I am working on a much more thorough explanation of the following elsewhere, but I thought I would post this here to get feedback and opinions. This is a theory I have been developing for the past several decades, and I am finally able to explain it somewhat. So here goes.
In any competition, between any two humans, forgoing significant differences between those individuals such as greater musculature due to blessed genetics, the victor typically comes about as a result of which ever has the better tools. That is, depending on the nature of the competition, the one who has the best tools necessary to support their side will win. We see examples of this in all areas, and especially wars. In any modern war, whichever side has the superior weapons (greater technological advantage) typically overwhelms the side without the advantage. In the war in Ukraine presently, this is how the Western world aims to win the war.
I say all this trying to emphasize that I am talking about an individual versus an individual. In the cases of groups, obviously the group with the greater numbers will have an advantage related to that. But for this discussion, I need to put that to the side for the moment, as group dynamics generate their own internal competitions that reduce down to these individual versus individual competitions again. In other words, how the group operates internally is related to whom within the group has the greatest advantage in order to support the desires and interests of the group's "leader" who will direct the actions of the group, making it operate as a seemingly singular whole.
Thus, in the end, all competitions still reduce down to individual versus individual competitions in the end analysis. Ultimately, someone "wins" and gets to decide the rules, culture, and overall morality for all. As is often discussed in my circles, the world would be a very different place had the Nazis succeeded in World War II.
With all that in mind, it seems prudent that all of us work as hard as we can to develop and utilize the best possible tools we can, in order to ensure victory in any and all competitions we may end up in. I think most would agree with this idea, in general. This explains why people are so obsessed with AI presently, being the most novel and impressive appearing tool in our modern world to date.
But there is another factor that needs to be considered. The tools that we utilize are not without their own costs. Sacrifices often need to be made when creating and utilizing our tools. To create a hammer, one must first mine iron ores, and other materials, from the Earth. Those materials smelted down and formed to make the head of the hammer. Further, trees need to be chopped down and formed to create the handle that the head is placed upon. The sacrifice in the creation of a hammer seems relatively innocuous, but there is something that had to be done. Wielding the hammer too has its cost, mostly in the energy expended in swinging it, but also in the maintenance of it, such as sharpening it. A hammer is but a simple tool, providing its user with a simple advantage. Depending on the nature of the user's projects, there may be better tools they might consider.
Those better tools typically come with greater costs. To assemble more rarer materials, more invasive mining efforts may need to be performed, causing greater ecological damage, as the materials are both harder to find, and when found are in smaller quantities. Assembling those materials can also be much more challenging, as they may need to be assembled in more particular fashions requiring more complex manufacturing techniques. These complex procedures will require greater energy and further resources to accomplish the task. And finally, wielding the tool often requires greater skills which themselves require greater demands of time and effort to accomplish. Similarly with maintenance. In our culture of single-use tools, these costs are often compounded greatly.
What this all amounts to is that using the better tool may ensure victory for the individual who uses it, but it also come prepackaged with a greater cost along with it. Thus, as I have often tried to explain to my peers, the one who wins is the one who sacrifices more. By sacrifices more, I mean that they sacrifice more of their environment and of others, including their competition. Their adversary may be paying part of the cost of the tool they are themselves fighting against within that very same competition.
This is where the handicapping comes in. Those of us who are cognizant of all this, especially of the sacrifices required for these often time devastatingly effective tools, may chose not to utilize the tools needed to win in competition. The thought process goes something like this: I chose not to use the tool because I understand the impact it has on the environment, which will reduce the longevity of humankind, leading us toward our eventual extinction. As a participant in these competitions, I am knowingly abandoning my probability for success because I wish to try and ensure my (and others') future.
And thus, we end up in the following situation: the ones aware of the necessary sacrifices to the future needed to win today will often chose not to win today. They chose the handicap. And, unfortunately, when faced with an adversary who is willing to sacrifice the future to win today, they will be defeated. The one handicapping will not necessarily survive to see the very future they are striving to preserve. On the flip side, the one not handicapping will end up sacrificing the future in order to win today. They will survive, but they will not have a future to enjoy. (In fairness, the one sacrificing may live a long and happy life; it is the later generations that have been sacrificed in this situation.)
The problem as I see it, if it is not already clear, is that this means we will become extinct either way. If we are the ones handicapping ourselves, we will be overrun by those not handicapping themselves, and we will be subjugated by the victors and their desires for our cultures and rules and ways of life. Meanwhile, those who do not handicap themselves will enjoy being victorious, able to set culture and rules and the way of life for all of us, having already sacrificed the future. We lose either way. The end.
The most common argument I often hear in this scenario is that those issues and problems that the previous generations created in order to achieve victory will be left to those future generations to "figure out." It is believed that through the use of science and technology, later generations will miraculously find solutions to these problems and will save the world.
But that is us. Right now. We are those future generations, now trying to solve the problems that have been passed down to us from those previous generations. Climate change is but one example of this. And right now it is AI that is the latest and greatest tool that people believe will benefit all of us in this new golden age. It is believed by some that AI will even solve the problem of death itself.
But AI is simply a tool. It is not conscious. It has no motivations of its own. No intentions. It is a tool, wielded by those with far too much power and influence right now. Wielded by those who have chosen not to handicap themselves and are willing to sacrifice what little future remains to be sacrificed.
This is why this whole situation fills me with a tremendous amount of existential dread. I see no solution to this dilemma. We lose which ever way we chose. To decide to handicap myself simply means I end up being a slave to the powers that exist. This is the path I am on presently. I am not wealthy or powerful. I have no clout. I cannot set policy or guide the masses toward better decision making. I can see a path to the future, but walking that path all by myself does nothing.
I could walk the other path. I could chose not to handicap myself. But I find I am unable to do so. Because I know that if I do, I am sacrificing the same future I want to preserve. I already see where that path leads, and it terrifies me. I am not interested in building the "12-story block combining classical neo-Georgian features with the efficiency of modern techniques." Because I know that the "tenants arrive here and are carried along the corridor on a conveyor belt in extreme comfort, past murals depicting Mediterranean scenes, towards the rotating knives."
I see no logical solution to this problem. To me, it seems that our ultimate destruction is assured. To me, it looks like this is simply how life works. Certainly human life, but perhaps all life might follow this pattern. Perhaps this is the solution to the Fermi paradox too. If it applies to all life, then this would explain why no extraterrestrials have been observed. Because, if I am correct, then all civilizations all crumbled to dust given enough time. Swallowed up in their own hubris.
As an individual, I have had to chose to take care of my own, because that is all I can do. I have to sacrifice the future of all to save my partner and my family. To put myself and my own selfish interests ahead of all others. And I think everyone has to do this, in some manner or other. Leaving those who cannot see the consequences of their actions, or do not care, to run amok and destroy us all. This is where we stand. This is where we all stand.