Atlas Exclusive: Religion of Science

Mankind needs to use deductive reasoning to realize simple facts such as the fact that a world where everyone has access to nanoweapons is more dangerous than a world without them.

Eric Klien, founder of the Lifeboat Foundation, (of which I am a member and board member) has written this frightening, eye opening article on the dangers we face in the age of super weaponry and nanoweapons.

RELIGION OF SCIENCE

The dangerous delusion that all scientific progress is good and what to do about it.

It is always more difficult to fight against faith than against knowledge.  Adolph Hitler.

OVERVIEW



Science, and the technology it enables, has and will continue to provide great benefits to man.  The purpose of this piece is to point out that science can be dangerous as well.  We need to prepare for these dangers before it is too late.

Please note that it is unrealistic to prepare for these dangers by trying to stop scientific progress.  Instead efforts should be made to build up defenses and to try to stop ridiculous excesses committed by the Religion of Science such as publishing the 1918 flu virus on the internet for use by Al Qaeda scientists.

DANGEROUS RELIGION

The recipe for the 1918 flu virus which killed 50 million people was donated by the Religion of Science to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Above picture is a death scene caused by this virus.

As many on this site know, the "Religion of Peace" (Muslims) is not an ideal religion.  In fact, there is considerable evidence that many who follow it wish to overthrow Western Civilization and put Muslims in charge.  Ground Zero in New York City is an example of this evidence. The $5 million reward for this Al Qaeda wacko who wishes to nuke Western cities is a bit more evidence. In fact, there is considerable evidence that such people wish to kill all people who will not convert and become Muslims, so they could end up reducing the world's population by a couple billion people, if not more.

But believe it or not, there is a religion much more dangerous than the Religion of Peace.  It is the Religion of Science.

What are the beliefs of the Religion of Science?  They are that all scientific advancement is good under all circumstances.  If worrying about a potential danger might cause scientific funding to be reduced by even 1%, this religion will do whatever it takes to quiet people mentioning such a danger.

Why do I call it a religion?  Because in any religion something is worshipped.  In this case, scientific progress is worshipped instead of a single entity as in the world's organized religions.  And this worship causes its followers to do things that require faith.  For example, its followers are eager to develop dangerous weapons such as atomic bombs, bioweapons, and, in the future, nanoweapons, with the FAITH that such inventions will somehow make the world a better place as all scientific progress does according to their religious beliefs.

No one is paying attention to this religion as its followers generally don't even realize that they are part of a religion.  At least Muslims about to blow up large numbers of women and children know they are doing it for Allah.  Members of the Religion of Science don't even realize that the reason they are developing weapons of mass destruction is their FAITH is telling them this is a good thing to do.  Instead they rationalize some reason for why the world needs doomsday weapons.

Please note that the problem is not science, it is mankind.  Mankind turns pretty much everything into a religion and he has now done the same with science.  (Environmentalism has been turned into a religion, etc.)  If mankind applied scientific methods to his thoughts about science then we wouldn't have a Religion of Science.

Mankind needs to use deductive reasoning to realize simple facts such as the fact that a world where everyone has access to nanoweapons is more dangerous than a world without them.  (And therefore his faith that all scientific progress is good is wrong.)  As the heretic Sir Martin Rees said, "If there were millions of independent fingers on the button of a Doomsday machine, then one person's act of irrationality, or even one person's error, could do us all in."

Why has the Religion of Science gained so many followers?  Because it has provided a long list of miracles — the Religion of Science has tripled our lifespans, increased our population a thousand-fold, and given us cable tv.

Note that to date, the Religion of Science has kept its promises. People who like to whine about nuclear bombs being used in WW II, pollution, global warming, etc. are at best whining about minor problems that have come with great benefits or at worst whining about problems that don't actually exist.  (Nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki did save both American and Japanese lives and so far there has been no nuclear holocaust or even nuclear terrorist attack.  "So far" being the operative word here.)

