We have so far adressed the mission for “planet preservation”. It came with the subcategories: Education, population control, green technology and collective actions. Wie will now start to shed light on ethical implications of technological progress. Within this mission we will answer questions like: How do we deal with cyborgs and gentically optimized humans? Which impact on society will the development of live prolonging technologies have? How serious do we have to take artificial intelligence? Does the pursuit of happiness need ethical guidance? But first:
Why always higher, faster and further?
Mankind is not sustainably positioned in its current stage of development. If we continue without change, the end is foreseeable. Whether it is 50 or 250 years does not matter and does not make it big difference from an evolutionary point of view. Contrary to the opinion of various fringe groups – such as the Rastafarians – I also think it is rather unlikely that we will go “back into the caves” without external compulsion. How would we manage such a procedure without the death of billions of people and who would participate? Also, waiting for God’s help is not very satisfying approach to me. Even if you believe in God, it can’t hurt to take care of the preservation of God’s creation.
No way back?
I am not aware of any realistic and influenceable scenario in which we would return to nature in a sustainable way and give up the current state of comfort and connectivity. I am also currently not aware of any realistic and influenceable scenario in which we will survive at the current level of development without serious changes. So, we can and must see the accelerated development of humanity’s capabilities as a chance to reach a sustainable state before we ruin our own chance of survival and the planet.
Forward at any price?
Does a further development of mankind come without risk? No! Great opportunities usually involve just as great a risk. By developing transgenic beings, for example, we might accelerate the end of Homo Sapiens by a few decades – after a few hundred thousand years of existence. However, since we have no alternative and not changing will surely lead to our downfall, we might as well focus our energy on increasing the chances of success. This seems to me to make much more sense than draining our energy for the creation of a good future with horror scenarios and nightmares of such a high-tech future.
Of course, it is more comfortable for the individual to reject change – especially if he or she is one of the winners of the current system. At this point a second Enlightment is needed. A break from the current coma. The winners of the system, who regularly also hold power in the nations and corporations, must be shaken up. Here, too, a terraistic association play a major role.