delusional optimism. I'm a delusional optimist myself in a lot of ways. The reality of our situation on planet earth is that, well, how could we be optimistic that our massive existential problems will be solved when they are without real solutions, and are not even acknowledged as real problems. It's a pickle.
hm . the Amish have an actual community to connect with phones . for all too many of us in the rest of the world , smartphones just create the illusion of community , in my book .
@@Anuchan Personally I've found that the problem with internet technology isn't the effect it had on me, its the effect it had on those around me. It's one thing to avoid the pitfalls yourself, it's something else to effectively transfer that ability to those you love.
You’re idealizing to a large extent. The difference between the two is obligation vs. choice. The Amish or many other closed communities make being “cast out” a horrifying fate. You stay in the community regardless of abuse, unhappiness, or disagreement because if you don’t, everyone from your neighbors to your family will become estranged. Internet communities are freely associated with. They are definitely less sticky, but they are frequently more supportive because of self-selection and in the end all they have is whether or not people choose to be a part or not. Good example for the author’s point, but not a prescription - just an explanation of how it works
@@tjwoosta I've found it to be a problem of using the phone for social acceptance, rather than as a tool for communication. What's the solution? Better education?
By non dystopian, I don't mean a utopia. I would find a utopia very boring. Some conflict and difficulties are desirable. But when situations like what lead to WW2, I become very concerned will we make it.
Competition is possible without conflict. If you have had a chance to observe and/or be a part of a very positive group or organization with a healthy culture and so on and been able to compare that with a deeply dysfunctional one it provides an excellent example of how utopia can be non toxic without being sterile and boring. I'm thinking about how winning and losing play out as another aspect of the same idea. It's possible to be a gracious winner without arrogance and to lose admirably or, alternatively one can be Repulsive in victory and a big baby whining about hackers and cheaters in defeat. I'm not sure if I expressed myself well but that's my opinion on the topic.
Successful people don't become that way overnight. What most people see at a glance- wealth, a great career, purpose-is the result of hard work and hustle over time. I pray that anyone who reads this will be successful in life..
Not to take anything away from what you have said, but I have to state, whatever we do it has to be Sustainable. Anything not Sustainable has to end and we exist on Unsustainability.
Technology used properly can help but if not used properly will harm progress. Progress has to be measured with sustainable effects to the overall ecosystem
Love this! Well read as I am, this is the first time I'm hearing the word "protopia." Everyone right now is interested in dystopian futures which feeds a societal mindset. We've gone down a path expecting the worst from the financial and political elites. On the other hand, Star Trek for instance is a protopian future genre showing how humanity can work together to improve society. That is such a strong notion that it has stuck with me for decades and I'm perpetually dismayed at how far away we are to achieve anything like it.
Well lets see if someone can figure out that you can't have infinite growth with finite resources. Never has a species consumed so many resources at such an alarming rate. How do you make a sustainable world?
We were disconnected from nature when our common management of it was lost. As a result, we no longer understand its limitations and no longer notice when we go beyond those limitations. That's why people in the West continue to have the delusion that technology will save us.
It's an interesting philosophy that definitely should be elaborated on. It's absolutely true that many people fear new technology but there are certainly many others who who see it as a benefit. Science is nothing more than a tool so it's morality should be interpreted through our actions and intentions. Unfortunately as science gets more advanced it also becomes less democratic. Advanced science requires large institutions and infrastructure all working towards a singular goal. Very few organizations have the capability to conduct science at this scale, as such advanced science often conforms to the goals of these organizations. Currently the main motives driving science right now are profit and military power, not exactly noble goals. This explains why we build more nuclear bombs than nuclear reactors and why we keep using fossil fuels despite having many viable alternatives. We need to find a way to balance our scientific goals to be more altruistic, otherwise we will continue on this dystopian path.
I take your point(s), of course. Ironically the internet proved its worth, in one of its more positive ways, sharing immense amounts of data amongst those seeking to create a vaccine for COVID … only for the scientists to be given a hard time for having created one either too slowly, or too quickly! Science DOES rather seem to get a ‘bad rep’, which is a shame as I believe that those who conduct their work ‘at the coal face’ as it were (an odd quote, I realize) have good intentions … (although, I suppose Oppenheimer probably felt the same at the time, too)!
