Civilization is Anti-Human, Not Machines

April 2000, as millennium celebrations passed into history, Silicon Valley luminary, Bill Joy, wrote a provocative article for Wired magazine entitled, Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us. A great essay suggesting we’re building technology that could make humans an endangered species.

Problem is, evolution doesn’t work that way.

Saying emerging technology endangers our species is like saying the emergence of mammals endangered the dinosaurs. That’s obviously not what happened.

Like humans and technology, dinosaurs and mammals coexisted. Mammals merely benefitted from the dinosaur’s misfortune (e.g., asteroid crash) and their inability to adapt to the changing environment. In broad terms, entropy — the decline toward disorder — asserted control over dinosaurs.

The point is that technology is a product of civilization, which is itself a product of us as a species.

In this respect, it’s been an article of faith that the two evolutionary paths of civilization and humanity are identical and aligned. While the two paths have occasionally coincided, over the broad sweep of human history through today, this is NOT the case.

Consequently, what really endangers our species is the way civilization (first as empires and then as nation-states) has responded to change as it evolved.

Entropy — the wolf at the door

The cosmos, like life itself, is a paradoxical master. It starts from nothing, creates islands of order — galaxies, solar systems, suns, the earth, biological life, and civilization — only to destroy those islands and then creates new islands.

Throughout the universe, this cycle of creation and destruction — “entropy cycle” — repeats itself until, eventually, all the heat and energy in the cosmos is converted into cold grains of sand. It’s a cosmic Sisyphean evolutionary game that also reveals itself as an arrow of time.

The point is that every island of order — including earth, humanity and civilization — is in a constant struggle to fend off disorder for its continued survival. What’s equally important to appreciate is that surviving this struggle requires each island to generate entropy at a faster rate than in the universe as a whole.

In other words, an island must constantly consume sufficient energy to both sustain its continued order and compensate for growing disorder. But, again, ultimately, every island loses the struggle.

So, the only real questions are how and when the struggle ends. Thus, the key variables in this entropy cycle are the

• path entropy follows in an island’s evolution
• rate of entropy that’s producing disorder in an island
• routes open to create new islands of order

Our island of humanity

The impact of the entropy cycle on us as a biological species is readily visible. That is, of all the branches in the human evolutionary tree that have existed over some 4 million years, they all went extinct (i.e., experienced entropy) except us — Homo sapiens, so-called wise humans.

Yet, as the lone surviving branch of our species, we are only some 100–150,000 years old. In this respect, it’s increasingly clear that our success as a species is tied directly to our technological prowess. The hallmark of this prowess — this path — is our unique symbolic technology — language — that enabled us to share scenarios. The importance of this shared scenario building skill cannot be overstated.

While initially for basic survival, this scenario building skill is what led to agricultural technologies and ultimately the technology we call civilization. Of course, for civilization to survive as an island of order it had to build scenarios for the management of its operation, i.e., institutional technologies.

And, herein is the most overlooked, yet central survival issue for our species:

Like all technologies, our three most basic technologies — symbolic, civilizational and institutional — are all double-edged swords.

While in a historical context these basic technologies have often generated societal consternation, they’re generally seen as a net positive. But, in a larger evolutionary context, there’s more than societal consternation at issue.

Individually and collectively, what’s increasingly visible is that the path these technologies have pursued are tending toward a dark, negative side of the sword. Consequently, they’re producing extraordinary amounts of entropy at an accelerating rate.

Humanity’s Achilles heel

While scenario building enabled us to evolve to the top of the biological food chain, it’s clear we are neither the crown of creation nor immune to the entropy cycle. Indeed, as astronomer Carl Sagan noted, there’s probably only a 0.001 percent chance any civilization in the cosmos survives its technological epoch.

For us as a species, the problem associated with this stacked cosmic deck is perhaps best articulated by evolutionary biologist E.O. Wilson, who said:

Humanity’s problem today is that we have Paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions, and god-like technology.

