/lit/ - Literature

>>3497250
>Outside threats would kill us sooner.
Inside threats are bearing down on us RIGHT NOW.

Suppose you're walking across a one-track railway bridge that spans a coastal bay and you see an oncoming train speeding towards you. You're not that high up off the water; you know the water's deep enough that you could survive the jump and warm enough that you could probably swim to shore without succumbing to hypothermia or exhaustion.

Do you just stand there and trust that the engineer will be able to apply the brakes in time? Or do you ignore that niggling little voice in the back of your mind that says "what if there's a shark?" and jump for your life?

>I don't think that it will [ruin us] though once we advance more technologically. Technological progress will go a long way towards stabilising the whole thing, even though it might take a few catastrophes before we get to it.
The problems we're trying to solve today with technology are the problems we created for ourselves with technology while we were trying to live up to our cherished mythological narratives about humanity's superiority and privileged place in the universe. To quote Albert Einstein: "No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it."

>[A] retreat into primitive subsistence will lead to being dominated and eventually absorbed by the Taker culture.
Not if we succeed in de-programming all of the Takers living today. Not if we can convince them that the Leaver philosophy can produce a world they would all enjoy living in more. And we can spread new ideas very quickly these days. We actually CAN reach all the Takers. More on that later.