Well probably in the long term. But I think there is a possibility in the next 100 years that we destroy ourselves before we face the problem of population collapse.
Just wanted to add here that the Jill Levore podcast 'The Evening Rocket' touches on a few similar topics. She is quite skeptical, though, about some of the apocalyptic implications of work by Nick Bostrom and others whose ideas Josh focuses on. It's interesting to listen to both 'The Evening Rocket' AND 'The End of The World', because they each make a good case for their contrasting points of view.
I enjoyed the TEOTW series but was stunned by the message in the last two episodes. In essence Clark tells us to "Give up humanity for the HIVE in order to save humanity." Clark seems to think of "humanity" as mere lumps of tissue and bone, not the stuff that really defines us: individual dreams, creativity, and freedom. If this world becomes a dystopian planet wide gulag for the sake of approved life styles and group think where all that outside those parameters is deemed "counter-human" by a tyrannical governing elite, then we are not worth savings after all.
He doesn't take SOUL into the equation and without taking that into the equation ( the expression of which is art, creativity, feelings, love etc). Without taking that into the equation you have no answers. As what creates the universe is intangible. He will never find the answer he is looking for without it. Its like trying to read a book with no eyes. You see the same way of thinking in their podcast. Oh well. People have their own reasons for the denial of this.
This is a futile thought experiment. It means nothing. To say that we are the only intelligent, unique, species in the universe is pretty arrogant and short sighted. Josh is building an argument on a false premise. He is propagating the old argument that "if I can't see it, it doesn't exist" - empiricism. It is nothing less than a form of religion disguised as a "science", when all that is being advanced is nothing more than dogma - (believe this because I know better than you). Another disturbing statement Josh makes is "...we don't even know how to define morality..." Well, that's not true. There are many people that understand the basic and advanced principles of morality. Josh merely choses to either ignore them, criticise them, or try to disprove them. _He_ is ignoring the principles of morality then saying _"we"_ don't understand them. Arrogance. Setting AI as being above us is also disturbing. He is placing a creation of man above the creation of God. I suppose that is the whole point... He supposes that we will be transformed into some kind of "digital form". What does that even mean??? Does Josh feel unhappy with his mortality? Minds that exist without bodies? How does that work? Josh does not understand, nor does he want to, the concept of having a body and a soul. "You don't need anybody else... I can turn up my bliss dial, and who cares about other people. If I want to I can create another person". Disturbing... "Facing our existential problem (existential risk)...". Well, that is annoying. Creating a sense of impending doom. The only "doom" here is the doom they are creating in our minds. We are living good, productive lives, where we care for each other. Declaring that we don't do that is merely cynicism mixed with narcissism with a dash of arrogance. Mr. Clark has a very disturbing view on life/existence. He tries to promise an Utopia since obviously we are all most miserable - according to him... He is a product of the secularism that has displaced our spiritual heritage. He is sadly mistaken and very uniformed. If someone from Heaven were to explain things to him, he would not be able to process it. If an "alien" told him the mysteries of the Universe he would embrace it. Well, you can decide which is best (or real, for that matter). What it really boils down to is what we want to _believe_ in. Simply put, it is a matter of faith. But, the secular mind chooses not to _belive_ in matters of faith. Yet, it will "believe" in its scientific theories. Ironic, isn't it? "This stuff is real. It's backed up by science". Nope, sorry. Dogma. (I know better than you, accept it.) The nature of our existence has been explained to us for thousands of years. For a long time we accepted what authorized prophets have been told by God, wrote it down, then told us. It's kinda simple. Now, we have replaced that spiritual heritage with science and its fleeting theories (it's currently popular dogma). Heavy sigh...
@@1pastjupiter Well, I'm not sure how I am a "crazy person". If you are saying this in jest, fine. If you are being dismissive, shame on you. If you want to explain yourself, good. I would be glad to listen. But, to say that you are "...thinking maybe you were just someone with a whole different set of beliefs and thought systems than me." then say I am "simply a crazy person" that concerns me. Are you closing your mind? There is a name for that but I will not mention it - hoping you will respond.
For full schedule, tickets & more videos go to BUILDseries.com
Follow us on social media @BUILDseriesNYC
Josh is great, and 'The End of The World' series was a triumph. It's INSANELY informative and beautifully presented. Well done, sir!
Agreed I listen to it repeatedly
@@rc3151
Hu
Hu
Hu
Hu no
Ki
No one is going to talk about that Biotech episode? Pretty much nails the pandemic.
Population in the majority of nations is in decline - population collapse is much more likely in the future
Well probably in the long term. But I think there is a possibility in the next 100 years that we destroy ourselves before we face the problem of population collapse.
One of the best PC out there..
