The fastest we humans have ever travelled is 25,000 mph (40,000kph). That was 50 years ago, and no human has yet to travel that fast since. We’ve discussed a great number of ways that technology is advancing ever faster, but moving people through space isn’t one of them. That’s because moving people around very quickly runs into the laws of physics, which are intractable. We can cleverly manipulate these laws using massive amounts of resources, but we can’t override them.
Humans, most likely, will some day go faster than 25,000 miles per hour. Using relatively well understood nuclear power, we believe we could accelerate ourselves to roughly 1/10th the speed of light. Should we eventually overcome the many engineering challenges of creating, storing, and safely using anti-matter, we could even conceivably reach speeds of ½ the speed of light. That’s about as fast as we can go, however, given the laws of physics we currently understand.
In addition to the hundreds if not thousands of years it would take for us to overcome the engineering challenges to reach these speeds, physics presents some other obstacles for us should we ever wish to better explore our universe. One problem is that we can only accelerate so fast without destroying the human body. If you’ve ever accelerated from 0-60mph in 5 seconds, you may have noted that’s about as much excitement as you could comfortably handle. If we were to accelerate to half the speed of light at what would feel like earth’s gravity, it would take us 6 months. Additionally, when travelling at half the speed of light, a few hydrogen atoms in our way could obliterate any material currently known to man.
The problem with the speed of light, however, isn’t that it’s too fast, but rather too slow, particularly when compared with the scale of the universe. If we simultaneously launched 11 spacecraft, all travelling at half the speed of light, it would still take 100 years to reach the 11 known planets in anything like an orbit that could sustain within that range. Were those missions successful, it would take another 50 years until their radio transmissions reached earth to let us know.
These are some pretty ambitious numbers, but not entirely improbable. It’s conceivable that humans could touch another planet outside our solar system where they wouldn’t be instantly vaporized within a thousand years or so if we really wanted to. Discovering life outside of our planet, however, is an entirely other question. When we consider the many variables required for life to have been born on planet earth, and given how utterly barron even the planets in our own solar system are, the preconditions for the spontaneous creation of the resource consuming entities we call life appear to be quite particular and rare.
Although we’re playing with numbers we have limited insight on, given the resources required for space travel, the distances that must be covered, and the statistical rarity of life, even if we generously speculated that one in a million habitable planets might spontaneously produce life, we’re looking at about 250,000 to a million years before we might find extraterrestrial life.
Finally, if we supposed that such life was intelligent and technologically advanced, we might suppose our first contact wouldn’t be in person, but rather through information sent through space. The tragic thing, of course, is that even if we did someday receive a transmission from another world, it would likely have taken so long to reach us, that it would encapsulate what that other society was like, not now, but millions of years ago. Our reply, should we conceive of how to send one, would then reach them an equally long time after it was sent.
The reason I write all of the above is that this is the reality of humans reaching out to another non-human intelligence. The fact is, the most likely scenario for humanity is that we shall fade from existence altogether, whether through the loss of this planet or by transforming intelligent life so radically that it would no longer qualify as human, without ever experiencing another intelligence that isn’t a fellow earthling or one of our creations. Such are the laws of physics, intractable and indifferent to what we may want.
If you’ve managed to read the posts before this one, you may have been at least amused by what has preceded. Afterall, how can one not appreciate the audacity of writing down a new faith in the 21st century. I’m glad if I could at least provide an hour or two of enjoyment, but before we wind down this section of Thanatism and Society, I’d like to leave you with a final thought–Thanatism is real.
Unlike our hopes to one day be rescued by an intelligence not our own, Thantism doesn’t run up against the laws of physics. In fact, there is nothing that prevents Thanatism, as roughly related, to become the reality here on earth. Social structures are undoubtedly intractable, but that intractability dissolves when the people from which those structures emanate, themselves, transform. And the transformation that Thanatism asks of each of us, including you, my dear, amused reader, is absolutely possible and in fact can happen right now.
And does Thanatism ask so much of you? Does it ask you to believe some ancient culture knew the secrets of the universe? Does it ask you to worship something that you cannot see? It doesn’t even require you to go to the gym a few times a week. In fact, what it asks requires no effort at all–just the opposite. Thanatism asks us to simply let go. It just asks us to stop fighting the world we live in and what it has to say about what we are. It just asks us to stop pretending we’re something that we’re not, and to accept each other for what we are.