I just finished his book. When I first started reading it I put it down after page 100 or so because it really wasn't telling me anytbing I didnt already know. But several months and several books later I picked it back up and finished the rest. I ended up loving it.
Define "civilization." Then define "collapse." Based on your presonal interpretations of those concepts, an answer should be relatively easy to arrive at.
We can argue all our lives what’s the best approach to identify and solve societal problems. I think one thing nearly all of us can agree upon is that status quo is not the choice. After basic amenities, we can talk about opportunities and ways to find meaning in life. Not everyone has the capability nor the interest to become a CEO of a multinational corporation or leading edge scientist, but the opportunity to become is a problem. When the baseline of living is risen everyone wins, but it brings up more problems to solve.
Good points. The trend in the past, globally, has been one of expanding opportunity--but it's not necessarily assured that that will continue and it will take work to continue to expand them. And we also often see that higher standards of living don't always go hand in hand with increased happiness (or we would be in a euphoric state compared to ancient serfs!) but that as they rise we get just as bothered by a new set of problems, if often objectively smaller ones. Peter Leyden, author of the famous "Long Boom" article in Wired in the 90s, wrote an update for us that touches on this: bigthink.com/progress/the-great-progression-peter-leyden/ .
Mahatma Gandhi was hostile to Industrial civilisation. He was also inspired by Thoreau's Walden. But he himself was using printing press, watches, cars, etc. For him perhaps, the technology which makes the society better, e.g. by bringing employment, spreading education, etc are good. He used Railways, but also criticised railways, just as how we use mobile phones, but criticise them too. Technology should be judiciously used, not recklessly adopted everywhere.
Was introduced to Kevin Kelly through listening to the podcasts of the Long Now Foundation. I can highly recommend checking them out if you're into long-term thinking, technology and social trends.
Mahatma Gandhi was hostile to Industrial civilisation. He was also inspired by Thoreau's Walden. But he himself was using printing press, watches, cars, etc. For him perhaps, the technology which makes the society better, e.g. by bringing employment, spreading education, etc are good. He used Railways, but also criticised railways, just as how we use mobile phones, but criticise them too. Technology should be judiciously used, not recklessly adopted everywhere.
Yeah, believed in village autonamy, how can every village produce their own meds, train physicians? The Chinese would love it if India had gone this way.
@@bhatkat Village autonomy didn't mean the villages wouldn't have collaboration between them. Also it is that he didn't like modern medicines. He said it makes people dependent on medicines, and he isn't totally wrong here. Also other things such as testing on animals, etc which he considered as violence. Also it was just his ideal model, something like a political theory. He himself lived mostly near cities. His village autonomy concept is important. In fact China is better at it than India. The Indian local governments have very less powers. They are almost like departments of State governments. Chinese local governments have much more powers, with more money, manpower, functions,etc
The future I want is where freedom, peace, art, imagination, exploration and creation are valued more than propaganda, greed, power over others and monetary gain.
Technology is not the problem, and therefore, neither can it be the solution, not even by changing its image or proposing a "desirable" future based on alternative uses. That people feel distrust of science, technology, artificial intelligence, etc., is due to social movements, it is a problem of society; not of the political, technological or economic centers. What is shaking, what is threatening to crumble, is the basis on which these centers are built.
We have to be both, we have to somehow be hopeful, but dig so deep into the negatives of our present, and ourselves, that we don't have blind spots, otherwise those blindspots drive. For example, we have missed the huge blindspot that all our wonderful developments and expansion have literally cost us the world. This is what we have to begin dealing with, and the hour is late. I think we need something like solarpunk, or mindpunk... basically something where not only is technology secondary to being natural and balanced, but also where we have changed and advanced our minds, and aren't just superimposing our current folies and limits onto a future world.
Basic problem: There is serious shortage of energy in future. 90% of world energy comes from fossil fuels which is running out. Where is the solution? What happens when civilization is short on energy and resources? That part should be obvious to everyone.
Thomas Malthus, an 18th Century philosopher, said the same thing (soz, it’s the only thing I remembered from my History lessons, in the late 70s)! Google him. It’s kinda interesting.
Just imagine the next dark age, mix of high tech and mud, in a world with production chains broken and small local goverment. The growd of any civilization can't be perpetual, there must be some periods of decline.
