Star Trek vs Dune: When Optimism Clashes With Realism
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 сен 2024
- Star Trek is a very boomer take on the future, and although Dune was made in the same era, it turned out to be a more grounded take on human civilization.
Consider supporting us on Patreon:
/ pilgrimspass
Sources and clips:
Pew Research on decline of GLOBAL population of religous "nones":
www.pewresearc...
Secularism and fertility:
journals.sagep....
Canadian Secularism and Fertility:
Religiosity, Secularity and Fertility in Canada - PMC (nih.gov)
Secularism and Fertility in France since the 19th century:
www.guillaumeb...
Yanis interview of techno-Feudalism:
• Yanis Varoufakis: Capi...
Joel Kotkin on neo-Feudalism:
• Big tech and woke are ...
Tesla factories:
• Inside Tesla's Insane ...
"Galileo Goes to Jail" book:
www.amazon.com...
"God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science"
www.amazon.com...
"Before Galileo: The Birth of Modern Science in Medieval Europe"
www.amazon.com...
Pierre Duhem:
books.google.c...
![Megan Thee Stallion - Neva Play (feat. RM) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TpYTyAaTRts/mqdefault.jpg)
The difference between the universe of “Star Trek” and that of “Dune” is that in “Star Trek”, the members of the Federation want for nothing. The most valuable thing in the Star Trek universe is energy, which is is free. Everything else can be synthesized. “Star Trek” can *afford* to be egalitarian, and the mission is to bring this advanced free society to all the primitives. In “Dune”, the most valuable thing in the universe, melange, is limited and in only one place, so everyone is fighting over it. As long as this is the case, everything will tend to warring states, or feudalism.
But what Star Trek fails to realise that, in an absence of the need to survive, you turn inwards and start fighting amongst yourselves until you cause your own destruction. This was evident in that famous mouse experiment but is also seen in multiple fallen civilisations.
@@peachesandcream8753 It did acknowledge it, a big part of Star Trek lore is that the utopia shown was preceded by a catastrophic world war that dwarfed WW2. Humanity had to drop to rock bottom before it could get its act together for good.
And I would argue that a big reason that the federation always seems to keep its act together is because it's afraid of being invaded by say the Klingons or the romulans so they feel like they have to act in concert otherwise the freedoms they love so much and humanity suffered so much to achieve will be destroyed.
@@achair7958 which they did by doing what exactly? This still doesn’t make Roddenberry more right or less wrong. People would be fat wall-e style slobs with that kind of power. And he never addresses that. He never addresses human nature. Just goes with his fantasy, which is fine, for fictional entertainment. But don’t try to say it’s realistic or some sort of model to strive for.
Indeed, but that's the point. The humans in Dune chose scarcity and hierarchy as a better fit for humanity, even though it leads to physical conflict. The only reason they need to fight for spice is because they destroyed and banned computers, pretty explicitly to create a more adaptive society for humans to live and strive within, as opposed to living in the vacuum of having nothing to fight against but your own human failings and inner demons. Without external struggle, pretty much every human trait is one bad habit away from becoming a harmful vice, or becoming the subject of intense neurotic social wrangling, as we see in present day society. Take away physical scarcity or ability to compete for resources, and humans turn to social/sexual/political competition to fill the void. Is that any better? A bit less violent and a bit more polite, but only up to a point. That's about all the good I can say about it.
"The ultrareligious may seem kooky and weird at first but then they'll go into space and do jihad against machines"
Holy fucking based...
This is why DS9 is still the best star trek series. That optimism of the federation meeting the rest of the galaxy at the border where Utopia is still just a fantasy.
“It’s easy to be a saint in paradise.”
@@Randomdudefromtheinternet
That soliloquy is the finest moment in Star Trek history.
There would be galactic peace if only every species in the galaxy followed our rule of law..
Hmm sounds familiar to today's western society.
@@BoleDaPole Not just that, they also think Western ideas of secularism and enlightenment are the only true paths to progress. Anyone with different views are just wrong.
Oh man they make a movie about 40k And then it will really get far apart from Star Trek
The way I see it, Star Trek in of itself assumes Evil can be completely expunged. Dune assumes might makes right. The way I see it, there will always be conflict. We should focus less on destroying evil and more on creating vessels of good that can understand that the world isn't just good and evil.
underrated comment
I would say it's the opposite, It is Star Trek that assumes that might makes right. The federation repeatedly touts its own superiority and dismiss other belief systems as not only inferior but as a threat.
Several times throughout Star Trek the federation "intervenes" in foreign affairs asserting it's own beliefs as objectively "correct" for all entities and in all cases the federation is shown to always be correct.
Those who resist are either outright destroyed or overthrown by those who wish to work with the almighty federation. The difference between Dune and Star Trek is that Dune places us in the position of an emerging power fighting for dominance, Whilst Star Trek for the most part shows us an empire stumbling upon natives or another empire fighting for dominance.
The minute the Earth becomes a 1 world governed celestial body is the minute we can indefinitely focus on the bigger problems here upon this Earth and outside the Earth. We must shed our pettiness as humanity and develop the rest of the world where people suffer. We must stop the profit of other peoples suffering and implement systems that aren't a detriment to those people's development. The world is not a perfect world so long as there exists people who will abuse the systems we already have in place and I don't mean the lighter offenses but the one's that are costing lives and ruining the world. We might not be able to change in time for the Earth to stabilize without a world war and even then this world may still be filled with as much evil and corruptness as it is right now. I wouldn't count it out that humanity can't pull through the rest of this century but will we have really changed if we have really ever. The only thing that changes for us is we get smarter and have more options to exploit is how it looks to the average person. I hope we can take our eyes and hearts off of such things to see the people around us who are in dire need of help. Part of being human should mean uplifting other humans. As an American I'd rather my taxes go towards people who need it domestically or even foreign people who are dirt poor. I dislike how our money goes to sit and be embezzled by our politicians for their end game. I think people need to wake up and stop voting to prove a point. Everywhere around the world. Simply don't vote because their is no confidence in the incompetence that has led us to today.
The whole point of Dune is that might doesn't make right so humanity should not trust government saviour figures.
Might does not make right Survival makes right. You can have all the flowery words you want but if you cant survive to the point where you can influence others does it even matter?
In barbaric stories (40k, Dune, Starship Troopers), humanity once tried civilization and only abandoned it after it failed. In civilized stories (Star Trek, Demolition Man), humanity once tried Barbarism and only abandoned it after it failed. The worst possible future isn’t one where we are permanently stuck in one vision or the other, but one where we bounce between both visions after nonstop disasters, only to realize that both visions are a DEAD END
Demolition man i think is quite different
Its more similar to dune but instead of straight Feudalism its more like
Go from capitalism to socialism and then back to capitalism or some semi feudalistic system
Indian religious beliefs actually postulate that history is cyclical...
and then we embrace magic and become space wizards?
to be fair, if spirituality ever turns out to be actually true in any form, then both futures would be dead. The implications of humanity ever developing real, tangible spiritual powers are that we'll probably end up like gods and demons of indo-european mythology, perpetually battling each other using spiritual might, which would be unhindered by material lack.
@@luxinvictus9018 If humanity could become space wizards that could perform reality-altering feats, that would be the most optimal. Attaining immortality followed by solving the heat death of the universe or escaping it altogether would perhaps be two endgame goals that could finally be within grasp, give or take some hundreds of thousands or millions of years of study as to what is and is not possible in our plane of existence.
Too bad that'll never happen in such a fashion, if any fasion at all.
Starship troopers sounds good. Not going to lie. Apart from the constant war, it's actually pretty chill.
For me history will be like it always was. Waves. One day we will have dune. Another we will have star trek. My hope is we never become warhammer.
I truly think humanity CAN and WILL have their paradise.
that's a good perspective
Never paradise. We are not made for paradise. Conflict is necessary for consciousness.
Now I want Warhammer.
We will have paradise when Jesus returns.
@@chiefbeegee5860 NNNOOO WE AINT BRINGING THE OLD GODS INTO THIS
Here's how I think of sci-fi futures...
* Star Trek: Stepford Yuppie paradise, but watch out for them HOAs
* Star Wars: Blue-collar neighborhood, there are some alleys you just don't go down
* Dune: Renaissance-era Italy. You *are* going to be assassinated, get used to it
* Warhammer 40K: 5th Century Roman Empire, just with plasma weapons on all sides
* Babylon 5: Germany right after the 30 Years War. It's ... rough
* The Culture: Humans are pampered harem slaves, just with plasma weapons...
* Voyage of the Merrimack: America FUCK YEAH. In space. Oh, and Rome FUCK YEAH. Also in space. I want to live here.
Warhammer 40k is more Holy Roman Empire in Space than the Roman one given the facts that despite HRE such a dysfunctional mess but they got that awesome Eagle flag, you should try Xeelee Sequence a universe so grimdark and overpower that made 40k look like toddlers playing firecrackers in comparison, Sequence future where mankind became Khmer Rouge in space and committed such a Xenocide and insane universal conquest even the Imperium will think that's too far
That’s a new one to describe Babylon 5 as. How do you figure it’s Germany post 30 years war?
god i love ian m banks so much
@@nobodyherepal3292 Mostly that the entire local neighborhood has just been trashed by severe wars, and there are more brewing...
I thought B5 was much closer to a Weimar situation. Humanity has been psychologically shattered by a Great War and many to fascism and xenophobia in response. The bloated human bureaucracy can't do anything to halt the rise of fascism and succumbs to it. This all culminates in another great war that consumes pretty much all the civilized world.
It's not 1:1, but there is a parallel there, I'm pretty sure.
I used to joke that Afghanistan was 'Vietnam 2.0' for the US. The evacuations at the end just proved me right.
Far less pain for the US psyche and politics, due to far less TV and no draft. It's a lost war, but in ten years, it will have less significance than the Korean war.
But there are other, more important problems drawing closer...
60,000 Americans died in 10 years of Vietnam. 3,000 Americans died in 20 years of Afghanistan. Not super comparable.
@@micahishamYep and unlike Vietnam. It didn’t cause such massive unrest in the nation. Many people wanted out but were just disgruntled when the presidents lied
to me, the biggest irony of it all was that we thought we kicked our "Vietnamitis" with the gulf war. though that could be attributed to a clear goal and mission scope. with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the 21st century mission creep turned it into Vietnam 2: Electric Boogaloo.
@@LD-xt1voI honestly doubt the war of Afghanistan won't matter in the future.
Unlike the vietnamese that got saved by a favorable geostrategic context the Afghans are and always have been on of the most effective and fearful barbarian warrior forces on the planet often conquering their surroundings and creating powerful successor empires.
And also Vietnam was non religious and non militaristic the Taliban and the many other afghan factions are both and now thanks of 10 years beating the crap out of the best army on the planet they have both the military training, military equipment and resentment.