Said differently, our biology, civilization and technological capabilities are now completely out of sync. If so, it would seem wise — as a species and civilization — to assume our island is increasingly vulnerable to a decline toward disorder (i.e., entropy), regardless of Bill Joy’s concern.

In this respect, the root problem seems to be that, emotionally and institutionally, we don’t see ourselves as a species. Of course, no civilization or its primary institutions have ever promoted our identity as “human.”

To the contrary, civilization has always steadfastly and aggressively promoted our identity in fractional, fragmented and oppositional terms — religious, ethnic, racial, nationalistic, economic (e.g., developed vs. undeveloped), time (e.g., modern vs. post-modern) or regional (e.g., Western vs. Asian).

This is, however, a dangerously unfortunate juxtaposition of species for civilization.

As noted, civilization is a technology our species invented to help us better survive. It’s akin to how ant-colonies or beehives, for example, are technological manifestations of ant and bee species respectively.

But, while species and their organizational technologies have an important symbiotic relationship (e.g., extended phenotype), they are not synonymous. The organizational technology is created to benefit the species, NOT the other way around.

While ants and bees lack scenario building skills to change the design and operation of their organizational technology, there’s no limit on how we can change the design and operation of ours as a civilization.

The point is that, regardless of the terminology or referential scale, civilization is a technology we create and NOT us as a species.

Civilization as technology

The juxtaposing of civilization for us as a species really does have serious consequences. This is especially so in terms of understanding how and where entropy is occurring.

Simply put, it’s the institutions used to maintain civilization that directly impact the path and rate of entropy, yet makes entropy less visible or appreciated.

Thus, as the scale of civilization and the velocity of change increase, the path institutions pursue must increase the rate of entropy generated to sustain both its order and disorder needs. Conscious awareness of this situation means we’d be wise — as a species and civilization — to pursue a “mini-max” approach to mitigating the entropy cycle’s impact:

• Minimize the rate of entropy generated on the path civilization pursues
• Maximize the creation of routes to new islands of civilizational order.

For example, we’ve begun using this mini-max approach in response to climate change, albeit hesitantly. In this instance, the path entropy is pursuing (i.e., excess greenhouse gases) and rate entropy being generated (i.e., global temperature rise) are scientifically well-documented. Thus, civilization has initiated actions to

• minimize the rate of entropy produced on the path we’re pursuing (e.g., less fossil fuel usage) and;
• maximize the creation of routes to new islands (e.g., renewable energy, migrating into space and other planets).

What’s particularly ironic, of course, is that, while we see and acknowledge the entropy cycle on an environmental scale, we don’t see or acknowledge this cycle on a civilization scale. Yet, it’s this civilizational scale that poses our most serious existential threat. Thus, the all-important questions we should be asking are:

• What’s the path civilization’s institutions are pursuing and adding entropy?
• What’s the rate of entropy being added to civilization by its institutions?
• What routes are open to create new islands of civilizational order?

The civilizational path pursued

As our species grew in scale from tribes to a civilization, the velocity of change accelerated and institutional technologies were needed to create islands of order internally and externally. Unsurprisingly, the earliest institutions were founded on the primal physical principle of “might makes right.”

In technological terms, establishing this might makes right principle meant weaponizing institutions to operationalize and enforce the contemporary, albeit arbitrary, definition of “order.” To institutionalize this order requires “energy” to be expended/consumed in the form of human, financial and other resources, which sets in motion the civilizational entropy cycle.

Historically, we know that as the scale and diversity of civilization evolved, this primal might makes right path has remained the foundational core of every institutional technological arrangement in history (e.g., authoritarian, despotic, aristocratic and republican). Thus, it’s the extent to which weaponized institutions can be made to insure might makes right that ultimately reflects the rate of entropy in civilization.

To be sure, every civilization in history has romanticized some David versus Goliath situation. In reality, however, any David-like situation poses a threat to civilization’s Goliath (e.g., Hobbes’ leviathan). Consequently, to preempt David-like situations institutional weapons are invariably improved or created, thereby increasing the rate of entropy as civilization evolves.