Today I would be happy in a world that didn't change. The change I see happening frighten me. We are at a brink of world war III and a nuclear war. We are at a brink (or over it) of unstoppable climate change.
We’ll never make it to the future with the way things are now… this system will crumble, unless change comes VERY fast… unfortunately the way our politics and economy is set up, the change we desperately need to make will never be accomplished before we crumble.
We are already living a dystopis. That video is just wishful thinking. Powerful companies knows our habbits, our data, which buttons to push and how we work. Still they profit on it and manipulate us for worse. We are sitting on a gold mine, yet we are more prone to keep digging to never get back out of the mine, instead of coming out, sharing what we got and gearing up the rest of the people to get back to explore better that mine.
I don't see too many people considering whether we should develop a Technology based on its impact on society. Like the Amish do. Most of the time they just use the new technology and don't think about it otherwise they'll be Left behind in the competitive framework which our society is based on, it is not a Cooperative framework like the Amish society. Not only that whether or not a technology will be developed depends on whether it makes money for a few a minority called capitalists and more and more money more and more political power ends up in their hands so it's all dependent on whether or not it benefits them not whether it benefits us
Cultures collapse whereas the human civilization will endure. It is only a matter of "how much survives". At some point a civilization reaches a "tipping point" as far as if it can last or not. Ancient civilizations died out usually owing to a collapse of what were central governing structures. The world today despite being separate nations is still very interconnected. Ergo human knowledge will persis at some level and what "collapses" can be replaced in time. Education is fairly ubiquitous today in most developed nations such that the board can not totally be wiped as it was in times past where populations were for the most part functionally illiterate - and thus dependent upon those central authorities.
charming man and great insights! However the title of the video is very misleading, what threatens civilisation is mostly global warming not technologies, and on that we are not even remotely close to see that shit as an opportunity to improve. It will collapse.
But surely this is already a dystopian society. Technological Progress? That's not a measure of value and certainly not of quality of life. It is not a question of technology, but one of will. Civilization may not collapse, but it will end. Sooner, or later. The only question is: Did you choose to love, or something else?
Just like in The Matrix if there truly was a Utopia where people were always happy, some people probably would reject it. Stange as this may sound some people actually do enjoy struggling. 🤨
It's not strange is pretty obvious why it is so: we are wired to thrive under harsh condition (disease, cold, heat, no water and food without effort), to reproduce and to make a population grow, you need to struggle against nature to get ressources out if it. Therefore people who are good at that (i.e struggling against life itself) reproduce more than those who aren't, thus nature select those who like struggle more. It may be possible to eradicate that trait with a society that have everything in abundance effortlessly, in which case no struggle = no stress = no overloading of your capacities = longer life, (and more of it? Idk). That may be a regression rather than a progression tho, entropy is always lurking by. That's Sisyphus mythos essentially.
You are correct. If a utopia sprung up tomorrow it would be widely rejected and criticized and would not survive without the brute force of war, which would appear justified to those who are a part of it, but would be nightmarishly unjust from the perspective of everyone observing. I believe the key is a slow crawl toward an agreeable utopia vs the quick strides of imposition.
@@tjwoosta that's what communism is. It's only possible with a centralized justified hierarchy which anyone can be a part of and the freedom of the individual to persue their interests as far as they want.
@@ongobongo8333 Its also what free market capitalism is, a decentralized justified hierarchy which anyone can be a part of and the freedom of the individual to pursue their interests as far as they want.
Nobody plans Dystopias. Dystopia Begin as Utopic visions but independently of technology those visions turn into nightmares by the dark side of human nature. Dystopia it's not about technology but dishonest societies.
2:39 timestamp, they admit what they are gonna do to us. So why are we giving them arms and legs. So like gods they would be born and like gods they will be ruling. 3:10 well I see different things I can tell you I see a world without problems.
Read some science fiction. Daemon & Freedom by Daniel Suarez Most people cannot tell when the technology is crappy. They buy on the basis of brand name and price.
Earth is a loaner, a rental and the occupants still behave as such. The trouble is that it is genuinely just a refuge where in the one-in-a-billion²-chance-Utopia in a goldilocks zone intelligence and imagination could thrive. One day a teenager asteroid will arrive still trying to figure out the brakes or we will become fuel for a red dwarf. Are our intelligence and creativity going to be enough or are we going to pray like mad that the asteroid takes out our enemies first, one second before us?
