Asklemmy

I'm the context of the story, yeah. But the premise is terrible so I'm reality, no.

Human civilizations have only been around for a couple thousand years. That's nothing.

edit: by this I mean to say that it's too soon to make sweeping generalizations about what human social organizations can or cannot do. A commenter downstream rightly points out that "civilization" isn't a well-defined term in this context, although I was thinking of it as a shorthand term for the various human political, commercial, cultural, etc. organizations of a given era. My contention is that because recorded history is only a couple of thousand years old, we do not have enough information about what the various components of "civilization" are capable of, especially when they are overlapping, interacting, and meeting a novel challenge.

btw I tried reading this book but got bored halfway through, and I watched the first episode and wasn't that impressed either. I read the wikipedia summary and it's got some neat ideas, though.

It's both capable and willing, the problem is that not everyone agrees with the solutions being used. And so they say "we're doing it wrong" instead of "I think we're doing it wrong."

I disagree. "No longer" implies we were ever capable

No problem is ever solved no solution has ever been without further problems.

This is indicative of an ever expanding problem-solution matrix of entropy, meaning we're neither solving issues nor creating problems, we're just creating more complex landscapes to navigate.

This is why Buddhist monks and high tech computerized supply chains can both legitimately be said to have the answers we need, even though they're from radically different ends of this entropy.

It's also why they're both wrong and lying to themselves.

We are both the problem and the solution.