Weaponizing institutions — physically

Of course, one lesson of history is that every might makes right effort to weaponize institutions is inherently alienating to some of the population (e.g., Hegel’s dialectic of history ). Historically, we also know that such alienation has often led to civil unrest, armed conflicts and wars (i.e., an accelerant to the rate of entropy in civilization).

Aside from the resulting extraordinary human carnage, armed conflicts and wars are especially expensive undertakings that require an endless supply of resources, armaments, transportation, food, clothing, shelter and other logistical support systems. Yet, beyond the dubious benefits from pillaging the vanquished, might makes right combatants don’t generate income.

So, it’s no coincidence that virtually every civilization has made the promotion, production and sale of lethal technologies for civil unrest, armed conflict and war profitable at every scale of activity (i.e., military-industrial complex).

• Internally, for law enforcement, and to resolve interpersonal and tribal conflicts.
• Externally, with 20th century weapons of mass destruction (WMD) for mutually assured destruction (MAD) — extinction of us as a species —we’ve reached the logical conclusion.

The sheer number and frequency of incidents related to civil unrest, armed conflicts and wars — past and present — alone should suffice to indicate the path of weaponized institutions to advance might makes right is ultimately of limited benefit to us as a species. More to the point, it reflects an assumption that entropy doesn’t apply to us as a civilization or as a species.

The reality is, however, that the growing diversity of these weaponized institutions, lethal technologies and their escalating cost dramatically accelerates the rate of entropy in civilization.

Lethal death spiral

The entirety of human history clearly shows that every lethal technological advantage used in an armed conflict and or war is temporary. That, inevitably, some new, more lethal technology is created that manages to circumvent and undermine an adversary’s prior advantage. Today, this arms-race has evolved at a

• localized scale toward terrorism
• civilizational scale toward biological, cyber, nanotech and artificial intelligence WMD’s.

Of course, each additional new WMD exponentially increases the likelihood of an error or miscalculation. Yet, despite the extraordinary and escalating expense, and the existential risk of continuing to pursue this might makes right weaponized institutional path, there’s absolutely no sense of an end short of deliberate or accidental extinction.

Thus, seems reasonable to assume we’re pursuing a civilizational path guaranteed to not just accelerate the rate of entropy dramatically, but exponentially increase the risk of human extinction. It’s tantamount to a death spiral or, if you prefer, suicide on a species scale.

Lethal end game

The importance of computational technology (i.e., mathematics) emerged with writing to provide asymmetric knowledge that strengthened early institutions. Still, it wasn’t until the 19th century that serious math — statistics, ballistics, probabilities and economics — were specifically used to weaponize institutional might makes right. The application of computers, algorithms and statistics to the Cold War missile and space programs, and later surveillance, espionage and the financial industry, dramatically accelerated the weaponizing of institutions.

In this context, the path going forward is clear: to quantify the entirety of civilization for statistical analysis. Consequently, civilization is now racing to weaponize big data and machine learning leading to artificial intelligence (AI).

So, every institution — military, intelligence, law enforcement and economic — is now, or is preparing to, weaponize AI to monitor and regulate some part of civilization. But, it’s also clear that this is a mere prelude to what’s expected to be the decisive weaponized application of might makes right — artificial general intelligence (AGI).

With AGI initially oriented toward might makes right, as opposed to pursuit of routes to new civilizational islands, civilization is poised to possess weaponized institutions with unlimited and probably uncontrollable power.

Thus, since it’s extremely unlikely that the might makes right AGI application will be abandoned, AGI is likely to be the ultimate existential threat to us as a species. If so, the current computational path will rapidly and dramatically accelerate the rate of entropy in civilization beyond human comprehension.

Weaponizing institutions — verbally

From the dawn of civilization, the technology of writing has been used as an institutional weapon. Writing enabled for the first time in history vertical communication flows, hierarchical differentiation of people, and identified who had the power to have might make right.

