Coming Together as Cosmists

At the end of the Introduction to this Manifesto I said the following:

My hope is that you'll find the practical philosophy I articulate here not only interesting but also compelling. Cosmism isn't just about cool ideas that are fun to think, talk and write about. It's about actively trying to understand more, actively trying to grow and improve and collectively create a better cosmos, and all that good stuff...

As will become clear to you if you read the rest of this Manifesto, one aspect of Cosmism is, that, roughly speaking: the more sentient beings adopt Cosmist values, the better will Cosmist values be served.

Of course, I don't expect anyone to fully agree with everything I say here -- I myself, in a decade or a year or maybe even a month, may not agree with all of it!

However, if you agree with a substantial percentage of Cosmism as I articulate it here -- and more importantly, if you agree with the
spirit in which these thoughts are offered -- then you are a Cosmist in the sense in which I mean the term.

One of the things that religions have done well is building social unity. Folks with the same religious world-views and value-systems tend to stick together, helping each other out practically and advocating for the same causes, etc.

Wouldn't it be nice if Cosmists did the same?

It's a fact that, in human history, rigid, inflexible bodies of ideas tend to be particularly good at at attaching themselves to well-organized, well-coordinated bodies of people.

For instance, in the early days of Christianity, there were loads of interesting, egalitarian, semi-anarchic Gnostic sects ... but none of them achieved the ultimate staying-power and influence of Catholicism. Why? Because Catholicism had a belief-system that coordinated well with an authoritarian social structure ... which led to more effective recruitment into and propagation of the religion.

Cosmism is open-ended and flexible by nature, hence would not lend itself well to a hierarchical, authoritarian organization.

But, perhaps, some sort of confederation of Cosmists could emerge....

Naturally, though, such a confederation would need to be very comfortable with the possibility of its own impending obsolescence....

As technology and science advance, and we expand and advance our minds accordingly, Cosmism in some form may become simply common sense ... so that the confederation of Cosmists would then consist of all sentient beings.

On the other hand, once we expand our scope of understanding a bit, Cosmism may come to look as quaintly obsolete as ancestor-worship does to us now.

One among many many things I'm eager to discover....

1 comment:

  1. Look, why don't you just join the libertarian party, attend one of their conventions, and then understand why marketing to the .001% of fairly-intelligent, rational, socially tolerant, nonconformist, noncoercive people doesn't work very well. ("Herding cats")

    "Naturally, though, such a confederation would need to be very comfortable with the possibility of its own impending obsolescence...."
    "What do you artilects mean, you're leaving me behind while the sun explodes?! ...I'm a _cosmist_!"

    Also, as far as the term confederation is currently used in the English language, G Edward Griffin uses the word "protectorate" to mean "voluntary association" rather than "confederation". I'm not saying he's correct, but I think his formulation frames the problem somewhat well, considering:

    1) Strong individuals don't really need protection, unless they want to exist in the sphere of productive competition only (disbelieving in the use of force, and thus making themselves easy targets for theft / force, unless they spend unenjoyable amounts of their resources defending themselves). However, then that means that a portion of their resources will likely go towards defending those less capable of defense (or they will not benefit from economies of scale). But this only happens if the strong are able to eliminate the "free rider" problem --otherwise, all social systems devolve towards universal theft and destruction.
    2) Weak individuals need protection, but that protection is only meaningful in a voluntary society. Otherwise, the weak band together to become the strong, and plunder of the stronger is legalized.
    3) Protectorate of cosmists is a great idea, until the arrival of the first artilect. After that, it's mostly irrelevant (unless the artilects start wiping out the terrans, then, please make sure to send a 2010 "cosmist confederation" membership card to this address...). So your organization needs to get off the ground, fully formed, by the end of this year, and will exist for another 5 or 10 years? ...Hurry up!

    Confederation is somewhat more peaceful, yet denotes decentralist "governance" or "self organization", which makes me wonder if a bunch of FBI and CIA would constitute most of the membership. "Protectorate" would at least make those spooks suitably paranoid. (ie: are they all about to sprout antennae, turn and stare at me, and then say "you don't belong here") ...LOL