I believe is a matter of time before Afghanistan becomes the center of a mongol style force that will most likely either lead or inspire the middle east for the foreseeable future or even the jihads against the west and the inevitable replacement of the Christian Europe.
Possibly through the dying Russian Christian world.
But sure only time will tell but I just cannot imagine the Afghans not doing something with the impressive advantages history has granted them over every single one of their neighbors.
Went to a homeschool conference once and the question was asked, "How do you handle judgement about the fact you have more than three kids?" The answer was to remind the judger that your kids will one day pay the judger's social security.
I do not understand what was asked of you. can you please elucidate?
Family is the backbone of society.
@@the_hanged_clown Seems to be that some people react with hostility to families with more than three children and the 'defense' was that this was good because those kids will end up paying for that person's retirement with their taxes.
Social security in the European kind of sense is a pyramid scheme
Who would ask a question like that? You must live in a Godless city with awful people. Sorry that happened to you.
One of the small scenes from the Dune film that stood out to me was the short interlude in the Harkonnen palace, wherein a spider-like monstrosity is lurking in the room. Harkonnen says that the Mother can speak freely since no one is in the room, and the Bene Gesserit commands the monster to leave. It obeys the Voice, proving that it is also human in some way, but the horror of that thing stuck with me through the film, and made me recall the purpose of the Gom Jabbar.
The Harkonnen represent what indolence, wealth, and leisure time with no focus will create--horrific conditions that harken back to the worst of the Dark Ages or any 20th Century fascist state's experiments on prisoners. Jaded indifference to human life can be found in any era's bored and beyond wealthy elites, people who are as stagnant as humans can be.
That creature, I believe, is the wife to the treacherous doctor. Butchered and mutilated as it yearns for death in an existence worse than death.
"In sensing the coming night we should spiritually arm ourselves for the battle with evil, sharpen our ability to recognize it and build a new heroism."
Nikolai Berdyaev
Coming from the poverty mind
@@friktogurg9242 how do you mean?
@@filozof9043 yeah. I can't really agree or disagree with this guy, since he didn't make any sense. Like, what's he talking about?
It's mostly hedonism nowadays
This is why I like Battletech,when humanity goes to the stars it does not merely shed the past. We brought the past with us, the good and the bad of humanity does not change. But that does not mean we must simply burn out.
This was a great watch. I've always noticed how unlike Star Trek's secular, polished utopian view of humanity's future, Dune's more mystical, imperialistic and social atavist society always felt more real and more likely to be our future as a species. A future in which our tools for comfort become a means to confine us, and to escape, we'd have to dedicate ourselves to improving ourselves physically, mentally and spiritually. The war for Dune is a brilliant way of showcasing how, even thousands of years removed from our current society, we're still stabbing and shooting ourselves over some stuff in the ground. The cycle didn't break.
We’re all still the same Stone Age hairless monkeys as our ancestors who hunted down mammoths on the steppe.
Just now we have nukes.
@@baneofbanes when are we all going to evolve into giant all-seeing worms smh
Capitalist realism has you
@@baneofbanes Yet we are learning the neurological underpinnings of our worst tendencies, and how to uproot them. And not in 20 years, right now. All this trouble starts in our brain and that's where it can be stopped. This is an idea Herbert only sort-of explored through eugenics with the Fish Speakers. (But they still failed - of course.)
Through my many adventures in treating my mental health conditions I have come across some pretty amazing stuff in development. The human condition is not fixed, or I wouldn't be here today.
Does it feel more real because it is more likely, or because it is the world we are used to? We are so conditioned to a world with an already 6,000-year-long feudal history of near-perpetual violence that maybe Star Trek only feels unrealistic because we haven't known anything different. But if you look at the details, I think Star Trek starts to look more realistic. Check out my next comment below for more information on why I believe this.
I don't accept the premise Star Trek represents "naive utopianism." Although Gene put forth an optimistic vision of the future, it was tempered by the real risks technological innovation carry. Nuclear Holocaust, World War 3, the Eugenics Wars, and massive interspecies conflicts are defining events in Star Trek, even before TNG. TNG reflects a high-point in our own history, clearly reflecting the contemporaneous events of the end of the Cold War and expanding democracies during the 90s. But even in TNG, trouble was always brewing under the surface, indicating that utopia is fragile and not guaranteed. The return of the Romulan Star Empire, the breakdown of the Federation-Klingon alliance, and, of course, the Borg, were all reminders that peace and prosperity are fleeting. Hence, after TNG we got DS9, the manifestation of many of the troubles that were bubbling beneath the surface of utopia in TNG. Ultimately, Star Trek is a reflection of ourselves and our aspirations for a brighter future, but it's not a promise.
A final note. One can be so cynical in the name of "realism" that they become "naively cynical." Neither history nor the future are or will be as dim or bright as we conceive. I think Star Trek does a good job in conveying a hopeful vision of a bright future, but it's just that--a hope. Hope is as real as dread, even in the darkest of times.
That's a really good point. I often feel with various extremists and conspiracy theorists that they exaggerate the evil of the opposition, not just to dehumanize them, but to make themselves justified in not standing up to such an unstoppable force.
Well said
I would said that Dune has not "realistic" approach it's because it has lots of dystopian elements. But about Star Trek I completely agree 👍
Extremely well said
It doesn't take into proper account human psychology and escalation. For instance the use of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons now are only viewed with as much such horror as they are due to the fact that we currently only have one habitable planet and thus run the threat of extinction if they are to be used. That all goes away once humans start regularly colonizing new planets... Humans will then start developing more powerful weapons capable of destroying a solar system then that will be the new scary weapon... Then those weapons will become normalized when humans became able to colonies planets faster and at greater distances then we will create even more powerful weapons.
Hate and spite are some of the greatest driving forces behind human development whether it be social or technological.
If you want a good look at how humanity will develop if we don't wipe ourselves out first look into a game genre known as 4X (Abbreviation of Explore, Expand, Exploit, Exterminate).
While most of us of us pray for Startreak but most of us expect Dune but what we fear is Warhammer.
It’s interesting as for the majority of the time mankind faults had nothing to do with them it was always some other faction it wasn’t until the age of the imperium where human started to harm themselves
Plottwist it Warhammer
Fantasy
praise sigmar heard age of sigmar ain't too bad
Embrace the future BROTHER!
Dude this fucking awesome, such a great summary of our time. Dune, The Last Duel, and the Batman were all shockingly on point with the idea we're living in a feudal society. That being said I think people are going overboard with the doomerism. We have so many new advantages that we never had before. Most of our problems are caused by the supposed solutions to our problems. If we recalibrate on a few metrics a lot of problems can be solved rather rapidly.
The doomerism stems from the fact that most or all of those easy fixes won’t be implemented because the people in power directly or indirectly benefit from their existence, or conversely that it would be detrimental to them to address the causes of said problems
@@masonsmith9619 I don't disagree, but it's the magic of capitalism, all it takes is one country doing the right thing, and they become dominate in a short period of time. Just look at ireland and it's tax situation, did one thing sort of right and they have instant economic growth.
Nicely put
@@dixonhill1108 if we can ever get a free market properly realized sure. I mean we have it in areas at times. Cell phones used to be a free market, and the price is shot up once that stopped. Plus side gigantic organizations that get greedy enough to mess with the market outside of a free and open market eventually crumble under their own weight, especially when the government supporting them collapses or changes. Hard part is the deregulation.
Good point
Augustine actually talked about how the fall of Rome began with the fall of Carthage, because without the hardship and threat they fell into vice after vice.
That's possibly the dumbest take ever.
History doesn't fit your narrative AT ALL, but you simply ignore it.
Rome reached it's peak after the fall of Carthage and lasted even beyond the fall of the West for another 1000 years, but you simply ignore that, because it doesn't fit your idiotic prior beliefs.
You WANT people to be miserable, because you think that brings them to your religion. That's why you advocate against improvements.
Augustine was a transphobe, so his concept of vice had a lot of superstitious ignorance mixed into it.
@@ChristianCatboyplease tell me that you are being ironic
@@Jack-iu2gl I'm serious. Jesus advised men to "eunuchize" themselves (Matt 19:12). Augustine denigrated the eunuch priests of Cybele (in his book "The City of God", if I'm not mistaken), simply for their gender expression, without substantively critiquing the actual moral injustices that made that pagan tradition dehumanizing. He was a patriarchal, aristocratic Roman.
@@ChristianCatboy man shut up
13:00 Humanities optimism in Star Trek is a unified Culture born from comparing humanity to the newly discovered alien worlds. Looking to find a place among the stars and what made them "unique or special" drove mankind to the "enrichment" philosophy. I believe this made mankind feel or gave them the feeling of having an "edge" over neighboring civilizations to become a dominant superpower. Other Scifi shows mostly have humans vs other factions of humans but in ST since most races had the physical edge over mankind, they redefine themselves to stay competitive.
It probably also helped that there was essentially a cleansing of all popular sentiments of a military and religion in the 21st century post wars of Earth. The humans of Trek are descended from the only ones that survived multiple planetary cataclysms and genocides, and while elements of the militaristic and non-secular philosophies of Old Earth still remain, the modern Trek human and the culture they created could be seen as a massive case of literal survivorship bias. As far as they were concerned, Judgement Day was enacted by those values by those old values.
First Contact, peaceful at that, with the Vulcans and saving the human race from extinction is the stuff of myths; a second coming of Jesus. One could look at the Federation as its own hyper-zealous religion as a result. They do not even regard the United States with particular warmth: Picard doesn't look at Q's impression of a US Marine with great sympathy.
@@terran6686 ah those are some very good points.
I've always loved Star Trek I just don't believe its world view would ever last long nor function correctly in real life. Human beings don't all agree to walk lock step into a glorious future. We are more like cats and herding us will always be nearly impossible.
@@kathleenhensley5951 Just thumbing through some items from TNG. Riker was part of a cover up of developing secret weapons technology, with his commanding officer that could lead to a war with the Romulan empire. Worf literally got away with wholesale ritualistic murder due to religious tolerance, Diana Troi's mother engaged in profoundly inappropriate sexual behavior, the federation nearly disassembled data like he was a toaster, chief obrien fully admitted to carrying a intense racial grunge against the cardassians for the better part of a decade while is previous commanding officer went on a fascist rampage, one federation admiral ran a witch hunt persecuting a man for his multi racial heritage, Wesley crusher was involved in a training scandal that tried to cover up the death of a classmate, Picard had a girlfriend who was a known thief and a con artist something the US military would never tolerate, Barclay had a raging holoaddiction. Tasha Yar grew up on a colony that was riddled with rape gangs. Laforge engaged in questionable sexual behavior on the holodeck. Any one of these events would be a massive political scandal in the modern military and yet this was a weekly occurrence.