This is the reality of Thanatism. Should you agree to let go, you will change. Should a few of us let go, we shall be able to commune with each other on a level so real, we have seldom gotten to experience it before. Should enough of us let go, we might even develop a small community where we can explore new ways to live. Should, however, most of us, or possibly even all of us, choose to let go, I can promise you that this world will undergo a transformation no less extraordinary than if ET were to beam down and tell us its perspective on the universe, for that other being wouldn’t be able to share with us anything as transformative as that which we already know.
Throughout my career, although I built many software solutions in an effort to solve a number of what I viewed as unjust social structures, no self-inflicted wound of society consumed me more than the seemingly rampant destruction of authentic community. How could we, as beings who derive so much joy from communing with others, have created a society where such authentic being-with has become so difficult?
It was during an early product meeting at one of those companies where I had what I considered a breakthrough in understanding this problem. During these meetings we would spend hundreds of hours trying to understand how communities work and how we might build software worlds that could promote human connection. At the end of what felt like another fruitless discussion, I erased all our diagrams and workflows from the whiteboard, and instead drew four names.
These names were of the people whom I had become friends with over the past few years. I then began to simply tell my team the stories of how we had met and how our relationships had developed. The first thing we discovered is that I didn’t really share that many interests with them. Given that we were often thinking of building communities of interest, this was an important insight.
The more shocking thing was that when I first met each of these people, I didn’t even really like them. What had actually happened was that my wife had developed relationships with their wives. Because of this, I had been forced repeatedly into social situations with these guys. I didn’t really want to do this, but the social situations were benign enough, and ultimately, I didn’t really have a choice.
What happened through these safe, repeated interactions was that we began to develop some history together. What had at first blush appeared as irreconcilable differences, became the quirks that made them who they were. Interactions that had felt forced, now felt natural. Instead of dreading these get-togethers, I began to look forward to them and even encourage them. In other words, we had become friends.
As I went deeper, back into my life, I saw a similar pattern. It wasn’t that I had repeatedly stumbled upon people who were perfectly suited to me. It wasn’t that there had been the perfect social preconditions for community development. Throughout my life, it was simply a matter of safe, repeated interactions that had made the magic of human connection bloom.
Religious institutions are dying in the Western world. Modern cities in the west are littered with the corpses of abandoned churches and synagogues that are either being destroyed, converted into commercial enterprises, or visited primarily by tourists exploring their architectural history. I don’t think this is because modern humans suffer from too much community. I don’t believe it’s because secular equivalents have risen to the occasion of helping us build the deep and meaningful relationships so essential to human happiness.
I believe the biggest issue with these institutions is that what gave them their vitality was that they were institutions of faith. In fact, those religious institutions that continue to grow are explicitly those who practice a more fundamentalist or evangelical breed of their religion–in other words, those whose members actually believe.
The problem is that it’s becoming increasingly intellectually untenable in a world that has learned so much about itself over the past few hundred years to base one’s core beliefs on stories written long ago by primitive people. We might be willing to visit these ancient texts, just like we visit ancient ruins of all societies–because some truths don’t change and sometimes the new obscures what was clear to the old. But asking a modern human being to believe the details are actually true? That’s more than the modern mind can bear.
Will Thanatism be able to build new, believable religious institutions?–a lofty goal indeed! I don’t know that any faith will be powerful enough to drag our overworked bodies out of bed on a weekend morning anymore. If it were, I suspect those mornings would be greeted with the same skepticism of any church-going dad who had to miss Sunday football or crusty-eyed kid dragged to Sunday school in the good old days.
Having said that, Thanatism doesn’t require any suspension of our ordinary ways of thinking to believe. It does possess the ability to transform the believer, just like the faiths of old did. And I do remember attending religious services as a true believer. They were different and possessed a vitality that’s difficult to explain.
And even if a place for Thanatists to gather doesn’t induce the religious fervor of the past, it could still perhaps serve as a place for safe, repeated interactions, a place where ordinary people could take a moment out of their week to join with others to reflect together on this conundrum we all find ourselves in called life. Perhaps we might even sing some songs together and share a meal.
Should Thanatism provide such a simple place where people could gather together and feel less alone for a bit, should we be able to rediscover a belief which can be common to us all, the kind which, when felt in the past, in other forms, has created places of genuine care, then we shall know we have truly arrived. For Thanatism is not a philosophy. It is not an argument. Rather, Thanatism is a faith, a faith for ordinary people to circle around and collectively remember that we, broken humans, are all that we have.
