MIT Has Predicted that Society Will Collapse in 2040

submitted by EthnocratArcheofuturist from (self.debatealtright)

This is a breakdown of the MIT study by the YouTube channel Economics Explained. Within the first five minutes I was already cringing by the sheer amount of Anglo bugmanism. This guy would rather be a contemporary middle class wagecuck than Louis XIV because of "muh progress". Nietzsche's last man has arrived, and he has an Australian accent. Anyway, he then goes on by saying that we will have more genius innovators than ever before because of our massive population. That's easily the biggest fallacy I've ever heard from neoliberals. Apparently race and dysgenics don't exist. Who's going to invent all these magical technologies of the future? 4 billion kangz? By the way, where are they now? Forget about the future, where's our current day Newton? Even we whites aren't as good as we used to be a hundred years ago. The average Brit in the Victorian era had a significantly higher IQ than the average Brit today. That's why we don't have more prodigies. This is actually one of the biggest problems we're facing as a civilization, and no one in the mainstream is even acknowledging it.

Spoiler alert: They can't debunk the MIT study. We're on the road to collapse around 2040.

Video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVOTPAxrrP4

all 26 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

This guy would rather be a contemporary middle-class wagecuck than Louis XIV because of "muh progress"

I saw that part a month or so ago and thought about posting it here.

''You would be a fool to choose to live in an 18th-century manor over living as a modern-day wagie"

This truly encapsulates the Bugman mentality to a T. You can be humiliated and assaulted by nigs, you can have the T-levels of a 70-year-old at age 25, you can be a sexless loser with no prospect of progeny, you can be an overworked wagie who lives in a shitty cubicle and subsist on seed oil and GMO slop...but what about ovens?

Did Charlemagne have microwave ovens and a dishwasher?

His faggy Australian accent just makes it worse. Australians and Canadians are the worst of the anglos. Absolutely materialistic bugman with no sense of a greater purpose. Say what you will about Americans, but Americans are the least bugmanish anglos.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

You forgot the most important part. Charlemagne had power with an aristocratic warrior class.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

Forget about the future, where's our current day Newton?

There are probably people smarter than Newton in STEM nowadays. The thing is that there are no low-hanging fruits left. All the relatively easy pickings: laws of gravitation, elasticity, laws of magnetism, etc were picked by 1900. The scientific advances in the 20th century were much harder and required much more effort by contrast(quantum mechanics, relativity, genetic engineering).

The more science progresses, the harder innovations and breakthroughs become. You see few major breakthroughs or inventions nowadays. In the last 20 years, most progress has been in the pursuit of improving or updating existing tech. This is despite the immense amount of money, manpower, and institutional push behind STEM nowadays.

There is little room for any major breakthrough in physics now. The fruits are too high up the tree and too difficult to grasp. Despite 100 years of effort by the world's greatest minds, no unified field theory has yet come about. No one knows how what's inside a black hole, why time moves forward, or how to achieve interstellar travel or faster than light travel.

The field of electronics has seen a massive revolution in the last 50 years but the limits to that may be on the horizon. TSMC is attempting to make 1nm chips, can chips be shrunk any more than that? Wouldn't quantum effects make further shrinkage impossible?

What would come next after quantum computers?

Nothing has really come out of AGI.

IMO, the field where there's real potential for revolution is genetic engineering, cybernetics, and life extension.

China is throwing the fight on genetic engineering by banning human genetic modification. East Asian propensity for hyper caution. The west is throwing away human genetic engineering due to nonsensical attachment to humanism, equality, and other remnants from Christianity.

India subscribes to the same humanist nonsense.

Russia and Japan are interesting candidates in this field. But Russia's technological prowess in lackluster and Japan is hyper-cautious as well.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist[S] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (10 children)

There are probably people smarter than Newton in STEM nowadays.

I don't buy that for a second.

There is little room for any major breakthrough in physics now.

They've been saying that for over a century.

The west is throwing away human genetic engineering due to nonsensical attachment to humanism, equality, and other remnants from Christianity.

Based.

[–]TiwakingTranshumanist Eugenecist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

EthnocratArcheofuturist[S] [score hidden] 9 hours ago

There are probably people smarter than Newton in STEM nowadays.

I don't buy that for a second.

Newton believed in Alchemy
Also, due to the Flynn Effect and increasing IQ's: He would only be considered 'bright' today as opposed to an actual genius like Terrence Tao.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Highly intelligent people can believe in stupid things, and he lived centuries ago. The Flynn Effect is overstated. No way Newton would ever be considered "bright". He invented calculus on a dare when he was in his early 20s for fuck's sake.

[–]TiwakingTranshumanist Eugenecist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

EthnocratArcheofuturist[S] [score hidden] 45 minutes ago Highly intelligent people can believe in stupid things, and he lived centuries ago. The Flynn Effect is overstated. No way Newton would ever be considered "bright". He invented calculus on a dare when he was in his early 20s for fuck's sake.

Point of Order: Robert Hooke
Point of Order: Gottfried Leibniz
Point of Order: Due to the Flynn Effect, IQ has gradually been increasing. However, recently it has been decreasing.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Newton was more intelligent than Hooke and Leibniz.