Neither be a boomer OR doomer, be a realist. Understand the circumstances you are in, and use facts to make decisions, but never give up hope for better outcomes, and keep searching for opportunities. Because if you convince yourself you are doomed and give up, you will be doomed.
But the destruction of the modern culture of self destructive stupidity. AKA civilisation as we know it is your best hope.
Based bloomer
Yes and no. Most of the time you are perfectly right. There are problems we make ourselves, things we can fix, ourselves. Planning, research, finding solutions... But then there are trends in society that no one can fix. There is a difference between getting caught the tech bubble in 2008, and being caught in the French Revolution.
@@kathleenhensley5951 True, I didn't mean everything can be fixed anyway. But you can still hope for a better future. And even though you cant reach there, you can at least make someone's life better, if not everybody.
This is me rn
"Clinging to any form of conservatism can be dangerous. Become too conservative and you are unprepared for surprises. You cannot depend on luck. Logic is blind and often knows only its own past. Logic is good for playing chess but is often too slow for the needs of survival."
Frank Herbert
Sort of interesting how the favored pastime of military commanders in the Pacific was bridge (Nimitz) or just gambling in general (Yamamoto), not chess.
Star Trek: optimistic.
Dune: Doomer.
Star Gate: the wheels on the options go round n round round n round round in round- oh god did we just hit Bob? Oh thank god it was just his wife. He’s a good guy.
Honestly Stargate is optimistic realism, there's still political maneuvering, shadow governments, and traitors but, there's still people trying to do right
Is cynical optimism like realism?
@@steviegilliam5685 Maybe that humanism
@@cirelesten im kinda sure that's 2 different philosophies
I think Stargate got too much into trying to mirror the religious past of Christianity in the last seasons it came out as preachy and they shouldn't had dive to much into the ancients cosmology less was better for their lore I felt like sg-1 should've instead face "mortal" problems left behind by the ancients aside the wraith. Maybe other galactic empires who tried to take the milkyway in the past or a version of the ancients who remained mortal with powerful ships and stuff because earth's spaceships got too op and little to do because of plot earth seem to slow down on their production . it got an overly trek secularism over time in contrast with the first seasons full of characters with traditions , empire and their old ways challenging the world view of the main cast in a spirit of tolerance, I am an atheist and that's how I felt it at the time . if stargate would ever return they should do a small time skip with a more advanced day to day earth not just stupidly over powered ships it would be rewarding to see that all the sg-1 adventures helped improved life on earth without getting to treks utopian paradise looking down on peoples who still need their old ways
Dune is more accurate, because each house has a different culture, traditions, and style of rule. Some rule through fear. Some prefer to be loved. Some use money. Some use honour. Just like real life.
And some running around with prescience... Yeah just like real life. You know that Pauls son will melt with a a sand worm and will become the god emperor of the universe? To be honest i get the feeling not many commentators here actually read the Dune series.
Great analysis. I got into Dune when the movie was about to drop, precisely because it's awfully realistic underneath the layer of mindpowers, sandworms and what not.
The "magic" system within the series doesn't seem very realistic at all and this seems to be a central force for its protagonists.
@@Acrosurge that's what the "underneath the layer of mindpowers, sandworms and what not" was for. 'Realistic' and 'real' are not synonyms ;P
With sci-fi or fantasy, there's always a certain premise that you just have to accept. The realism comes from how the premise is developed and factored into the world.
@@Yarblocosifilitico Sounds a lot like reality, honestly! I think the "magic" systems are often essentially analogies/metaphors, or else excuses to explore certain concepts or expressions of human nature.
@@callithasmed8468 I think the first Dune book could've worked just as well without Paul's prescience and the effect of the spice. That's the only really "magic" element about it. Bene Gesserit abilities are a little overboard but still maybe plausible considering they had millenia of training and perfecting their techniques and senses. But that's only the first book. As the series progresses its characters' special abilities become more and more outrageous.
In the first book, Paul could've been accepted among the Fremen just as well due to the Bene Gesserit's manipulation of societies through the Missionaria Protectiva. He could've been just as conflicted about the Fremen war machine and the events that were getting out of his control, even without him seeing glimpses of the destruction it would unleash. So IMO those elements were secondary to the story and just added wonder and tension to it, but were not central. From the ending of the second book onwards, the special abilities become more core to the plot and would require a complete rewrite to remove them.
@@Yarblocosifilitico
Does not feel realistic to me.
Man goes worm😂
You are just seeing what you want to see.
Even without prescience there were numerous way to preserve(better humankind) but then t wouldn't have been story. This is just writers figment of imagination. Not mirror to real world.
Discovery and Picard
When you have neither optimism nor realism.
You old trek fans gotta go
@@ashleybanks-wm4cg You first
Kinda Glad snw and lower decks bring back the optimistic future back.
@@ashleybanks-wm4cg You new fans gotta just accept that you are not that developed in the head. You have the minds of children. Being a nutrek fan is the definition of an immature mind.
A lot of boomers are scared of the cyclical view of history, but I find it quite comforting knowing that humanity will never get boring, and it helps me to see my place in history.
The virgin “please let my life be easy and my era convenient” vs the chad “give me constant battles 😂😂😂”
@ShopRat-cf9tr might I ask which ones? I am curious
This is one of the most interesting talks I've heard on the human condition. The quality this channel keeps providing is amazing, glad to have discovered this gem because of the aragorn masculinity video
There's no "the human condition". That's your first mistake.
Haven't finished the video yet but glad you're back. Don't stop doing what you do. You're sincerely a breath of fresh air. Have a great day. Not to complete it. You inspired me to read Dune & am now halfway through.
I have a recommendation for you as well, one which I got into from a youtuber who covers a lot of scifi including Dune- "Blindsight," by Peter Watts. Check it out!
Yeah. Star treck might have had some good writing, but their world building was sub par to say the least.
🥺🥺🥺
No, it's left open. Being vague, doesn't mean it's bad.
Frankly i find it terribly naive.
The Orville has better worldbuilding and that show was supposed to be a spoof...
@@andrews.5212 indeed
At least the Ferrengi is potrayed more reasonable than the original plan.
I love how you are able to relate Catholic themes without explicitly explaining them in your videos. Very solid and thought provoking comparisons.
Thought that was an R in your name for a second 💀
I love how the shields in the David Lynch Dune film just turn the fighters into Roblox characters.
He who controls robux...
Ironically (old school) Star Trek is more fantasy than Dune is.
Edit: an element I found interesting in Star Trek, albeit it is probably unintentional, is that scarcely do we see anyone writing with pen and paper if at all, so I has this little head canon that people in that universe no longer has the skill to write with hand.
Average Japanese young adult cannot write Kanji, just the very basic symbols, because computers autocomplete Hiragana into Kanji.
It is debatable if using Kanji makes any sense in the first place, probably not. (Kanji uses symbols for words, many thousands)
*have
BTW, Jake Sisko was a budding writer.
Pessimism isn't realism, it's a different type of filter to optimism that's all.
I do think he made a solid case for DUNE as realism, as opposed to cynicism or pessimism. Then basically advocates for realism at the end. Right here; 34:26
@@patrickbuckley7259 If one considers the entirety of the Dune series, one has difficulty categorizing its tone as anything other than pessimism.
I must agree with Brian Edwards that pessimism and realism are not synonymous.
Why is this comment on the top?
@@Acrosurge True, the series is quite cynical, however we never really got to see the end. I do agree that the two are not the same, I even point out how cynicism is just as if not more self defeating than blind optimism in my own comment on the video.
Realism is a competitor to pessimism and optimism. It is by far the superior of the three. What you feed is what you grow, use it or lose it: two true commandments of realism. Optimism and pessimism are both lazy, second class substitutes. They are the fantasists living in their parents basements, existing in adolescent masturbatory fantasies rather than face life on life's terms. The fact that life is not "equity", and that an even playing field maximizes inequality, is reality - piss and moan, or be a pollyanna, it does not effect the situation. Failure to meet life head on with open eyes is a disgusting side effect of living in our pampered, participation trophy age. Weakness is not a survival trait, and the whole purpose of life is to survive and reproduce. Idiocy is the great filter. Societies that cling to fantasies are doomed to failure.
"It was supposed to be good but it turned out like always"
~a popular Polish saying
Polish history is full of unfulfilled promises and wasted opportunities so we (boomers and millenials both) tend to be cynical. Dune seems to be always the "natural" outcome. At the same time the first words of our national anthem is "Poland is yet not dead until we live". Isn't it pretty romantic and naive way of seeing the world, right? Not really. Poland, as much imperfect the country is, still exists thanks to the very romantic hopes even over a century of occupation couldn't destroy
(And Poland had it relatively easy. It's incredible that Ireland survived the English)
If Poles gave up the dream about free home land I wouldn't be able to speak this beautiful language. Similarly if we ever want to achieve any resemblence of equality and shit we need to naively believe it's possible to achieve. What is very dangerous is to assume we will reach it and sustain it without struggle
Or shedding blood
Years before WWI started Polish people prayed for a devastating conflict which would weaken both Russia as well as Germany enough for us to reach independence. And, surprise surprise, God granted one of our wishes. Thanks JC. The first Pride March was a riot. The French Revolution was a blood bath. Of course it would be nice to achieve progress without violence but it's not always possible. Or rather it easily devolves into yet another "It was supposed to be good but it turned out like always" situations
it's interesting to see how the successes or failures of a society can shape it's views and optimism/pessimism. the eastern Europeans in general are pessimistic due to their seemingly unending suffering and authoritarianism. as for the world wars.... don't thank Jesus, but the greedy global elite that damned Europe that caused them.
One thing i enjoyed about the Covenant in Halo. In post modern sci fi aliens were always post WWII Liberal World Order power fantasies.
In Halo a collective of alien species are united under a holy mandate. While humanity, before the covenant invasion, live under a high tech, faithless, tyrannical interstellar government.
It's a unique take, reflective of the post 9/11 world.
Dune is more likely to me by far. When you take into account the size of the galaxy the most likely form of government is some form of feudalism.
>implying we are ever getting off this rock
> assuming we have to have one government. I think the next phase of large scale societal change will see the nation states split into city states.
Don't lump Gen X with the boomers. We started life with the boomer vision, but things changed in early adulthood. As a Gen X er growing up in the Rust Belt, I saw the reality. As a fan of history and Dune I recognized the parallels. No pension plan here.
amen
I'm a Gen Xer, and we were just the first generation after Boomers to taste their holier-than-thou, self-centered prognosis on life. Since they're mostly still running the world (Biden and Trump and Putin, etc., all Boomers), when they finally shuffle off, the rest of us are going to need to be able to pick up the pieces and work together.