As the scale of civilization grew and weaponized institutions flourished with writing, the refuge of last resort, words, ushered in the Axial Age and its verbiage. Of course, this initial tonic for despair eventually morphed into strident, capricious, yet capacious verbiage for the benefit of weaponized institutions and orthodoxies. As a result, god became an agnostic enabler to all sides in every conflict.

The ease of copying words with print overwhelmed institutions based on writing, especially with the new emphasis on the-law and ideas for republican governance. In this respect, the Enlightenment expectation was that experience with the-law would objectively articulate fair and just behavior. Moreover, that the accumulated layers of legal precedents would evolve to perfect civilization without weaponized institutions for might making right.

The-law as might makes right

Alas, the inherent capacious relativity of words and their prior utility with weaponized aristocratic and religious institutions wasn’t lost in translation to a print-based civilization. Consequently, legal verbiage was quickly weaponized for both judicial and political institutions to combat adversaries.

• Internally, the primary duty of every legal system is reification of its institutions. Thus, as every law student learns, there’s no justice system, only a legal system. That there’s no law, only judges who, ultimately, are as arbitrary and capricious as their pious orthodox predecessors.
• Externally, while genuflecting to the need for an international legal system, all elites — autocrats and republicans — fear its morphing into a globally weaponized institution at their expense. Thus, beyond a tacit agreement that the-law is occasionally useful, any consequential enforceability is an illusory dalliance that leaves civilization’s might making right intact.

As it now stands, the-law and republican verbiage has simply become a more subtle and sophisticated way to weaponize institutions and for might making right.

Of course, as the scale of civilization and velocity of change has increased, the inadequacy and arbitrariness of the-law and its reliance on the past and precedents has also increased. As a result, the diversity and granularity of people’s lives in the rapidly changing civilizational environment has made the-law so contorted, strained and protracted as to be repugnant to all but practiced apologists.

Thus, in both a judicial and political context, use of the-law as constituted doesn’t effectively scale internally or externally. However, for weaponized institutions the-law does ensure that those with greater financial or institutional resources do have the verbal equivalence of might makes right.

Of course, as with the physical arms-race, the capacious relativity of words was always a verbal arms-race. Thus, the might makes right path civilization is pursuing has both a physical and verbal component that in combination act as an accelerant to increase the rate of entropy.

Relativistic death spiral

From the start, the vertical communication benefits of electronic media — e.g., radio, film and television — were quickly weaponized for institutional ends (e.g., ideological and propaganda). In fact, it has become de rigueur for any institution — authoritarian and republican — to weaponize each medium for psychological warfare against any perceived internal or external adversary.

The Internet, of course, started life as an institutional weapon (i.e., in event of nuclear war) providing both vertical and horizontal communication. As such, shortly after becoming available for public use, it quickly morphed into the ultimate institutional weapon — constant and ubiquitous mass surveillance.

• Internally, there’s now effectively an accessible cradle to grave dossier on everyone and no real privacy. This dramatically increases adversarial friction points, the ability to enforce might makes right and the potential for abuse (i.e., surveillance-industrial complex).
• Externally, all space and time barriers between competing authoritarian and republican approaches to civilization have been effectively eliminated. This increases adversarial friction points while simultaneously reducing the margin for error and reaction time in any conflict to virtually zero.

While all media have been institutionally weaponized, the Internet insures might makes right internally. However, externally, it has made us as a species vulnerable to the existential risk of the MAD arms-race in unprecedented ways.

So, adding the Internet to the path weaponized institutions are now pursuing is an accelerant that’s dramatically increasing both the rate and amount of entropy experienced.

Event horizon

While weaponized institutions for might making right in the past had some utility as a path to order (e.g., the social contract to avoid the Hobbesian nasty and brutish state of nature), as a civilizational technology this path has now become an end in itself. So, historically, as the scale of civilization grew, adversarial conflicts, internally and externally, grew and never abated.

Instead of creating a wise civilization, we’ve succeeded in establishing a nasty and brutish civilization. Thus, this path is now solely oriented to:

• Penalizing and preempting change away from might making right
• Ensuring those with power stay in power.

