Some thoughts are rolling round in my dome and not well formed yet, but I want to puke them out to help structure them.
Is the current political environment a representation of singularity? In technology, there is an idea that each new technology benefits from the one before it, making things "progress" at an exponential rate, which functionally leaves the old in the dust of the new. It is a form of darwinism, where the strong survive and procreate.
Does thought progress the same way? I hate to use the term "intelligence" because that gets a bit Hitler-y. But let's say that progressive ideas or "thought" develops based on new information like technology. If ideas are created, are they not tools for developing new ideas, which can beget more new ideas faster? I would hazard a guess that the closer you are to the vanguard of these thoughts/ideas/information the more likely you are to expand your thought into new areas. I would imagine that this "thought" doesn't trickle down quickly and easily to all, and that the "few" progressive thinkers accelerate and pull away from "many" conservative thinkers. When faced with radical new ideas, do the conservative thinkers cling to what they know for comfort rather than adopt strange new, nontraditional ideas?
Assuming not all people will adopt new thoughts, and knowing that people live a long time, is it not reasonable to expect there is a significant portion of the population which will not rapidly embrace "new" thoughts? As the new thoughts progress faster and faster, doesn't this create a greater divide between the new and old schools? Not wanting to be left behind, wouldn't it be reasonable to expect that the old school would dig in and resist change, in order to try keeping things consistent with their worldview?
I suppose I'm driving at a the idea that there is a large number of conservative thinkers who don't want radical change, and are willing to support political candidates who only seek the types of changes which will hold the status quo. Opposite them are the progressives who start pulling away, chasing new thoughts, and the farther out you go in the name of progress the more it moves the midline of the fence that splits conservatives and progressives in terms of headcount. At some point, the less-progressive thinkers don't progress fast enough and find themselves in the conservative camp, supporting candidates they don't care for, but provide some degree of comfort on key issues.
Is the current political environment a representation of singularity? In technology, there is an idea that each new technology benefits from the one before it, making things "progress" at an exponential rate, which functionally leaves the old in the dust of the new. It is a form of darwinism, where the strong survive and procreate.
Does thought progress the same way? I hate to use the term "intelligence" because that gets a bit Hitler-y. But let's say that progressive ideas or "thought" develops based on new information like technology. If ideas are created, are they not tools for developing new ideas, which can beget more new ideas faster? I would hazard a guess that the closer you are to the vanguard of these thoughts/ideas/information the more likely you are to expand your thought into new areas. I would imagine that this "thought" doesn't trickle down quickly and easily to all, and that the "few" progressive thinkers accelerate and pull away from "many" conservative thinkers. When faced with radical new ideas, do the conservative thinkers cling to what they know for comfort rather than adopt strange new, nontraditional ideas?
Assuming not all people will adopt new thoughts, and knowing that people live a long time, is it not reasonable to expect there is a significant portion of the population which will not rapidly embrace "new" thoughts? As the new thoughts progress faster and faster, doesn't this create a greater divide between the new and old schools? Not wanting to be left behind, wouldn't it be reasonable to expect that the old school would dig in and resist change, in order to try keeping things consistent with their worldview?
I suppose I'm driving at a the idea that there is a large number of conservative thinkers who don't want radical change, and are willing to support political candidates who only seek the types of changes which will hold the status quo. Opposite them are the progressives who start pulling away, chasing new thoughts, and the farther out you go in the name of progress the more it moves the midline of the fence that splits conservatives and progressives in terms of headcount. At some point, the less-progressive thinkers don't progress fast enough and find themselves in the conservative camp, supporting candidates they don't care for, but provide some degree of comfort on key issues.