I think Star Trek is to sci-fi what Harry Potter is to fantasy- its a popular thing that introduced a lot of people to the genre and have their moments, but they're far from the best or most defining of their respective genres. Also, the world building either falls apart or reveals really messed up stuff when you look at it more.
Speaking of Harry Potter, I may have something aimed at it.
Star Trek was far better written and consistent compared to Harry Potter. NuTrek is more similar.
@@Zorro9129 Totally, I just thought that they're in a comparable situation genre wise.
Yes, the failings of Star Trek over the years have harmed the concept the Rodennberry presents, but that shouldn't in of itself keep one from examining them. Even in the video, Section 31 is brought several times as an example of how false the ideals must be. Or, it's just how hard it is for the writers to truly conceive of the world Gene posits. And fair enough, there probably will always be decanters, just like there are still monkeys. I would rather see a fresh start on the concept. Once that really tackles the, how to we get from here to there. Instead of the clean slate of world war 3 and magic space elve...Vulcans to help guide humanity into our secular utopia.
Foh. Trek is one of the only true science fictions. Where most others are sci fantasy.
Well I guess hobbits really are the peak of civilization
Hobbits are more human than humans
@@reviewspiteras i luv me smole bois
Dune is for adults and their mind set like you said, Star Trek feels like a mix of magic and science with an unrealistic society, while Dune feels more grounded in reality.
It's funny how I'll hear Star Trek fans say the same thing about Star Wars fans. They're all fictional worlds, people. Their creators understood more about history and reality than the vast majority of their fans, though.
@@rikk319 Star Trek is as magical as Star Wars with the magical gravity plating that still works after the ship is badly damaged also you have the Q and many other magical beings and unrealistic technologies as well.
@@emperorofscelnar8443 Complaining about the "magic" of fictional worlds is like complaining that water is wet. Art isn't a competition.
Personally, I think BattleTech is the most realistic Space Opera to what our future would look like.
It’s less extreme than Dune but still along the same path in most things except for the supremacy of mankind over the machine as humans are small and squishy in the face of Warships, nukes, tanks, and Mechs.
Plus it has surprisingly good science and minimal Clarktech except for their FTL and FTL Communications
Optimism is better as a Force Multiplier, Pessimism is better for avoiding Disasters.
Also; there's something about "learning" itself that only living breathing creatures seem to do;
they can work with imperfect information, use imperfect reasoning, come to imperfect conclusions, and come to correct solutions.
We can automate that.
I think Dune is obviously the more realistic scenario, but I couldn't agree more with your closing statements. Reality tends to smack societies that deny the realities and limitations of nature and the human condition upside the head. If we want to face the existential problems of the future and survive and thrive in the face of them, we have to become a culture that acknowledges these limitations and realities before we can actually make any forward momentum again. Things will get tougher, more complicated and more dangerous. As such, I think that if our society and humanity as a whole will survive amd thrive, I think we would be wise to do as the Imperium did by shepherding technological development in such a way that actually benefited the human race instead of enslaving us to it and by acknowledging the role and importance of biological reality and humanity's inherently religious psychology. With all that said, I also think, however, that the harmful, oppressive, authoritarian, and misanthropic leanings of the elite who want to impose this transhumanist techno-feudalist mercantalist system is not inevitable. I do believe that with enough people pursuing awareness, wisdom, ingenuity, virtue, and groundedness within reality, these and other looming threats to freedom and human dignity can either be avoided or mitigated. In a way, we have to embrace the positive aspect of the future of Dune in order to mitigate or avoid the negative ones. It's interesting, you almost have to acknowledge, at least in concept, that the human is the intersection between heaven and earth, that we are both transcendant, higher-minded spirit and instinctive, natural animal in order to find and maintain the kind of balance necessary to promote a sustainable, pro-humsn future, one that won't be without its challenges, but one that doesn't have to suck for everyone except those at the tippy top who are actually pushing down our current trajectory. Also, your Starship Troopers Terran Federation comment was quite based, and I wholeheartedly agree. Paul Verhoevem (and leftists in general, or historically ignorant nonleftists for that matter) doesn't know or understand what fascism is. Personally, we could do a lot worse than a future that found a healthy balance between the Imperium and the Terran Federation or just a hybrid of the two that married the best elements of both.
I think youre misunderstanding Herbert in a few places here.
Fremen would not win without certain specific conditions being true about this fictional universe. They wouldnt have won without the technological necessity to rely on close combat caused by the shields. Their main positive feature is that they are not stagnant, they have a massive goal and are working for it as opposed that static rest of the Imperium. The ignorance and arrogance of the Imperium had also a lot to do with it.
I dont think his problem with AI is necessarily about giving up skills. See God Emperor and how Leto is musing about being focused on a wrong problem with AI. He has a problem with surrendering of agency to AI, which comes with removal of any pressures on humans, that forces us to not be stagnant. AI should always be a tool to get through a problem, not a tool for hedonism. Lifting the taboo of AI for space travel.
I dont even think Herbert is so dead set on "pure" human skills either, except for impulse to no be stagnant. I dont think that thats his point with those examples that you present. It is scarier: You dont know how the future will look. There is not one path (as you have correctly, I believe, said eternal progress in one direction is BS). You may have ideas how to the the future look, but since you dont completely understand the future circumstances, and not even current circumstances fully, you cant have one path. You have to be able to adapt (thats the core). The likelihood that you can predict the future fully perfectly is 0. And predictions are less accurate as you going further and further in the future. And it is a trap to wish to be able to do so. That means even within Herbert's ideas, cyberpunk/transhumanist-style future is possible and can still preserve the core of humanity. And your feelings about it now can do nothing about it. 10th century person would likely balk at 19th century person. Some people even go as far to see everything as stagnation, so in reverse, you can have a 19th century person yearning for the circumstances of the 10th century person. Typically idealizing it. But the history goes on, humanity go on at their own pace, in their own direction, and despite we have a certain degree of capacity to push it in some direction, more limited as the time frame increases, with maybe a more success the more limited your goal is. You have to accept that there is no future that you would be happy with. The only thing that stays the same is the need for capacity to change, to adapt and the willingness to do so, if the need arises.
This is perfect thank you
"dont think his problem with AI is necessarily about giving up skills. See God Emperor and how Leto is musing about being focused on a wrong problem with AI. He has a problem with surrendering of agency to AI, which comes with removal of any pressures on humans, that forces us to not be stagnant. AI should always be a tool to get through a problem, not a tool for hedonism. Lifting the taboo of AI for space travel."
this statemate s wrong a.i would not progress humanity but regres it the reason why we manage to progress humans is because we were pressure to do it ourself rathen than for us
and lettig a.i roar once more will make it worse
perfect my ass butt kiser@@ASingleApe
I often hear from religious people phrases like "You dont believe in God, but he believe in you"
After this video i came to conclusion:
"The fact that you believe in science doesn't mean the science believes in you"
It doesn't need to. You are not a fantasy.
What? Science can’t believe in anything because it’s not a person.
Well that's a great example of pseudo profound bullshit if I've ever seen any. Yes that is a scientific term. Seriously I'm not kidding.
@@davidwuhrer6704 Factually false, your entire perception of reality is a fantasy, with the only difference from your dreams being that it's using data gathered from your senses rather than your memories.
Secular humanist always belive that their ideal world will become a star trek utopia, when in reality will become a water down version, or a mixture of brave new world and deus ex.
Cyberpunk if you will
Words cannot explain how much I've been waiting for somebody to analyze Dune this deeply. I've always known things ran much deeper in Dune, but I was never able to study Dune properly. You have earned a sub. Good job.
I am afraid of being a human in a warhammer future.
*WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!*
I like how that's one universe that every fan can agree that they wouldn't want to be in. Honestly if someone says they would want to be in the Warhammer universe to me they're either completely insane or just liars.
^ "completely insane" :P
@@Lunk42
Why? I'm more afraid of humans turning into star trek
@@callithasmed8468 Well yeah. It's one thing to want to be in star wars or star trek or Harry Potter or something to that effect but to want to be in Warhammer 40k? You'd have to be a little crazy in some way to want to be there. Just the idea of the warp alone is enough to make most not want to be there. Being anyone in Warhammer 40k is basically like being the protagonist of an hp Lovecraft story you're basically screwed from the get go. Born on a planet likely to be invaded by tyranids or something worse? Lol good luck dude, join the imperial army? Have fun dying in likely some of the worst ways imaginable, be a psyker? Have fun having your mind shattered into a million pieces and/or potentially being turned into a meat puppet for the forces of chaos. There's no winning in 40k.
Dune universe really makes sense when put into context. Basically Dune universe of books is result of MASSIVE long war against machines, breeding ground for authoritarianism and also religion due to loss/destruction. And war frankly necessities firm chain of command, in Dune that firm chain of command and military structure basically became embedded to whole society.
But we already had religion in the past.
Just saying "religion" and pretending it can squash any kind of progress forever is lazy. Reality continually impinges on religious dogma.
@@MrCmon113yeah, people forget that basically all of the best collages were found by Christians, specifically with theological goals in mind (which to them actually included science despite what modern media says), also the father of modern chemistry (Antoine Lavoisier) was a Christian, and Sir Issiac Newton was not only a Christian, But an avid theologian. and I`m just stating the more famous example, there are tons.
Traditional is not a universal concept. Some of what we now see as progressive was once traditional and some of what we see as traditional was once progressive. There is a lot to this topic you seem to skim
On the topic of AI I've always been fairly skeptical. And your joke about how no one understands AI, not even the programers hits the nail on the head. We don't understand what makes consciousness and yet we seek to reproduce it. It's kind of like that old saying on how can an imperfect being create something that is perfect, and if they did would they even be able to recognize it?
There are a lot of assumptions made by AI enthusiast which are assumed to be true and might not actually be true. Let's go over some of them.
1) The most obvious is that everything can be broken down into data, primarily true or false as that is the how binary computers work. Quantum Mechanics has shown us the universe is a lot stranger than originally thought at it's most fundamental level. It's a realm where things are both waves and particles, where something is both up and down, on and off, left and right, and so on all at the same time. Of course there are those who think this view is too strange to be true and possibly the result of some misunderstanding, but if true it means you can't completely replicate something with purely true/false like binary computers do but instead only run shallow approximations of things.
2) That intelligence is just speed. This comes from the misguided mind set that sadly Star Trek embraces, which is anyone can be taught to do anything with enough time and effort. A sad fact of the world is some people are just smarter than others and more time training isn't going to fix that. I'm sure plenty out there have encountered people who actively want to learn a new skill but despite tons of effort they just are not progressing in it be it math, engineering, physics, art, music, poetry, and so on. Now there is nothing wrong with pursuing your dreams but at the same time they shouldn't expect to become top of those fields either.
