|
|
|
|
|
|
by Felz
2893 days ago
|
|
|
Hm, I'd say not agreeing on facts/truth is more of a byproduct of not agreeing on what we want. As a civilization, we still have the fatal problem that people want what's best for themselves, and we don't have great ways of making them work towards a common good. Worse still, as issues become more complex there are more ways to twist policy towards self-interest while maintaining a facade of group-interest. Evolution has beautifully primed us to do this subconsciously. In this model, peoples' differing self interests leads to them constructing plausible but different arguments over "facts/truth". The conflict resolution mechanisms (argument) that used to work start breaking down. Society polarizes, stops agreeing on things, and eventually reverts to violence. I don't think this is The Great Filter though. More likely our civilization disintegrates until it reaches a level of complexity we can handle again, but it's not going to be totally wiped out. |
|
|
I think people assume it often, but I don't think the Great Filter actually requires destruction of the species/civilization. Maybe it _is_ nukes, or bioweapons; or maybe, the Great Filter (or _a_ Great Filter) is #7 on Hanson's list[0], "Tool-using animals with big brains". So there could be plenty of species out there that use tools and even have civilization, but not enough or the right kind of brainpower for developing space travel. So the Great Filter could be a rigid wall that prevents further progress towards space travel, or an elastic trampoline that keeps pushing civilizations back whenever they get too close to it (what you said). Or it could be a wood chipper. We can only speculate.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter#The_Great_Filter
[note] I say "space travel", but this also includes remotely-detectable signs of intelligence (e.g. signals, or Dyson spheres), and if our remote sensing gets good enough, of life.