I actually brought this up a long time ago, in a roundabout way. Short Version: Human agency has been increasing since we first picked up a rock and used it to open a stubborn coconut. As human agency increases, the potential violence that an individual can perpetrate by themselves goes up. There will come a time where large sections of the human race will have the ability to destroy almost everybody, and will have to consciously choose NOT to do that. If we do not develop our moral sense fast enough we are going to hit The Great Filter and that will be the end of our story. fallingsaucer are you still out there somewhere? You can also use this as the starting point for comparing political leaders, as a thought experiment loosely termed 'Perfect Weapons.' It goes something like this. Barack Obama would have one list of people he thinks should be killed. King Salman of Saudi Arabia would have a different list. Ibrahim Awad (Abu Bakr Al-Bagdhadi) would have a different list. Theresa May would have her own. Etc ad infinitum. The comparison of these lists would be very interesting.We have come into the possession of perfect weapons. With the push of a button, a person dies without any mess or collateral damage. We can use these weapons on the battlefield, as assassination tools, threats, etc. Now, imagine giving control of this weapon to someone, who would they kill?
WHO HAS DISTURBED MY SLUMBER The survival of populations is due to the diversity within those populations and how isolated, and somewhat thusly protected, they are. How easy is it to fairly elect a madman or a sane person with a dark agenda? It is unclear with whom the management of the health of the system ought to be left , but what is clear is that we routinely ignore those with legitimate expertise in relevant topics to instead revere the loudest bullhorn. We must increase the average exposure of alien groups and ideas to the most isolated cultures because we know that when we are put in a diverse environment, tolerance proliferates. In the last decade, the United States has become increasingly more polarized. The answer can be found by thinking in a social engineering paradigm. Our supposedly culturally enriching social media resources have instead erected walls between us and created echo chambers of opinion. If we cannot come together and make enough of a change to save ourselves here on Earth, then to find refuge on some backwoods exoplanet to begin a second chance civilization we must.
Can another John Lennon exist in a world with Facebook and Twitter? I think the constant access would destroy the mythos while simultaneously being necessary for global popularity.
Unrelated to the topic but related to Lennon - I have listened to the Beatles full discography at least twice. 'Hey Jude,' 'Blackbird,' and 'Let It Be' are some of my favorite songs to play and sing for my own benefit. I still don't understand the mass hysteria that John Lennon inspired. I understand the Beatles conceptually, where they fit in the history of music and mass culture in the 20th century, but I don't understand why Lennon specifically incurs so much strong emotion. Anybody have an explanation?
Cynically, because he was shot on a street in New York by a lunatic. If he'd fallen asleep while driving south on the M1 past Sheffield and drove into a tree, I don't think he'd be remembered in the same way. Tragic death causes different emotions, I think. My favorite Beatles song is Across The Universe. I won't say I'm specifically a George Harrison fan, but I think it's a better song than anything Lennon did.