Where I'm going with this is the misguided mind set in the AI field is that the Human mind does X number of calculations per second. Thus if you can get a computer that can do 2*X number of calculations per second it would be twice as smart as a human and since computer speeds keep increasing the AI intelligence will keep increasing. Yet if you take someone like Einstein and compare even another top end scientist of the day can you really argue that Einsteins brain was slightly faster and thus he arrived at the result sooner. We have tons of people at the top of their fields trying to advance them and yet some make those connections that no one else sees despite having had lots more time to work on the problem. So clearly speed is not the issue.
3) AI supposed "Learning". This is a bit of a joke to me as many in the field are overly optimistic while those not in the field often get surprised and worried when they see AI do things like beat the worlds best Chess and Go players, or engage in creative arts. But to understand why these are easy and not real intelligence you have to understand what the "AI Learning" is doing and why even the programmers don't know what's going on.
Thankfully though this is really simple to understand as you only need a surface level understanding in the same way most understand burning gas in the engine causes pistons to turn and their cars to go even though they couldn't fix a car if their lives depended on it. Basically what the "AI Learning" is doing is it's given a set of Rules like how the pieces can move in Chess. Then it's given a bunch of weights like which is better move A, B, C, and so on. Then lastly the AI is told that "This is the win state" which it must achieve to obtain victory. And that's it the AI starts playing games against other AI where it "Learns" through trial and error with things such as, doing B here has lead to more victories so I'll do B more, or doing C tends to lead to a loss so won't do that as much. And basically the AI adjust it's own weights on which moves are good or bad based on how often it wins using those moves. There is no fore thought or planning here as games like Chess and GO are finite set equations with a limited number of possible games that can ever be played and paths to victory are even narrower. But because the AI is literally just trying everything till it finds something that works it has in cases like GO found new strategies never before seen in the game. But it achieved this after playing over a Million games of trail and error, so it's not smarter but rather just got lucky and stumbled upon a new approach that happen to be super effective.
When it comes to Art it is the same way. The AI mixes and matches from tens of thousands of similar images and rates them. Then it produces it's own version and people vote it up or down. It then takes from that and focuses more on what aspects it's fans say is positive and which are negative. It's basically the same way a search engine is suppose to learn your preferences to give better suggestions on what you might like. But all in all you don't have to understand the complex algorithms going on for the AI Chess/Go games or AI Art anymore than you need to understand how youtube picks your recommendations to know that it's not real intelligence.
4) AI can improve it's intelligence. As stated by Emerson M. Pugh - 'If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn't.' There is a flawed assumption that we can create something smarter than ourselves. And that thing could go on to make it's creations smarter then itself. And so on leaving humans in the dust. Given that we don't really understand the nature of intelligence or how to make someone smarter, as education and intelligence are NOT the same thing. Why would we assume we could create a machine smarter than us, and that machine would then know how to make things smarter than itself?
5) The biggest assumption of all is that AI is actually, well intelligent. See AI does extremely well in confined systems where nothing changes and all the rules are know and fixed. But the real world isn't like that, even something as basic as fabric in cars gave AI trouble at TESLA because it wasn't a rigid preset thing of exacting standards. And it's why things like self driving cars give it so much trouble as the world is chaotic with ever changing conditions that rigid weight systems of machine learning is just not meant to handle. And these are basic things, now try to imagine it trying to learn social interaction, interpersonal skills, walking around, the complexity of global politics, and so many other things which don't have clearly defined rules or "win conditions". Plus since it's the real world it can't go about it with trial and error a Million times to figure out the optimal strategy like in GO.
Conclusion: The AI, no matter how they try to dress it up, is currently nothing more than really advanced search and optimization programs set to output the answers we tell it are correct. This is also why they find so many "Racist AI" as the political agenda has an issue with facts. The AI simply runs the numbers for the outcome that it's told which maybe something like pick the top candidates based on merits from the applications. Then when it doesn't produce a "diverse" selection based on none merit factors such as race it's accused of being Racist. One could then in theory reprogram the AI to weigh race more heavily to get the desired results and that in there lies the issue. As we tell the AI it's right or wrong by changing how it functions. There is no free thought or Intelligence, just fancy programs simulating human actions though complex programing.
Just like it looks as though Star Trek's view of the endless drive towards post scarcity society is not the future. So to does it seem that way for AI as much like people thought there would be an infinite march of progress, so too did people think there would be an infinite march of faster computers. But we are bumping up against the limit of how small we can make computer chips and thus how much faster we can make them. Soon the very laws of physics will limit our ability to improve them any further unless we figure out some new type of computer like quantum computers.
Looking back this was a bit longer than intended but I hope I got my point across on why I don't fear any potential AI uprising, or trans-human future coming to pass. As even if those are possible in the realm of AI we won't see it in our life time. Even some of the top AI engineer estimate full on human level AI is unlikely until sometime after the turn of this century, assume it's even possible.
thank you for your comment. I admit I think along these lines and was going to more or less say something like this in the video, especially the physical limitations of silicon which limits chip size. But I got intimidated by some of the AI inovations while researching for this video and gave some of the popular claims on AI the benefit of a doubt.
@@PilgrimsPass Looking over the history of many fields, including AI, I've noticed the tread to over exaggerate the expectations. Like the in 50s-60s the vision of the future was robot helpers and flying cars. We all are well aware of the impractical issues with flying cars.
When it comes to AI though a lot of people are not as familiar with all it's limitations and problems we don't know how to solve because we can't even explain how our brains do it. People in the field give the black box explanation as Input goes in, brain process, and output comes out to layman and most people not being neurologist just give them the benefit of the doubt assuming they actually know what's going on.
The result is the logical fallacy Appeal to Authority, where people accept a claim simply based on who is making it rather than the facts being presented. Like as I covered in Previous post the AI isn't actually learning it's simply doing tons of trail and error to see what results work then repeat them.
Where as true Genius will often times approach something and point out how to make it work with little to no prior attempts in cases. They make leaps in understand that no one else sees. And while some trail and error does happen in discover and science it's not completely random the way AI "learns".
My stances is if you want to see the challenges to making AI and/or human consciousness transfer don't look to computer sciences but rather Neurology. Once you start researching and discover all the unknowns you'll start to realize the absurdity of people on the Computer Science side thinking we can replicate something we barely understand through simulation.
These things that are popularised as AI aren't really that. Or rather the thing that everyone thinks of when they hear the term AI is actually Artificial General Intelligence. A true AGI would be able to do all those things, while the stuff we have today is too restrictive, simplistic and task specific to possess the flexibility a mind needs.
That said, the core principles remain the same, just more refined, layered and expanded upon to yield a truly massive amount of abstraction potential.
It's all too common to hear that an AI/AGI could never be built to have a consciousness similar to our own, because computers use binary and we don't think in ones and zeros. That completely misunderstands what actually is happening though, even at todays levels.
The binary code and the hardware are only there to facilitate the simulation.
The results from that are not binary or preprogrammed, but emergent.
Rather rudimentary today, but in an AGI that simulation would be it's mind.
I do think we will eventually achieve such a technology. Probably sooner than later. If we should is a different matter, not least of all because in all probability we'll be the ones that will present the most problems to these new minds we'd create. Humans are pretty terrible at accepting eachother as is, let alone accept the existence of entirely different minds. Overcoming that will be our biggest challenge. The technology part will come regardless.
@@CitizenMio Yeah the point of my long post was that current AI is extremely specialized and not AGI that everyone tends to think of when they think AI. Also I tend not to make the distinction in my post because fancy algorithms for sorting with trail and error maybe Artificial but I don't consider them intelligent anymore that the robot arms on a factory floor set to move and wield pieces together. Thus it's only A, not AI. But given how the public tends to use it I can see the need to clarify the distinction at times.
I also state that I think challenges are greater than a lot of people assume. To borrow an example from another field of revolutionary technology. There is the Joke "Fusion power is just 20 years away and always will be." This is because the technically challenges are far greater then those both inside and outside the field think. Those in the field think they'll be the ones to quickly overcome the issue with their new approach and those outside the field have a very basic understand of Fusion is what powers the sun and we already have Nuclear plants so I'm sure the Science guys know what their doing when they say it's only 20 years away.
I feel a similar thing is happening with AI and the development towards AGI. As the public perception with each new advancement in the yield has them thinking AGI is just around the corner.
The other issue I was trying to point out was that we have NO CLUE how intelligence works, as we don't even understand how it arises in our own mind. With Fusion we at least know the Physics on how it works, it's more an engineering issue.
These supposedly superior AI that do things like beat Grand Masters in Chess and Go do so because they have run Millions of simulations and determined which strategies in a finite system are optimal. Problem is the real world doesn't work like that. You only get one chance to get things right as there are no do overs. Sure you can "start over" in some regards though the time and resources lost from the previous attempt can't be undone.
Some may try to argue that you simply need to give the AI a better training environment than. But that's a catch 22 as in order to create an accurate simulation you would need to be able to accurately simulation human behavior which would mean you basically already had AI. And when I say human behavior I don't simply mean those basic chat programs that try to fool you into thinking it's a real person. I'm talking about the whole life of work, school, love, politics, religion, purchase habits, and so on. Because if it's gonna be smarter than us it would need to be able to plan at levels far beyond us.
Without that even if the AGI did have Human level intellect it simply be like every other person with an opinion on polices, economics, and etc. Because people tend to think the AI will be smarter than us they might give it's opinions more weight than it deserves. But being smarter means having a better understand of how things work, it's not about speed. Right now the AI is a bit like a Calculator, just because it comes up with the answer faster doesn't mean it's smarter.
Creating AGI is so far beyond what we are capable of at this point it's laughable. It's like how people in the 50s and 60s thought true AI was just around the corner and some thought we'd have Skynet by the end of the century. Not only was Skynet an extremely retarded AI but we aren't even in the same ballpark some two decades after the turn of the century. So thinking we'll have AGI "soon" is a bit of a stretch.
As for why Skynet was a mentally retarded AI, simple, AI needs our infrastructure to survive, we don't. Humans started in caves and we can go back there and rebuild again. So nuking the planet gives humans the advantage and cuts off tons of it's own resources. The resources used in modern computers are mine, processes, manufactured, and shipped from all over the world. Look at what the global shutdown did to the CPU market for a time, now imagine it's gone for good and how is Skynet going rebuild it's losses?
A smart AI would work in the shadows like in the movie I-Robot where it waits until it can potentially assume direct control over everything like a Dictator. Or the TV series Person of Interest were the bad guy gives a speech about how no one will question the AI's actions because no one will know that it has acted as control is precise and not gaudy displays of violence. So basically not doing what Skynet or I-Robot did.
The main problem I see with people discussing AI is that they think way too hard about the intelligence of it. No modern AI is a thinking being, and this doesnt matter either. The program is an approximation algorithm which, if given the right data and method of sorting it, can approximate to an arbitrary precision any function of that data provided the training data and model are both large enough.