All faiths share certain characteristics. None of them are 100% verifiable, though some are more likely than others. They are all lay claim to the truth, though some require special ways of thinking. They also all set something at the core of the human person’s being, but that which sits at that core differs. Although all faiths share these similarities, that which they set at the core matters. It matters because the core of the faith defines the actions of the person of integrity, and how that core belief directs the person of integrity to act has ramifications for us all.
Unlike many traditional faiths, Thanatism is a faith of “this”. Whereas many faiths teach that this life is simply a warmup for the much greater life of the ever-me, Thanatism teaches us that this life is all we shall ever know. How does that key difference affect other beliefs and the actions they promote?
Assuming we’re judged in the next life by what we do in this life, and that the judge in the next life expects us to treat our fellow humans with respect and dignity, we may do good. If however, the judge in the next life spurns those who don’t believe in his judgement, we may too spurn those whom he would deem unworthy. We may end relationships with family and friends who don’t believe in that judge. We may even find it justifiable to hurt or murder those unbelievers in our future judge’s name.
With Thanatism, there is no future life. This means we can live this life without fear of judgement in another world. This may mean that we disregard the well-being of others and treat them with disrespect if we can get away with it. It may mean, however, that we know that those with whom we share this earth are all we shall ever know. It may mean that we understand that our lives are the only thing each of us truly possesses, and so life ought to be respected at all costs. It may mean that we work diligently to ensure that our social institutions are just, as they are the only justice any of us shall ever receive.
Many faiths teach that there is another world, one entirely separate from this universe. Sometimes there are multiple worlds–one for the good, one for the bad, and even one for those who have yet to choose. This may incline such believers to strive to justify their place in the good other-world. It may, however, help them to disregard how their actions affect the current world we all inhabit.
With Thantism, we know of no other universe. This world is the only one we shall ever know. This may mean we have no fear of retribution should we destroy it. It may mean, however, that we know that any destructive act against this world is equally an act of destruction against ourselves. It may mean we more carefully consider how our current actions will affect the only world our children will inherit. It may mean we work diligently to protect the only world that we know of where life can exist.
Many faiths teach that there is another being, one much greater than we ourselves will ever be. This may give hope to those who feel powerless. It may give them peace. It may also encourage them to acquiesce to tyrants whose reign is ordained by that higher power. It may lull them into complacency, since their actions can hardly compare to the will of this great other who is ultimately in charge. It may make them, when confronted with great evil, think perhaps that it is Thy will that this be done.
Thanatism teaches us that we humans, the most clever of animal-kind, are the only rulers this world currently knows. This realization that there is no other who can guide us, may cause us anxiety. It may however, also be a rallying cry towards action. It may encourage us to better understand how this world really works. It may burden us with a sense of responsibility that can make us better than we currently are.
This faith–Thanatism–teaches us that this life, and this world, and this people are all there is. It’s terrifying when a child comes to realize that they are now the parent. It’s terrifying when we realize that society is nothing but what we ourselves create. It is terrifying to realize that you are responsible for your life and the lives of others. If, however, that is what is the case, so shall it be.
The previous post began to stray into real world politics. I want to say now though, that I really believe Thanatism is a politically neutral faith. Although it is neutral, from what I’ve written already, you can see that it is certainly not politically benign. In order to demonstrate how it balances neutrality with definition, I’d like to discuss a bit of collusion between the right and the left that’s particularly relevant to Thanatism–something I refer to as, “Polite Society”.
Polite Society is the pact across the political spectrum to not talk about our core beliefs. At first blush, it appears to be an affirmation of individual liberty–no one ought to tell another what they should believe. Afterall, if our own beliefs aren’t sacred personal ground, what is? Although this sounds fine in principle, in reality, it’s not that simple. As we’ve learned, our actions flow from that which we hold as true in our core, and it is exactly these actions that are the subject of public concern. More importantly, we’ve learned that our social structures emanate from our own core values, and anything that determines the social structures that we all must live in, must be subject to public debate.
The point being, if we implicitly ban core beliefs from public discussion, we shall find that we never get to the root of many issues of disagreement when it comes to public policy. This unwillingness to discuss the personal roots of our public issues, is the fruit of polite society. And as I said before, this polite society is a conspiracy across the political spectrum. The left and the right merely use it in different ways.
