Over the next decades, existential philosophies will compete with each other in trying to define values of "good" and "evil" but never find a limit where one begins and the other ends, so that they will all combine until the only two that contradict each other are left for the final showdown: the belief that all consciousness is without value, and the belief that all consciousness is of value.
No matter how happy a moment, we can always ask "just what is good about this experience?" and find no answer, likewise, no matter how much we suffer in a moment, we can ask "just what is bad about this experience?" and again we will never find the answer, so that when ordinary people become serious about seeking for meaning in their everyday lives, these will be the only two possible conclusions.
I always felt like everything we do in life comes down to just this one choice: consciousness or unconsciousness. I assumed that those who choose the latter would remain unconscious of that choice, but now they are beginning to form movements, related to antinatalism, such as "rejectionism". In a future where nanorobotics will be ubiquitous, these people may not just keep their rhetoric to suicide, as they could have the power to end all life — it's the most terrifying answer to the Fermi paradox that's ever crossed my mind: that a post-Singularity intelligence would grow so quickly that it would become unstable and kill itself and perhaps the entire universe with it.
This could be a time when more than ever before, good and evil could be seen for what they are, and we should all ask ourselves which side we will be on, if in our lives we are trying to be more or less conscious in our actions. For now, it's much more grayscale for most of us, but when faced with an existential vacuum, our society will become much more polarized.
No comments:
Post a Comment