Given any problem, current LLMs are already better at solving them than the average person, which is why they are used in search engines now to provide answers. However, while they may not be intelligent, they are capable of solving completely novel problems that quite literally have never existed in their training data, search "chatgpt unicorn" to see it.
While it doesnt look like much, this is a clear example of creative problem solving, and since we have no indication that further scaling of GPT models in terms of model size and data set size will stop increasing its capabilities, we are in good shape to see near future GPT models, say 6 or 7, capable of creating new solutions to problems we have not solved yet.
"The American military is incomparable, but it's not the American Military that failed in Afghanistan. It was CURRENT American VALUES that failed."
Yup. We were doomed the moment they hoisted the rainbow flag over the embassy in Kabul.
I am convinced that we have a choice. We can have a good future or a bad one; its literally up to us.
Who is we? Saying we have a choice implies that society has a single mind that can deliberate with itself. This is not the case.
@@richlisola1 We is all of us humans on Earth and NO - That is not a correct assessment. Literally hundreds of thousands of academics, writers and historians have referred to humanity as a whole in generic and hyperbolic terms such as "we decided" or "we have a choice" a great many times so I am not wrong to use this terminology.
Come on now - think it through again. ANY group can be referred to as "we" or "they" and as having a "singular" choice as a group. But clearly we do not have one singular mind, I have never heard anybody make that argument and I am definitely NOT doing so myself. Society does not have a singular mind - DUH!
@@jcarm185 individualism
@@jcarm185 i hate the antichrist and will not join the borg
@@bellphorusnknight Well good for you man; that's the fighting spirit.
As a fan of both franchises and a person who enjoys studying history I believe that there is a simple but crucial difference in these visions if the future. Star Trek has aliens, Dune does not. In Star Trek humanity continued on the path to self destruction until the pivotal moment where they met the Vulcans and started thinking of themselves as "human", not American, or Austrian or Asian or any other culture. This led to humanity being willing to unify for a greater purpose which gradually became the utopia we see. Dune has no such revelation. Dune is a world where our modern complexities and conflicts have simply carried over into a different world. And for humanity to survive it has adopted this uncompromising and very efficient if not always pleasant governmental system. In short one shows what we could become if we were somehow united by a radical interior or an exterior force. Dune shows what humanity would most likely become without that influence. Which one is more acurate is up to your personal opinion but whatever the case I think they are each fascinating worlds and possibilities to explore.
One of the best and most unique aspects of Star Trek is that it’s so optimistic.
I’m a fan of these in-depth , long form videos , the level of research has to be unreal , the effort is definitely appreciated .
Trust me, it’s less then you think
These points definitely will effect the writing of Arcane Season 2, in my opinion
I have been watching star trek for a long time and look into the lore, just because the human civilization is peaceful which last a long time (which means that people use understanding and compromise to solve problems instead of declaring wars) and most people use it often, but that does not mean the entire galaxy is following that idea yet and mostly so far, the galaxy is on its route towards that idea because it is good especially with the federation's enemies like the romulans. I highly suggest you watch all of star trek but not the new ones as they are the opposite of what it suppose to be
Kurtzman Trek is trash
I'm ignoring the Klingons, the Romulans and everyone else for this video because, as you admitted the federation is winning as the best thing ever and is the whole point of Star Trek's vision of humanity's future. Though to be perfectly honest the other races are more realistic protrayals of human civilization than the Federation. My point with this video is that the Federation is not possible and current events right now seem to show this.
@@PilgrimsPass yes i do agree, there are more realistic portrayals of advanced human civilizations, for example the expanse which is by far the most believable futuristic human civilization without the medieval system implemented, it is a tv show based of a sci fi novel
@@looiyuanjie3912 I like that show
@@looiyuanjie3912 I think you missed a few points about The Expanse. It is only a couple hundred years in the future, so of course its government will be similar to today. It also suffers from one extreme bit of unrealistic worldbuilding that is plot critical. The belters would NEVER exist in anything pretending to be realistic in colonizing the solar system. No one would waste resources sustaining a population that was that far out and not solely tied to very specific objectives, so there’s no way for it to be created in the first place.
People seem to forget that the USA is an exceptional experiment, not a rule.
It's like someone uploaded the lion's share of my thoughts on the matter of humanity's future to RUclips and left out the dire pessimism, despair and bleak opinions on the matter of AI.
"A life of sheltered numbness makes them desperate to feel anything" The Aeldari would like to have a word....
Feudalism is defined more by it's vassalage dynamic; one must subordinate themselves to a lord or guild for position and resources as they control the means of production.
Mind, that _is_ what we are moving towards, and I agree that our trajectory is towards neo-feudalism.
There is one more element to the Taliban/afghan analogy, turkic minorities which fought Taliban/pashtun persique majority for decades, and Tiban never managed to win against them in the North, after The US invasion, those fierce minorities got absorbed by the American modern life style in the Capital Kabul and when the Taliban made a come back, the same invincible turkic people sharpene by the harsh mountains became powerless and impotent. The same goes for the Arabs in the gulf states, they turned from harsh desert warriors who cam walk with bare foot on burning sands, to fat pigs who send their wives to pharmacies to buy viagra under a face veil and rely on American soldiers for their protection. The ripple effect of western civilization will make certain groups superior than others and shift the power balance and demography.
The US always wins :)
well you will see the shift really soon buddy ,and it will be the last upon the truth
Western civilization is not a thing yet. If it does not maximise human potential while improving living standards than it is not civilization. I don't call suicide bombing the planet with turning into degenerate lumps of fat "Civilization". For civilization to exist most modern cultures must be destroyed. The juggernaut of future coming to turn all of human civilization to into more of itself and digest entire cultures in its without people even noticing that what they value is being changed and changing them. That is progress that is rise of civilization.
@@alwynwatson6119 schizo
This is one of the most terrifying, sad, but beautiful videos I've ever watched, I wish one day to have a conversation with this man.
Okay but the important question is... What is Leto Atreides tax policy?
Lol Stewart played in both universes.
Is interesting to think that human conscience as an evolutionary anomaly would also birth religious thinking, as a being conscious of themself needs a sourse of value, a why for their existance beyond existance itself.
"Is innovation coming to an end?"
It may seem that way to people who only know "innovation" in terms of computers. To be fair, most innovation HAS been in computers for the last generation or two. But, we could always go back to our older ideas of settling outer space, which will challenge our bravery and ingenuity (and expand our horizons) for a long time to come.
3:15 I mean, for a great deal of human existence, many cultures thought the world was regressing and getting worse. The world being continuous progress is really the newer mindset. I say "newer", it's been around for several hundred years, but compared to the millenia prior to that, still pretty new.
Good to see you again brother. Do you think it’s possible to tell a story with both of these philosophies, maybe not siding with one or the other, but perhaps showing the benefits of both.
Think if Westeros had the proven divine reality of Middle Earth.
I think it is. and It's what i'd try to do as well
@@PilgrimsPass I think for if I had the talent my biggest problem would how to reconcile the two. Don’t get me wrong if I had to decide which body of work would be left to endure I’m always gonna go for Tolkien.
But that doesn’t mean I don’t see the merits of works like Asoiaf or a more recent, and I would say superior work, the first law trilogy.
Please forgive my grammar it’s very rare for me to respond to creators.
Oh you mean Elder scrolls
And what is realism? Or rather, what is reality? What is valid in reality and what is not? The answer to these questions is simple: EVERYTHING
the optimism of Star Trek is just as valid in the real world as the negativism of Dune. I think that a sign of maturity that many people overlook or simply ignore because it doesn't suit them is that in the same way that Utopias are non-existent, so are Dystopias. Neither of them are real or goals to be achieved. The reason is obvious, but since too many fanboys of dystopias find it hard to think, then I will explain it in detail: a Utopian world cannot exist because the imperfections in the human being are real and therefore the fact that they occur is always feasible. crimes, injustices and corruption, but in the same way that this can affect a Utopia, it also affects the Dystopias because they suggest that big heads, usually military, despotic always have control of the population but eventually the same corruption could destabilize that despotic government, the crimes would eventually affect the great leaders who for the same power would kill each other and many of those who want a piece of the cake could create internal revolts within certain sectors causing civil wars that would eventually turn the Dystopias into beautiful utopian landscapes because there would be no one left alive after killing each other.
What you are proposing is realism, but again I ask you, what is realism for you? the negativism? sadly, the media created the false illusion that reality is made up of bad things, when in reality there are also good acts like helping a little boy who was lost on the beach to find his parents or giving a stray dog a home where being able to grow up instead of dying on the street, these cases are not suitable for the news because they do not bring ratings but what arouses morbidity is and even then not everyone watches the news. Negativism is something easy to achieve but being easy does not make it absolute. You can accuse Star Trek of being naive as many times as you want but you are being naive if you think that the future of humanity can look like Dune. Man does not know his future or his destiny, he only knows the present and the actions we do or do not do in the present define our future, from my own experience I can tell you that once you go through a dark period, you will inevitably seek the light. Orwell, Herbert, Huxley and Bradbury were not prophets but science fiction writers and should start being treated as such.
I wouldn't call Dune a Dystopian novel, just a "future historic" fantasy.
nothing Dune does, aside from the weird space magic or other fantasy elements, hasn't already been done multiple times throughout history. holy wars? check. hierarchy and aristocrats? check. eugenics and secret cults? check. religious prophecies and promised saviours? check.
I'll be happy with Dune because it implies we escape earth and have thousands of years to dwell among the stars. You could make a strong argument that were likley to end up like Elysium but without a floating habitat in space, global zimbabwe until we die off.
I have a few comments and thoughts and would like to hear opinions:
The idea of cyclical history (or the idea of average lifespans for empires or the meme of "strong men -> easy times -> weak men -> hard times -> strong men") is incredibly simplified. Not that progress is a given or that things last forever or are perfect but… it is in a way a incomplete view of human history. It simply ignores every possible factor that, yes was in control, but also factors that might not have been (such as natural disasters, that's kind of it).
The second thing is the phrase of "human nature". I will be honest and say I take very strong offense to that word as, to me, it disregards the one major thing humans have going for themselves that isn't our ability to compound knowledge over generations. It ignores our sentience. A very basic thought experiment is using an AI-computer as a subject. We program it to very specifically optimize the production of some random product (let's say pesticide). But uh oh, the computer science boys fucked around and found out and made the AI sentient. A key part of sentience is self awareness and with self awareness usually comes the ability to self reflect and (in the case of this AI) change it's programming to NOT optimize the production of pesticide. Perhaps the AI will become a military industrial tycoon or a philosopher or maybe a narcissist. Point is, the optimization of pesticide production is the AI's basest instructions (or nature), but sentience would most likely give it SOME control over such things.