THE RELIGION PREPARING FOR MASS HUMAN SACRIFICE



To test the danger of the Religion of Science, you need to see if it is willing to commit human sacrifice as the Aztecs did.  (Or the Muslims do today.)  The answer is yes.  Here are some examples:

1. Development of nanoweapons.

Nanotechnology will be used to create weapons of mass destruction. Instead of scientists putting a lot of effort into defenses against such weapons, they have repeatedly said that those worrying about such dangers are alarmists.

For example, The Foresight Institute used to discuss grey goo and other problems — now it plays them down since the Religion of Science has grabbed ahold of it.  And despite his great contributions to nanotech, pioneer Eric K. Drexler — who is one of the few who has been unafraid to point out the imminent dangers of the technology — has seen his good name and intentions attacked by everyone, from academia to Richard Smalley.  His quest for safe MNT development has been mocked from all corners of the Religion of Science as they try their best to hush up his mentioning the dangers of nanotechnology.

The book Nano by John Robert Marlow does a good job in highlighting these dangers that scientists like to make fun of because they are afraid that belief in these dangers would slightly reduce funding for developing nanotechnology.  This is also the reason why "serious" nanotechnologists avoid molecular nanotech like a plague — it is the root of potential grey goo problems, and thus religiously incorrect, as mentioning such problems MIGHT reduce funding for science.

2. Development of bioweapons.

Biological technology has advanced to the point where it could be used to kill tens of millions of people per attack.  Instead of scientists pushing to reduce these dangers, they instead put the recipe for the lethal (killed 50 million people or so) 1918 flu virus on the internet so any member of Al Qaeda could unleash this horror upon us.  (Luckily, most Muslim extremists are a few french fries short of a happy meal and haven't figured out bioweapons yet.)

3. Broadcasting our location and technology level to potentially hostile and powerful forces.

David Brin has documented that scientists have now decided to tell potentially hostile alien lifeforms our location and technology level.  He seems unable to figure out why scientists refuse to discuss the consequences of such an action.  He doesn't realize that he is going against a powerful religion.  This religion says if you CAN move forward with science, for example, by developing stronger transmitters, you MUST do so.

4. Particle accelerator experiments.

Although the risk from such experiments is low, anyone discussing existential risks must discuss them.  For example, Nick Bostrom and Martin Rees have discussed such risks.  But just by mentioning the potential for such risks, the Lifeboat Foundation has had prominent scientists leave our organization.  It is obvious that if particle accelerator experiments were actually quite risky, they would be done anyway.  A good example of this is that at the Manhattan Project there were side bets on whether the nuclear test would ignite the atmosphere. The tests were conducted anyway.

5. Development of unfriendly AI.

Despite the obvious risks from unfriendly artificial intelligence, scientists have downplayed this issue causing virtually no money to be spent on developing friendly artificial intelligence.  Unfriendly AI is not going to miss like the robots in "I, Robot" or the "Terminator" movies always do.  It probably won't be as nice as the AI in "2001", either.

CONSEQUENCES

We live in a ginormous but DEAD UNIVERSE where no civilization has survived the Religion of Science.

No civilization has survived the Religion of Science so far.  Let me repeat this fact.  No civilization has survived the Religion of Science so far.  Whether you are an optimist like Ray Kurzweil and believe that we are the first civilization to experience technology, or a realist like me and believe that a billion civilizations have already been struck down by this religion, this fact remains.

"Wait a minute!" you say.  "Why do you believe there are no other civilizations that have survived technology?"  Because as Ray Kurzweil documented in The Singularity is Near (pages 342-367), any advanced (say a century more advanced than ours) civilization would expand at nearly the speed of light, if not faster, and would therefore be hard to miss.