Take for example, the left’s unwillingness to use the term, “Islamic terrorism”. The left would say that we ought not use this term because most muslims are peaceful, and further, much of what promotes terrorist thinking from these countries is their impoverished conditions, which are in no small part a consequence of policies carried out by the West. Be this as it may, to imply that the faith of the perpetrators of religious wars plays little role in their violence doesn’t do justice to the power of their beliefs. Take it from a former fundamentalist, those who choose to murder others for religious reasons don’t do so nominally–they do so because they are living their faith without contradiction.
A parallel demand from the right is its insistence that schools teach the theory of creationism alongside that of the theory of evolution. The very idea that our educational institutions should treat a scientific theory, supported by nearly endless data that has been subject to exhaustive peer review, the same as a theory written down by primitive people who were making the first human attempts to understand our world is absurd.
Both of these examples of polite society impoverish our ability to form policy. They both rest on an agreed assumption that we don’t have a right as a society to suggest that anyone’s core belief might be subject to error. Although I’m deeply sympathetic to the argument that individuals should have a right to believe what they want, when such beliefs impact the rights of others, they must become the subject of open and honest discussion.
Further, I might suggest that the universality of people’s willingness to exempt our core beliefs from honest public discussion is less a matter of protecting individual liberty, and more a matter of each of us protecting our right to turn away from that which we least want to accept. We don’t want to be questioned about our core beliefs, because we know that if we held them out publicly, they would be exposed as private defences against the painfully public reality that we shall all one day die.
Once again, this is what makes Thanatism such a powerful core belief, not only for us as individuals, but also for society as a whole. Thanatism doesn’t require us to accept a belief that can’t be talked about publicly. It doesn’t ask us to believe something that can’t withstand public scrutiny. Just the opposite–it simply asks us to accept what is a statistical, legal, and utterly public certainty. As such, it can stand as a foundation for public policy and can undermine the endless cycle of disagreement perpetuated by the false premise that respecting another person prevents us from questioning their beliefs. Rather, Thanatism explicitly forces these very beliefs into the realm of public discussion because it is exactly our core beliefs that have public ramifications.
I suspect the above will be one of my least popular posts. Nothing invites public derision like claiming that both the right and left are conspiring to hide the truth. Further, society’s concern to protect our right to believe is absolutely justified, as we have too many times experienced in the past the evil perpetrated by totalitarianism’s thought police. We must admit that there is inherent violence in any totalizing faith–Thanatism included, and that this must be guarded against with the greatest vigor.
But make no mistake, any attempt to exempt core beliefs from public scrutiny will end in exactly what we have today–a world divided. And although there are without doubt fantastic historical reasons to resist any belief that aspires to sit on the throne, ultimately, whether we freely choose that belief or not, that throne will be occupied. Better that we discuss which belief best deserves that place of privilege, rather than forbid this discussion altogether, for it is precisely because of the power of our core beliefs, that they are the ones we most insistently must bring forth into the realm of public discourse.
If you find this new vision of the future terrifying, you’re not alone. We can see the signs of our fear in the world’s flight toward authoritarianism. When societies are afraid, when they feel powerless to control their own destinies, that is when they run into the arms of strong men who promise to bring back what is forever lost.
Sadly, we’ve learned from the past that the promises these strong men make are illusory. We’ve learned that those who put on facades of strength are often those who are most afraid of the real. Strong men gain their power by taking advantage of the weak, and they view a frightened society, not as something to be protected, but rather as easy prey to further advance their own personal immortality projects.
As a Thanatist, I believe we humans are better than this. We don’t need leaders who will sell us empty promises. We don’t need leaders who bully the weak to make themselves look strong. We don’t need leaders who disregard the truth when it’s inconvenient. Just the opposite–we need leaders who are willing to look fearlessly into the future and, like the prophets of old, tell us exactly what we least want to hear.
The lack of truly strong leadership in today’s world, however, isn’t because the world lacks people who can lead well. Rather, we don’t have great leaders in this world because we, ourselves, are not yet worthy. In spite of our outward calls for someone to just stand up and tell the truth, we reject that truth when it doesn’t align with what we want to hear. We have leaders who sing us the sweet songs of fantasy because that is what we desire.
This paradox of our unwillingness to promote those whose voice is exactly what we need in our society mirrors that paradox which lies deep within most all of us. We turn our backs on society’s truth tellers, just as we turn away from the truth teller that lies in us all. This turning away from uncomfortable truths is something we nurture in ourselves, and until we each are willing to exorcise the anxiety that lies at our core, that which we refuse to look at or even name, only then will we be capable of accepting those who themselves see clearly.