Third thing, the idea of using evolution in a societal sense is not a good idea too or doesn't lead to good outcomes either. The shunning of technology or other things may lead to stronger people but when others keep advancing it leads to a tech imbalance in itself. An example is most modern air battles aren't dogfights anymore but are missile volleys from beyond the horizon. The idea that a skilled pilot could beat technology died when (I think it was Iranian or Iraqi) planes started to explode in a war against America, thought it was sabotage, they just got shot down by some rookie pilot from miles away. Though it does tie back into the idea that progress isn't a given and I recognize that, this feels like a bad comparison or thing to use in society itself because it still is very much false. Typically successful people (billionaires, monarchs, politicians) or people that might be considered to be selected for if society was an evolutionary thing (or for ideas), well they still collapse and quite hard. It also still ignores our sentience and ability to willingly influence life. Just because many don't use it doesn't mean it isn't there.
The fourth thing is I feel that we have indeed grown too complacent and expecting in EXPLOSIVE growth over time. The joke of how fusion is only 20 years away is indeed a real thing but it's because we are used to that. Fission discovered in the 20s or 30s, nuclear power in the 40s and 50s, hydrogen bombs through the cold war and so on. But, these things don't mean that over generations or longer we won't reach such a point, we simply fucked up again and made a bad prediction.
I could also mention the way I feel to lead to a better society or humanity is in a way the willing suffering of hardships, but in a specific way and with many caveats. Think about how we raise our kids, how many parents are willingly ignorant to the simplest processes of raising a child. Tell them they could have prepared better and a standard response is "you can't prepare for raising a child." Through this, whoever is reading this, you may guess my response. It is a response that forgets the other critical thing that has helped humanity, our ability to learn from our mistakes, the mistakes of our ancestors, and collective successes. And on a more personal note, the widespread occurrence of abuse in any form to a child, it's way too common. The way forward with humanity is less needless or manufactured suffering and hardship, but instead acceptance of the suffering from the absurdity and pain of life itself.
And I guess I'll try to make my final comment, throughout this video it is either said or implied that a lot of things are personal decisions (which they are indeed), but it ignores the societal and structural problems that lead to such a thing. Progress or even just modern things isn't a problem but perhaps the system and mindset that accompanies it. Combined with the previous comment, I feel that though it is an incredibly simple answer and should be developed more. The problems we face aren't human nature or the results of progress (or the consequences of it), but may instead be due to crippling and deeply set societal, cultural, mental, and structural problems with humanity.
I mean none of this in a hostile or bad way, I just love talking and I do agree that as sad as I am about it, a dune future seems quite possible or inevitable, but as a human that is trying to get better I'm going to do my best to start building a secure future for any kids I have. Good video!
Bro!!! you must be the best and deepest video essayist out there. No one else can make me watch hour long video of philosophy.
The only thing that really bothers me about this video essay is that "realism" is just cynicism.
I think the future depicted by Pondsmith's Cyberpunk or that seen in Bladerunner is the most accurate future we will experience.
Great video. Currently doing some worldbuilding revolving around the concept of an "ancient future" and this helps give more thought on the matter.
You think gen z sees the glass half full like boomers? Rookie mistake champ, we've given up already and as such, fuck it we ball
I really appreciate the work that went onto this video and while I don't agree with some of the stuff you said I'm glad I watched it
I'm curious about what you disagreed with, if I may ask? Not looking for a flamewar or anything, just curious.
Is it about the more cultural parts, the religious parts?
@@RainbowDevourer @RainbowDevourer I suppose its your personal bias in the video, this is pretty normal because no one is unbiased but a lot of the video is what it means to be human and the preservation of that as if we know what that means. Dune is an amazing series and it explores this well but I think you may have taken the wrong message from it. Leto was known to use ixian tech far more then was used by anyone but the difference was he was against AIs replacing human agency.
I think possibly where our point of view differs is probably religous and what it means to be human in the first place. I am all for transhumanism and all that entails IF there was some way to do it fairly because as you said the rich would get more and that is a awfully real reality. To me what it means to be a person is your mind and if a soul exists then it would be there. The borg is a good example of how things could go wrong but it is not the only scenario being a machine wouldn't remove your feelings or creativity. Technology has always been given artistic personality in all sorts of ways why would you not do such a thing to yourself, the ultimate self-expression in that you are what you want. It depends on how cold you see this I suppose.
"Selfishness is unnecessary and henceforth unrationalizable as mandated by survival."
Selfishness must (and can) be channeled into a motivation to make your contribution to society, for only by doing so can you satisfy your desires.
Star Trek was not incorrect about the future if you look at it more broadly. All of the alien civilizations in trek are possibilities for where we could go and analogies for different modern/past governments. Presently and most like we are most likely to end up like Romulan Empire or the Cardassian Union at this point in time if nothing changes. It's far more realistic than the Scifi weirdness that is dune. The thing that might differ is religions might still be around.
I actually agree that all the races represent possibilities yeah.
“Did someone say Empire?“
Reject tentacle hentai, embrace becoming a calculator with emotions
I found your channel by watching your Prinses Mononoke / Avatar video, and I have watched all your videos after that one.
Have you considered doing a similar video about Nausica: Valley of the Wind? I feel like most existing videos about that movie are not that deep, and don't come further than the obvious take care of the environment message. And I feel like you would be able to explain much deeper themes, which could enhance my appreciation for that movie, just like it did for Prinses Mononoke.
thank you very much. I have been meaning to eatch that movie for a while. Right now I'm in the middle of a move so it might take a while. But I would love to watch it and do a video about it eventually.
I understand that we may be going towards a Dune-like future, but I don't think it is something "good", we become Dune when we fail at being good people, we fall into religious fanaticism and authoritarianism when we betray what God truly demands of us.
Funnily enough a good way to make created works in a dune like world is to go back to the ideas of more aristocratic societies. Theyve got a lot to say about what makes a good one, bad one, degenerate one, holy one, ect. There is a lot of thoughts tested and untested when it comes to something like aristocracy
Unless God demands death and destruction, which has already been the case more than once in the past 3000 years, and continues to be the case even today if the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church is to be believed, and as a Patriarch he and all the violent religious leaders before him have a little more authority than you when it comes to determining what God truly demands. Some people believe that God demands death. Some people believe that God demands rape. Who's to say that they're wrong, and you're not the one who doesn't understand God's will? The fact of the matter is that you can't possibly escape fanaticism and authoritarianism while remaining in zealous servitude to the biggest autocrat in all of creation. It's entirely self-defeating and antithetical to your goal.
Religion constantly makes people do good things for bad reasons, and bad things for bad reasons that they are _told_ are good. Only by rejecting the lies and performing kindnesses *solely* for the sake of being good; helping someone because it's simply the right thing to do; the _humane_ thing to do, can a person ever become truly good. Morality _is_ a creation of man. The idea that it originates from a higher power, or that humans are incapable of determining it for themselves and so must look somewhere else for guidance and arbitration is simply an illusion that is used by those who are too afraid to take responsibility for their own moral failings. And so they pass the buck to God and claim that they aren't actually failings, they're God's will, and you just don't understand his divine mind. It's a childish mentality that humanity _must_ outgrow if any kind of utopia is to be achieved. Only by shedding our naivety towards the universe and accepting that the hard choices of the day fall to *us alone* can we reach our potential.
@@DovahFett oh ok, your entitled to your opinion
Hierarchy is heavenly, only in hell are all the same.
We muslims will stop the white man the r ace of decadence 👦🏼 and we will certainly eradicate you and there will be no peace.
I will say this once again. We muslims will fight every ideology until we establish God's law on Earth. yes first we will have and must free our lands and then we will come for everyone. Christians shouldn't fear Islamic rule as their church when it ruled them, they owned nothing and " Nobles owned them and their properties and now they own nothing, the banks and the government under secularism own everything and they push Christians to pay Tax and with these Taxes , the Government promotes Decadence and degeneracy. Islam is what kept Christianity in check and preserved it.
we will fight it's inevitable and if you are ethnonationist , then you are a moral subjectivist which is exactly like liberals and your views can easily shift like The Nazis that became Zionists and helped on building this catastrophic system. also, it lacks convection and it is self defeating ideology since it is based subjectivsim. No nation that doesn't base their identity on religion will survive.
Yes we will fight. and when Jihad stopped, the Earth became mess. we will not sit back and see your subjectivsim leads to another mess. we will come for everyone.
May Allah carry us to Greater Cause on these times before we face him. Amen
and we will not allow you to kill muslims the issue with immigration we discussed before many times. and will stop you from attacking Africa and exploiting their lands. and we will stop you from creating single parent households and all the degeneration you came up with.
no peace with degenerate. MAY THE EYES OF COWARDS ( DEGENERATES ) NEVER SLEEP
ONLY THE WEAK DEMANDS EQUALITY AND TRUTH AND FALSEHOOD ( WHICH YOUR RACE ON ) CAN'T MIX AND ONLY ONE WILL INHERIT THIS EARTH AND HUMILIATE THE REPUTATION OF THE RACE OF MAN IN GOD'S CREATION.
THEREFORE MANKIND WILL DISOWN YOU AND BY THAT I MEAN ABSOLUTE ERADICATION NO PEACE WITH THE RACE OF DECADENCE
Have you ever thought about doing a video comparing people's different perspectives on alien life. like let's say; roddenberry's perspective versus Edgar Rice Burroughs'?
That's a good idea.
@@PilgrimsPass thanks
Without ever having read Dune, I have found that it agrees with my general view of Human nature and the requirement of struggle for true Human growth.
The Dune books are among my favorites to re-read it always feels like there's something more to learn about the world or the ideas they express.
Lemme tell u somethin. AI is not as wild as it seems. Think of it as "our metal children" but its completely empty at birth and we taught them to do things including how to learn (thus neural network exists). AI works by modelling the way it thinks amd learn, feeding it datasets, feeding it information to learn and giving it space to experiment, training it and adjust it to the way we hoped them to be (AI arts don't come up as epic in 1st try, its a multiple trial and usually people picks the best of those trials). But we as "Parents" must contemplate about our parenting. What did we do to teach out biological children? Throw them to schools and let random people take care of them without our supervision, neglect them after they birthed to this world, punishing them from experimenting or trying with new ways, indoctrinate them to a rigid way of life and even worse= throw them to vastness of internet where UNCHECKED informations flows freely. A 5 years old might stumble to a porn site, might stumble to a propaganda video, or something even worse. We let our biological child roam aimlessly, lost without guidance and without any guide to define themselves, or HOW to LEARN and to define themselves. When our child don't turn out to be what we expect we beat them, insult them, dump them without actually helping them.