The fact is that weaponized institutions have lost credibility to all but partisan sycophants, ideologues and the naïve. Thus, as with the-law, capacious verbiage has excoriated objective facts in favor of truthiness and spin.

Yet, in this post-fact, post-truth era, those controlling institutional weapons have the ability to distort or preempt any collective conversation aimed assessing

• the efficacy of the path pursued, and
• any exploration of routes to create new civilizational islands.

Nonetheless, as the velocity of change accelerates ever faster, the rate of entropy being generating by civilization is becoming increasingly visible in all domains.

Slowly, but surely, the dark side of civilization as a doubled-edge technology is becoming visible. Like the outline of a diseased apparition, what we’re beginning to see is a mutant-gene or cancer that’s in the process of metastasizing and decomposing its host species, humanity.

The house always wins

The task of weaponized institutions — to always advance the existing civilizational path — makes them disinterested in us as a species, and thus too slow to see our existential risk. If, as expected, civilization continues down its might makes right path, and ever more out of sync with our survival as a species, small navigational errors are both inevitable and certain to have huge consequences.

So, at this point, it seems reasonable to assume that, as the velocity of change ahead continues accelerating, continued pursuit of the existing civilizational path will ensure the rate of entropy also accelerates.

Thus, the accumulated effect of disorder — entropy — will become more widespread. Moreover, beyond some point, probably not very much farther down this path, it’s also reasonable to expect weaponized institutions will become ever less relevant to anything positive in our evolution.

Consequently, as a species, we’re left waiting for some nonlinear, black-swan event — some existential supernova. Anesthetized and somnambulant, civilization is blithely pushing us toward Bill Joy’s emerging technologies as the ultimate arbiter of our future as a species on behalf of cosmic evolution.

Only the paranoid are wise enough to survive

The laws of physics are universally applicable. The evolution of the cosmos and the entropy cycle are irrefutable. And, the cosmos is agnostic about the survival of us as a species.

At this point, continuing to subscribe to the primal principle that might makes right is still useful to our species’ evolution reflects an inadequacy in human thinking — Paleolithic emotions. Indeed, it’s probably our species’ most dangerous trait. A trait civilization’s weaponized — medieval — institutions have always preyed upon historically.

Thus, today, short of asserting might makes right, calling someone cynical is a cheap way to discredit the validity of criticism against weaponized institutions. Yet, 5000 years of civilization is itself an extended essay on how cynics are rarely skeptical enough.

Clearly, what’s wise and required is an honest assessment of

• Our civilization as a technology
• Civilization’s reliance on weaponized institutions
• The benefits of a mini-max approach to our entropy cycle
• A systematic exploration of routes to the creation of new islands of order.

Unfortunately, there’s no indication civilization is wise enough to make such an assessment.

Routes to new islands

The only routes open for us as a species to explore and create new islands of order require the turning of civilization inside out. That is, to minimize the rate of entropy being generated by weaponized institutions.

Doing this requires employing technologies, especially digital ones, to explore and create new and different civilizational orders (e.g., representational, knowledge, post-capitalist, content curation, process, and paradigmatic changes).

Absent pursuit of a route to a new island, we’re hostage to the weird belief that might makes right ends well for us as a species. Unfortunately, the probability of that outcome is, as Carl Sagan calculated, probably infinitely small. Instead, there’s an exceeding high probability that entropy asserts control over us as a species and any further human evolution.

If so, as Bill Joy surmised, emerging technologies are poised to be the evolutionary beneficiary of our species’ misfortune (e.g., civilization’s absolute reliance on might makes right) and our inability to adapt to the changing environment.

Simply put, the civilization we have evolved probably guarantees the survival of our species will not be ours to make. That the cosmos, not us as a species, has the final vote on our extinction.

If you enjoyed this post, and want to share it, please hit “Recommend” below. Thanks! It helps spread these ideas!

You can find more of my ideas at my Medium publication, A Passion to Evolve or my website dochuston1. com

In any case, may you live long and prosper.

Doc Huston