[–]TiwakingTranshumanist Eugenecist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

EthnocratArcheofuturist[S] [score hidden] 3 hours ago Newton was more intelligent than Hooke and Leibniz.

Both Robert Hooke and Gottfried Leibniz would disagree. And have disagreed repeatedly in their letters.

[–]JuliusCaesar225Nationalist + Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

People are getting dumber today not smarter and Newton was a genius. There is a difference between learning science/mathematics that has already been created vs creating it when it doesn't exist. Tech nerds you think are "genius" today transported back to 17th century would not be able to make the discoveries that Newton did.

[–]TiwakingTranshumanist Eugenecist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

JuliusCaesar225 [score hidden] 2 hours ago People are getting dumber today not smarter and Newton was a genius. There is a difference between learning science/mathematics that has already been created vs creating it when it doesn't exist. Tech nerds you think are "genius" today transported back to 17th century would not be able to make the discoveries that Newton did.

You go on about 'tech nerds' but lets do the math: 160 IQ has an occurrence rate of 0.03%. This means, in China, there are 42 million 'Newton Level Geniuses'. Also: People arent getting dumber, the people who take the test is increasing. If you were racist, like I am, you could say that the influx of non-English speaking, culturally backwards inbreds who get tested for IQ are of course going to fail the test.
Also: We had two other candidates for Calculus Genius: Robert Hooke and Gottfried Leibniz. Do you know the quote famous Newton quote "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants"? Newton wrote that to Robert Hooke - who he most likely stole a lot of his research from.

[–]JuliusCaesar225Nationalist + Socialist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

All geniuses will have a high IQ but having a high IQ doesn't make someone a genius. There are plenty of people you can find with higher IQs than Heisenberg or Max Plank but that doesn't mean they are more genius than Heisenberg or Plank.

IQ is correlated with intelligence but it does not measure genius.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Newton was a massive genius, no way he would be considered merely ''bright''. The thing is that education and path to research is opened to billions of young men throughout the world.

So, at any given time, there are probably hundreds of men as intelligent as him working in STEM.

[–]TiwakingTranshumanist Eugenecist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter [score hidden] 15 minutes ago Newton was a massive genius, no way he would be considered merely ''bright''. The thing is that education and path to research is opened to billions of young men throughout the world.

So, at any given time, there are probably hundreds of men as intelligent as him working in STEM.

If his IQ was 180 there might be...1000 to 3000 people working in STEM in the entire world.

[–]TheJamesRocket 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

There is little room for any major breakthrough in physics now. The fruits are too high up the tree and too difficult to grasp.

Thats not true, though. The Standard model is almost certainly wrong. The theory of Relativity is incomplete. And Cosmology is in a crisis. All of the dominant theorys are false, their predictions do not correspond to observations. There is room for a revolution in physics, if only scientists were willing to revise their assumptions, think outside the box, and challenge the status quo.

Despite 100 years of effort by the world's greatest mind, no unified field theory has yet come about.

Thats because the Standard model is wrong. There is no such thing as a Higgs field or a Higgs boson that bestows mass on all particles. Physics is trapped in a false paradigm. And since they are unwilling to revise or rethink the Standard model, they will remain trapped.

The more science progresses, the harder innovations and breakthroughs become.

For the most part, yes. Because the more we learn, the more scientists need to specialize. The days when a Renaissance scientist could master multiple fields of study are long gone.

You see few major breakthroughs or inventions nowadays.

Have you ever read NextBigFuture? Its a science and technology website that exclusively focuses on new inventions. If you were signed up to it back in 2010-2015, the sheer number of updates were mindboggling. There were every kind of inventions of every kind of technology you could think of, from the mundane to the profound.

Nothing has really come out of AGI.

Not yet, it hasn't. And you'd better pray to god that it remains that way for the forseeable future, at least the next 40-50 years. AGI is one of the most dangerous technologys that could ever exist. A superintelligent agent could literally destroy the entire world.

China is throwing the fight on genetic engineering by banning human genetic modification. East Asian propensity for hyper caution. The west is throwing away human genetic engineering due to nonsensical attachment to humanism, equality, and other remnants from Christianity.

If the West can take the lead in genetic engineering once it has a new political mileau and cultural ethos. This requires the destruction of liberalism and other soft ideologys.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

https://www.space.com/how-can-a-star-be-older-than-the-universe.html

One star has thrown a wrench in the long-held belief that the universe is only 13.7 billion years old.

The string theory makes a brave attempt to reconcile gravity with quantum mechanics.

It may be that the standard model is wrong, but there's really no theory or discipline out there that has as much explanatory power as quantum mechanics.

Not yet, it hasn't. And you'd better pray to god that it remains that way for the forseeable future, at least the next 40-50 years. AGI is one of the most dangerous technologys that could ever exist. A superintelligent agent could literally destroy the entire world.

I'm highly skeptical about the killer AI theory. AI is based on a circular argument that the human brain is like a machine and thus if we model a machine after the human brain it can be intelligent like a human.