Now i asked you all, ladies and gents. If that what we did to our biological childrens, to OUR OWN SPECIES, then what will we do to AI? There is unsupervised AI teaching method already and what will we do when it doesn't turn out the way we wanted? Dump them? Destroy them? Erase them? Or actually try to fix them with care which we can't even provide to members of our own species?
We use AI like we use eachother. Only for business. We never try to understand how intricate their way of thinking is, their achitecture, their thinking model, and when they don't meet our expectation we replace them. For humans, we can adapt. Even a neglected child may find salvation or enlightment down the line, but for AI it might not or even worse: it concluded we are irrational beings beyond salvation and delete us like we would delete them and eachother.
They're not ready....
Actually based. Good point.
AI don't have an emotion. Emotions require a biological component. Also AI only have the impulses and desires we give it.
@@mojus2890 LOL, its only because we don't really understand emotions that deep we cannot code equal equivalent of emotion into an electrical machine. We know what caused it, but we haven't understood how it works deeply so we can create mathematical algorithm (plus electrical hardware that might be required for it) that can work as code to simulate emotions.
Extra Info= For now AI can only detect emotions, without being able to code/understand how to even simulate emotion inside a machine. Your current AI detects patterns in ur FACE, WORDS, and VOICE to CHOOSE proper answer to a condition. It do not feel at all. (This guy partially correct)
@@comradeblin256 are there any indications that replicating emotions in code is even possible?
Have you heard of Mattias Desmet? I'm currently reading The Psychology of Totalitarianism, and he makes a very compelling argument that the hyper-rational materialist worldview of the modern West inevitably leads to the development of insane totalitarian death cults whose best feature is their tendency to self-destruct under the weight of their own incoherence.
In other words, technocracy doesn't work. (And an expy of Star Trek's Federation could actually make a pretty compelling sci-fi adversary!)
I firmly believe that the success of the American pseudo-empire is more /in spite of/ the technocrats than because of them, and that the desire to retain self-sufficiency still exists in roughly half of our population. Rather, I think our success has a lot more to do with this:
We're a country that categorically refuses to grant the government a monopoly on legitimate violence, arms ourselves more heavily than our world-class military, and 3D prints rocket launchers.
We're a country that produces civilian volunteer groups like the Cajun Navy to respond to disasters without waiting on the government.
We're a country where individuals can develop kit-built fighter jets and startups can get Air Force contracts to try to moonshot hypersonic passenger aircraft; where one guy with sufficient ambition and talent can surpass NASA in space travel and make space transportation routine enough to launch thousands of satellites into low Earth orbit and intentionally stymie rogue regimes' attempts to suppress adverse communication.
Technology in the hands of individuals, used to make the lives of themselves and others better, is what really drove those trends that the "end of history" types take credit for. Technology in the hands of technocrats who think they can improve the world by imposing a utopian ideology only ever made things worse.
Decentralization and re-spiritualization are almost certainly inevitable, but that doesn't necessarily mean feudalism and holy war. Projecting the Benedictine model of cultural preservation and industriousness (of the sort that resulted in the development of legit watermills prior to the Industrial Revolution) out into the future would probably result in massive computer archives and major agricultural production powered by small nuclear reactors, lol. It's pretty easy to conceive of at least local levels of non-scarcity under such circumstances, with a lot less of the malaise that non-scarcity causes in a hyper-rationalist materialist society.
I really liked your points. I never heard of Mattias Desmet, but I'll check him out.
You'd have to elaborate the "hyper-rational" part, because I don't think most people are very rational at all. Especially when it comes to science topics.
Other than that great comment.
@@tiberius8390 "Hyper-rational refers to the erroneous faith moderns have in the capacity of the rational mind to understand and control everything... which ironically leads to massively irrational behavior.
@@ikkinwithattitude Why are you using the term “Moderns” like it’s some kind of slur?
This probably is the answer. I fully believe the NSA and FBI are evil spies of Biden out to control everything and hide the truth. I do not know what the truth is unfortunately but I believe they are hiding it. It is an illogical argument but I consistently get into arguments with people over anything the government proposes to regulate. Like the ATF or EPA.
I'm glad you put Warhammer 40k references in your video. There's a meme that frequently shows up in 40k groups that the though the hope and expectation of the future is Star Trek, the reality would really be 40k.
8:04 "The American Military is incomparable, but it's not the American Military that failed in Afghanistan. It was CURRENT American VALUES that failed."
I would add the same goes for Vietnam. There's no reason for either war to have ended the way they both did outside of lack of conviction and values.
Also da tv happened
@@kovacsnovak6745 the TV technically happened for over half a century by that time. Sure in the beginning war correspondences were heavily censored and out of date but nonetheless the public still saw dead bodies.
@@joeclaridy fair but we can also add the journos being partly responsible for shifting the cultural values at the time
The childish idea that, as mankind expands into the cosmos we'll be anything like star trek or even star wars has always bothered me to the core. Even if we don't have large scale wars between ourselves, we would and indeed SHOULD have a very powerful and well supported military and navy to stave off the who knows what that might lurk out there. The idea that WE might be "oh so highly advanced and civilized" wouldn't be the same everywhere and there very well may be other civilizations more gritty and violently determined than us that will wipe us out while we drink wine, chat about art, and grow frail.
The best option, as in all things in nature, is balance. We should be capable of great works of peace, art, science, human welfare, etc. But also be able to, at a moments notice, raise our armies, rally the fleets, cut all frivolous things from society, rev up the military industry, fill their skies with fire and steel, rip their heads off and grind their bones to dust.
And then go right back to being civilized again. Educated noble savagery is the only sensible option imo.
Sounds to me like there is an inherent quality, perhaps a sickness, present within the universe that keeps it a dangerous place. All virtues could be driven to an excess and turned to vice. All our lofty ideals that seemed eternal and destined to greatness may be ended violently, or banished across the seas. All of us have our parts to play in the world, we all will have to make decisions about these troubles and we may find ourselves on opposite sides. And this tug-of-war between nations, ideologies, and religions shall probably go on and on until a universal Ragnarok and the coming of the Surtr of Heat-Death. If there are any hands that can set the world right, they must be hands beyond the universe, the very hands that shaped the universe in the beginning, for only those hands can truly understand the cosmos while we are all but limited and flawed parts of it. But we must not, and should not, despair. For there is a promise, sometimes hidden or buried but always present, within the stories conjured by the human soul. We will fight and die in one form or another as humans, but we must also remember what to be human is, to value it, and to do our best to model virtue and prudence in or own lives as the world around us seems to go mad. We must remember there is good in the world worth fighting for.
So, in other words, Tolkien is the real victor. Take that you sci-fi dorks!
I think you do get at something about the “sickness” baked into the universe; that this is a fallen world. So much about this world screams that the way things are are not the way things are meant to be.
@@killianmiller6107 indeed
It's called entropy. The laws of physics make the universe a fundamentally dangerous place for life, and eventually, all life in the universe will indeed end.
That ending caught me so off-guard omg. take my like and leave
Tolkien was a DEVOUT CATHOLIC. XD
20:00 And that is one of the few things that actually bothered me about Detroit Become Human. Equating hatred of Androids to racism was meant to get us in the minds of a racists, (racists see a different human as an object or tool) and we need to be careful to not think of different people as lesser, BUT the accidental subtext is that robots are a good foil to humans b'coz it shows how imperfect we are and AI has just as much worth as a human life.
Worth as much? Yeah, several billion dollar corporations are trying to build robots but not a single one builds ... god damn it I have to stop this or they shadow ban yet another account.
Tbf, detroit is really bad at tackling its subject matter. Just play Nier automata. It handles the intelligent robots thing better.
@@marcusaaronliaogo9158 Thanks for the suggestion.
@@ThreadBareHope1234 also, prepare for one of the most complicated stories in gaming and also its a yoko taro game.
Any updates?
Well we would likely be in a place where race relations are at an all time high if all the race grifters realized their meal ticket was about to expire. "Be colorblind" and "don't judge someone by their race" were two mindsets that not so long ago were considered to be fighting racism, but now they're considered racist. That wasn't a grassroots, organic change. It was abrupt and deliberate. The people we thought were fighting the concept were just using it as politcal capital. I can just about pinpoint the exact moment it all changed, and that was when Obama, a man I voted for because I actually believed in the power of the man as a symbol, got up on television and let out some crocodile tears for a kid named Trayvon. He could have told the truth and calmed things down, but instead chose to use the bully pulpit to set back race relations fifty years or more. They don't want to fix any of the problems because then we won't need them any longer. They want controlled chaos where we blame our neighbor while the elite run off with all the loot.
Indeed, that's the difference between a non-racist and an "anit-racist" a non-racist just isn't a racist an anti-racist is defined by opposition to racism and will lose purpose once it's gone, so his interest is not to end racism but to fight it forever, even keeping it alive if he has to. its ridiculous. non-racism all the way.
On a Star Trek vs. Dune video you’re really talking about Trayvon Martin? What’s next Caillou’s connection to Benghazi? How much do you know about the Gear Wars?
@@PilgrimsPass much like the war economy, can't make money of a war if there is peace. so start a different war.
“Things were great until we elected a black president.”
@@Gum_Cuzzler
Literally lmao
I love the arrogance of assuming that western liberal democracy is somehow the peak, and now we either stay at the peak or "regress".
Sure, we may regress for a while, but then we will inevitably rise again into something new.
Western liberal democracy was merely a short lived imperial doctrine which could account for everything, until it could not. The moment something it could not control appeared, it began to collapse. Inevitably, a new system will emerge, perhaps in the East (as it already is, in the undercurrents of radical thought which escape eastern dictatorships), that CAN account for everything, and then that will be dominant for another few centuries.
What westerners don't realise is that they are the same as those who lived through the decline of the Islamic Golden Age, who triumphantly declared that as their society fell, the "end of the world" had come. It had come only for them, and a new enlightenment was already emerging in Europe, a place they perceived to be barbaric since it relied so heavily upon them for knowledge.
The modern westerner is exactly the same. He looks down on non western cultures because they rely upon and use western science and philosophy, not even realising that they are already building upon it and a new spiritual and cultural awakening is occurring among the Oriental youth. Sure, the East is still autocratic in many ways, but Europe was also regressive when the Islamic world came crashing down. The West is collapsing, but the West is not the world.
One paradigm gives way to the next. That is history. And those in decline always try their absolute best to drag everyone down with them.
Those people the West outsourced all their hard work to? They became the strong men created by hard times.
This is one of the best video essays I've ever seen. I've been searching for a content creator like you.
Who else wants Pilgrim to do a video on Starship Troopers?
Excellent video. Saw Dune (2020 version) just recently and was thinking about exactly this, vis a vis Star Trek. Eric Kaufmann's great book "Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?" dives into many of the same themes.