Imagine if we developed technology that could create art, music and literature and thus render the dreams of billions of young people untenable because their jobs would be automated while working in manual labor or clerical bullshit was still mandatory because a universal basic income is unthinkable, no matter how much automation progresses. It's easy if you try.
Kevin Kelly Please consider this impractical thought experiment for a thermal diversification process:that is self powered. COLD ROOM ())--:::WALL:::-->> HOT ROOM >~1000 NM< Key ()) = Paddlewheel. -- = Axle. (Continuous from end to end) ::: = Axle tunnel going through a wall. >> = Lumped friction element Visualize two roome full of air separated by a very thin wall that allows the rooms to hold their heat with minor loss independently. The wall is thin to delicately support billions of separate nanometer scale short axles running straight through loosely enough to rotate freely but not leak very much heat so the rooms can hold separate temperatures. On the left side, a very small paddlewheel is mounted at the left end of each axle. On the right side, lumped friction elements are mounted stationary in place on the wall, one for each axle, for the right end of each axle to run through. The lumped friction elements connvert the mechanical rotation of their axle into heat. Brownian motion turns the paddlewheels at random speeds randomly clockwise or rcounterclockwise. This random rotation is turned into heat by the lumped friction elements. The lumped friction elements do not impart Brownian motion to their axle. The committed functional roles of the paddiewheels, axles, and lumped friction elements in differnt places should systemically produce a divergence in the thermal energy in the two rooms. Heat is moved by process without being forced by added energy. I was granted US patent 3890161 DIODE ARRAY for a refrigerator that coproduces thermal energy reduction and equal electrical energy yield vla aggregating the rectified brownian motion of mobile electrons in a plurality of diodes. This is superseded by "ThermicArray" which needs to be prototyped under free and full disclosure for the overall betterment of civilization. Aloha, Charles M Brown lll Kilauea, Kauai, HI 96754 Aloha Charles M Brown lll Kilauea, Kauai HI 96754
Based on adventures of mechanical explosion, a magazine about electromagnetic implosion. And still, he expresses belief in the former through the latter, connecting disparate data parts into momentous narrative.
"A dystopia isn't sustainable..." I don't know, I right now see billions of people who are living in very oppressive societies and the threat of fascism all across Europe and definitely in the U.S. Dystopias might refer to future worlds with different technologies but the basic idea of oppression has always existed with those in power wanting to stay in power. The concept of a democracy, or a society where all people are equal before the law and have rights and freedoms, is a very new idea, which right now looks on the verge of teetering over if we don't bother to care enough. And when, really, has all people been actually equal before the law in America? Or all people with the same rights and the same freedoms? See, because we've had trouble with these concepts, and America today is the result. I do agree technology will need to be our salvation, but there seems to be a race between those who want to use technology for control and power and those want technology to make a sustainable, better future. I truly believe those who support the latter side outnumber those who want to belong the group that oppresses others, but we're up against the most ruthless of people, who often have the power of influence over others. I guess I don't feel very optimistic these days.
This channel has many great videos! However, this guy is missing so much, oversimplifying complexity. Hasn't the faintest clue to what he's talking about, sorry.
I really feel left aside hearing and seeing several testimonies from people on profits they make from Bitcoin/Forex Investment. Can someone recommend a good expert that trade on my behalf and generate profit for me..
Having adequate orientation or knowledge about bitcoin trade or any other crypto currency is a key to a profitable and a successful Investment. I can unequivocally say that Forex and crypto trading is one of the most profitable and lucrative business for every Investors with the right expert.
Sorry Kev, you are not taking into consideration the LIMITS of our planet. Nor the data regarding CO2, Methane, Trash, and other system limitations. You are assuming an euphoric technological discourse that DO NOT take into consideration the health of the Biosphere. It is a totally subjective stance, since it is a HUMAN reflecting about his own species, therefore totally biased. There are 8.7 million species with us, and the rate of extinction alone can tell you exactly where the biosphere is going. No matter how optimistic you are about the protopia process. Reality is much more contundent than any type of subjective view we humans may have about the future. Just you wait!.