Most of what passes for AI nowadays are just algorithms. Long algorithms written by programmers to have specific responses to specific chains of events.

In any case, why would an AI suddenly go all Skynet? The desire to conquer and kill potential opponents rise in animals due to evolutionary reasons. Evolution has ingrained these instincts in them in order to make it more likely for creatures to pass their genes on.

A machine would not reproduce. It might never develop such instincts in the first place.

The real danger from AI is that it would empower a handful of (((men))) with totalitarian power over the whole human race. A few thousand strong sanhaedrin could feasibly tyrannize and rule over billions of people through control of machine armies and AI-controlled economies and surveillance states.

[–]TheJamesRocket 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

One star has thrown a wrench in the long-held belief that the universe is only 13.7 billion years old.

And thats just the tip of the iceberg. All of their measurements on the redshifts of distant Galaxys (which are supposedly receding at near the speed of light) are all wrong. They didn't properly take into account the effect of parallax angle, which means they overestimate the distance of these Galaxys. Their measurements of redshift would also mean that distant Galaxys appeared -fully formed- as early as 100 million years after the Big Bang. This is not enough time for them to have actually evolved! Its equivalent to having multicellular animal life appear soon after the formation of the Earth itself!

There is a solution to these quandarys, but it requires ditching the Big Bang model entirely. ''The Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.''

In any case, why would an AI suddenly go all Skynet?

Have you ever heard of the paperclip maximiser? This is a thought experiment to show the dangers of AI. Imagine you have an superintelligent AI that is programmed only to build paperclips? That sounds totally harmless, right? In fact, the thing might end up creating molecular nanotechnology and consuming all matter on Earth until it consists of nothing but paperclips. The AI wasn't trying to destroy humans deliberately, it was just pursuing its goal of building paperclips.

The desire to conquer and kill potential opponents rise in animals due to evolutionary reasons. Evolution has ingrained these instincts in them in order to make it more likely for creatures to pass their genes on.

This gets deeper into the issue of what singulatarians call 'friendliness programming.' Basically, this is how to design an AGI that won't deliberately or accidentally destroy the world if it gets too powerful. The programming language necessary to instill friendliness is fiendishly complicated. There are many reasons for this.

Carl Schulman has an instructive video on this subject: Super-intelligence does not imply benevolence. Eliezer Yudkowsky also describes this in a related video: The Challenge of Friendly AI.

Human values also exist within its own small 'possibility space.' Within the space of all possible minds that can exist, you will also find the space of all possible values that can exist. Our own human values are not even remotely close to being so called 'universal.' They are very narrow, and highly specific to our own evolutionary past. If we were to live in a 'perfect world' created by a non-human entity, that world would be a perfect nightmare for us.

The real danger from AI is that it would empower a handful of (((men))) with totalitarian power over the whole human race.

Oh, they would TRY to do that. But they would inevitably program the AI in the wrong way, and end up destroying humanity. Greedy psycopaths are literally the worst possible people you could put in charge of programming AI, because they would inevitably give the machine goals that are contradictory to the nature of a friendly AI. 'Maximise wealth for the Globalists!' will end out playing exactly the same as 'maximise paperclips!' But look on the bright side: At least their bodys would end up being converted into the substance they love above everything else; Money.

''Your precious atoms, gratefully accepted! We will need it.''

[–]CarlDungCrypto-fascist and eugenicist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The more science progresses, the harder innovations and breakthroughs become.

True, albeit it is a vague possibility, that it is the sheer amount of progressive politics that weight down our societies. In agrarian societies around 75% of population was tied to food production. After industrialization it was something like 2% of population. Our problem is that the freed manpower is not used wisely. They are only seldom producing something of value.

[–]ifuckredditsnitches_Resident Pajeet 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Wait why does he say that the Rothschilds are poorer than Musk when fairly recently he talked about how the Rothschilds were trillionaires lmao. Is he retconning his own content?

Having seen the full video he basically admits the study is correct by all indicators though he's irrationally optimistic about the future. I think that a collapse by 2040 is the real reset we need to move beyond this current stagnant paradigm.

[–]LetssavethefirsworldReturn to Jesus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This guy doesn't have opinions. He regurgitates the consus opinion on the internet for every topic and puts stock footage in the background.

[–]ifuckredditsnitches_Resident Pajeet 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The billionaire tiers video was genuinely enlightening but everything else he's put out has been mid.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree.

[–]LetssavethefirsworldReturn to Jesus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

EE just reads a Wikipedia page and puts stock footage in the background. Easily one of the most low effort channels I've seen

[–]ifuckredditsnitches_Resident Pajeet 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Man makes a decent salary doing it I can't even blame him.

[–]Questionablethe Dumpster Arsonist · 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Right. Who's society? And is this not just a predictive result for The Great Reset and to facilitate 'building back better'?

Ĥ̅͛ǝ̮̺͕̲̰llo ʍoɹlp' I,m Qnǝsʇᴉouɐqlǝ.̬̘̟ͅ

[–]IkeConn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yea, right. When and if those fuckers bug out then I'll think about it.