The future is bearing down on us at a speed that we can barely comprehend. We as human beings need to find a common ground. We need to take a pause from our frenetic doing and consider what we want. We then need legions of smart, fearless, creative individuals to do what we as humans do best–take reality and mix it with human care to create a better tomorrow for us all.
That is a fearless society. That is something we will never have as long as each of us individually are running from our own mortality. Society is a reflection of each and every one of us. I want social change. I want a world that is united in its efforts to create greatness. I am writing about faith because all of this starts with us. Society doesn’t need to change–we do.
I’d like us to consider work for a bit. Work plays a number of roles for us individually and in society. First and foremost, work is how society gets necessary things done. Take the food chain for example. From research into agricultural methods, to the planting of our fields, to the transportation of our crops, to the storage of our food, its preparation, and finally to the disposal of our waste, feeding 7 billion people is no small task.
Let’s consider another function of work though–social justification, or as it works today, earning money. Work is how we earn the right to goods and privileges in society. If I work particularly hard or possess a particularly rare and valuable skill or attribute, society, at least in theory, rewards me with more money, which I can then use to provide for my family and perhaps even purchase some goods and services that make me happy.
Now consider who you spend most of your life with. Assuming you’re still one of those traditional go-to-work types, you probably spend most of your life with your coworkers. You work side-by-side. You go to lunches with each other. Maybe you go on business trips together. Perhaps you even go out after work to spend more time with each other. If you’re really lucky, you might even meet the love of your life at one of those post-work gatherings, in which case, you can spend the rest of your life with a one-time coworker.
Let’s not stop there. Work also provides meaning. Humans are designed to work. We take great joy in getting into a state of flow where we’re creating something of value. We haven’t decided as a society to take a collective rest after the last 100 years of technologically-driven productivity gains, not only because capitalism won’t let us, but also because we don’t know what else to do with our days. Humans need to work for their spiritual well-being.
Now let’s peak into the future of the agricultural process that feeds us. Imagine seeds developed by biotechnology arrays automated to test genetically modified seeds for yield, planted, irrigated, and harvested by GPS-driven tractors and irrigation systems. The crops from these are then distributed by AI-controlled trucks to automated warehouses where these products are further distributed to homes and businesses by more AI-controlled vehicles. There, they are prepped, perhaps first only in factories, but eventually in restaurants, and even at home by automated kitchens with all the waste collected by self-driving compost trucks.
That’s still a lot of work, but how many fewer humans are necessary to do it? Half? A third? Ten percent? Sounds great right? That’s a lot of hard work that we don’t have to do anymore.
Certainly, the creators of these technological wonders will reap untold billions, live meaningful lives, and have fantastic social circles. What about the people who we no longer need to do the work though? How do they get money? How do they meet people? Where do they find meaning?
Now I want you to consider another technology–personal entertainment devices. Currently Americans spend over 4 hours a day on these devices we currently call mobile phones. Most of us have felt the pull to just make a quick check to see what’s going on in our personally tailored world of infotainment. Now consider that the clever people creating our mobile apps have only been at this for about 15 years. Consider that their business models are predicated on finding ways to get us to spend more time with our devices. Consider them following this business model for 100s of years.
And what about the device itself. Do we really believe our current glass-tapping interface is the most immersive way we can interact with the digital world? We already wirelessly transmit audio information from them directly into our ears. What about when they can interface with our eyes as seamlessly too? What about when we no longer have to tap, but they register our physical movements as easily as the “real world”? How addictive could these devices become?
Now combine these two futures–one where we need to work less because the work is done by our creations with one where our virtual worlds are increasing in meaning as rapidly as our minds can imagine them. What do we become? What kind of society does this create? This is just one small slice of life too. What happens to society when these changes coincide with all the other ways we’re evolving what it means to be a human?
These are the kinds of discussions that we as humans ought to be having in the public realm about our future, but we don’t. Rather we prefer to pretend we live in a world that will always be exactly as it has always been. This should come as no surprise, as society is but a reflection of who we are, and we each work mightily to hold on to our ever-me, which has always been and will always be. This is a problem for society though, for when we each individually avert our eyes from death, we collectively blind ourselves to the future.
Through Thanatism, however, we can develop the habits and practices that allow the future to fully inhabit our present. By accepting the part of our futures we want to think about least, we develop the habit of seeing the future for what it is. In so doing, collectively, we can better prepare ourselves to navigate humanity though this point in history where radically new realities crash upon us, not over millions of years, but multiple times in a single lifetime.