Just wanted to add here that the Jill Levore podcast 'The Evening Rocket' touches on a few similar topics. She is quite skeptical, though, about some of the apocalyptic implications of work by Nick Bostrom and others whose ideas Josh focuses on.
It's interesting to listen to both 'The Evening Rocket' AND 'The End of The World', because they each make a good case for their contrasting points of view.
This way of thinking is our only way to unite humanity.
Or the best, at least.
I like the back and forth with Josh and Chuck.
I'll give this a try. I wish Chuck was there
Discussions worth having in any forum because our time here is temporary.
R Mak you crazy i swear to god
i dig mekbvn rkk fj19n sm1020
Did anyone else notice the guy sleeping at the front?
Take a shot every time he says ‘existential’ on the podcast
😂
Reminds me of the science fiction CBS-TV series Extant.
your consciousness isnt just the mind. And even if you could create a perfect version of yourself digitally... it wouldn't be you, it would be a copy.
I am not an angel, but I do 100% my best to be one (morally).
this is o under rated i am mad
I enjoyed the TEOTW series but was stunned by the message in the last two episodes. In essence Clark tells us to "Give up humanity for the HIVE in order to save humanity." Clark seems to think of "humanity" as mere lumps of tissue and bone, not the stuff that really defines us: individual dreams, creativity, and freedom. If this world becomes a dystopian planet wide gulag for the sake of approved life styles and group think where all that outside those parameters is deemed "counter-human" by a tyrannical governing elite, then we are not worth savings after all.
He doesn't take SOUL into the equation and without taking that into the equation ( the expression of which is art, creativity, feelings, love etc). Without taking that into the equation you have no answers. As what creates the universe is intangible. He will never find the answer he is looking for without it. Its like trying to read a book with no eyes. You see the same way of thinking in their podcast. Oh well. People have their own reasons for the denial of this.
🤔😲🤦♀️
Too much for me
hahaha, we are screwed!
This is a futile thought experiment. It means nothing.
To say that we are the only intelligent, unique, species in the universe is pretty arrogant and short sighted.
Josh is building an argument on a false premise. He is propagating the old argument that "if I can't see it, it doesn't exist" - empiricism. It is nothing less than a form of religion disguised as a "science", when all that is being advanced is nothing more than dogma - (believe this because I know better than you).
Another disturbing statement Josh makes is "...we don't even know how to define morality..." Well, that's not true. There are many people that understand the basic and advanced principles of morality. Josh merely choses to either ignore them, criticise them, or try to disprove them. _He_ is ignoring the principles of morality then saying _"we"_ don't understand them. Arrogance. Setting AI as being above us is also disturbing. He is placing a creation of man above the creation of God. I suppose that is the whole point... He supposes that we will be transformed into some kind of "digital form". What does that even mean??? Does Josh feel unhappy with his mortality? Minds that exist without bodies? How does that work?
Josh does not understand, nor does he want to, the concept of having a body and a soul.
"You don't need anybody else... I can turn up my bliss dial, and who cares about other people. If I want to I can create another person". Disturbing...
"Facing our existential problem (existential risk)...". Well, that is annoying. Creating a sense of impending doom. The only "doom" here is the doom they are creating in our minds. We are living good, productive lives, where we care for each other. Declaring that we don't do that is merely cynicism mixed with narcissism with a dash of arrogance.
Mr. Clark has a very disturbing view on life/existence. He tries to promise an Utopia since obviously we are all most miserable - according to him... He is a product of the secularism that has displaced our spiritual heritage. He is sadly mistaken and very uniformed. If someone from Heaven were to explain things to him, he would not be able to process it. If an "alien" told him the mysteries of the Universe he would embrace it. Well, you can decide which is best (or real, for that matter). What it really boils down to is what we want to _believe_ in. Simply put, it is a matter of faith. But, the secular mind chooses not to _belive_ in matters of faith. Yet, it will "believe" in its scientific theories. Ironic, isn't it?
"This stuff is real. It's backed up by science". Nope, sorry. Dogma. (I know better than you, accept it.)
The nature of our existence has been explained to us for thousands of years. For a long time we accepted what authorized prophets have been told by God, wrote it down, then told us. It's kinda simple. Now, we have replaced that spiritual heritage with science and its fleeting theories (it's currently popular dogma).
Heavy sigh...
@@1pastjupiter Well, I'm not sure how I am a "crazy person". If you are saying this in jest, fine. If you are being dismissive, shame on you. If you want to explain yourself, good. I would be glad to listen. But, to say that you are "...thinking maybe you were just someone with a whole different set of beliefs and thought systems than me." then say I am "simply a crazy person" that concerns me. Are you closing your mind? There is a name for that but I will not mention it - hoping you will respond.