Kurzweil is far from the first person to figure out this obvious fact that followers of the Religion of Science do their best to deny.  Of course such reasoning would likely miss a ten million year old civilization twenty million light years from us, etc., but the fact remains that we live in a universe that looks to be dead and therefore we should take existential risks more seriously than if we lived in a universe that looked to be alive.  (Which is the whole point of the Leslie-Carter Doomsday argument.  Note that John Leslie is on our SAB and author of Risking Human Extinction.)

The question is: what do you believe is more likely?  That out of 100 billion trillion planets over a 14 billion year time period, we are the first civilization to experience technology, or that the Religion of Science has been 100% effective in exterminating its followers?

All trends seem to point to self-sustaining space colonies being developed AFTER doomsday weapons are available and it is therefore likely that other civilizations ran into the same problem.

I should point out that a cow going to a slaughter house has more reason to be optimistic than the human race has reason to be optimistic about its future.  There have been documented cases of cows surviving a trip to a slaughter house.  There are no documented cases of any civilization surviving the Religion of Science.

Even if you are optimistic like Kurzweil and believe that we are the first civilization to experience technology, I would hope that you take the Carter-Leslie Doomsday argument seriously.  This argument does not claim that we are guaranteed to be doomed, instead it says that the dead universe we live in should make us take threats more seriously than odds based on our current knowledge suggests.  (And optimists like Ray Kurzweil who haven't considered the Carter-Leslie argument only give us a 50% chance or so of survival!)

An example of the Carter-Leslie argument is to assume that eventually the universe will be full of intelligent beings who will colonize the universe and live for a long time in large numbers.  An intelligent being would be defined as a being who is able to live outside of his home planet.  If such a universe was going to exist, then 99.999999999999999999% of conscious beings would exist after intelligent beings existed so it would be unlikely to be a conscious being who existed before intelligent beings existed.  So if you are a conscious being who exists before intelligent beings exist then you should be doubtful that intelligent beings will ever exist.  It was such a thought that caused me to found the Lifeboat Foundation.  (I thought of this argument on my own, the Carter-Leslie argument is pretty obvious.)

Due to the Law of Accelerating Returns, the Religion of Science will soon go from a religion with the potential to commit mass human sacrifice to one that DOES have such a potential.  The dangerous phase of the Religion of Science will begin in our near future.  This phase will only last a decade or two as double exponential technological growth will quickly move us from a fairly safe planet to one where we have either colonized other worlds or have gone extinct.

RELIGIOUS COMPARISON

How does the Religion of Science compare in danger to the Religion of Peace?  It is much more dangerous for two reasons: 1) Anyone who follows it has access to the latest advances in weaponry 2) This religion does not advertise its support of human sacrifice as the Religion of Peace does so no one is paying attention to it.  In reality, most of the people who worship science don't even realize that they are doing so or what the consequences of their worship will be.

SOLUTION

The Religion of Science is too powerful to try to fight it with controls on certain technologies or any particular set of regulations.  Remember this is a worldwide religion which will soon have the ability to commit human sacrifice a world at a time.  If the religion was still alive in even one country, it would doom us all.

So the solution is to develop a world as open/transparent (thus inherently safe) as we can make it, to try to build up defenses against bio- and nano- weapons, and to develop self-sustaining colonies in space and elsewhere that would help us weather such attacks.

We live in a world where virtually all of the money that goes into science helps the development of the weapons described in this piece. There needs to be an effort made to ensure that at least $1 is spent on defense for each $100 spent on offense.  This would give us at least a fighting chance.  (Say it would give us a 1% chance — if we could up spending on defense to $2 for each $100, we would have a 2% chance, etc.)

I have developed Lifeboat Foundation with a Trojan Horse meme that tries to wrap our goals in the Religion of Science memes.  For example our mission statement begins with "The Lifeboat Foundation is a nonprofit nongovernmental organization dedicated to encouraging scientific advancements".

By wrapping our meme with a Religion of Science coating, I hope to develop enough resources that we can make sure that unlike every civilization so far, we can have at least SOME people survive this dangerous religion.

Join our fight! Pamela did!