<Instead of Caps and Gowns on graduation day, they would don masks and hoods.>
Mary, my theory is the optimistic one. Good always outlasts evil because the evil can only exist as a small subset of the good on which they prey. The parasitic evil doers can only expand to a certain extent, then there is a revolution and the mob converts them to fertilizer.
However, there is a question of ethics which becomes a bit tricky. Just as we farm plants and animals, there's no law of nature which I'm aware of which says a Big Brother supertribe couldn't separate from the rest of humanity, become a separate species and be boss of the remnants of humanity. That wouldn't be any more unethical than farming hens for eggs. The hens don't get a say in running the barnyard. I already feel quite like a hen actually. It's not too bad, though quite annoying.
We have already seen the trend in the segmentation of most societies into various classes, with State/King/Emperor/Dictator and their acolytes forming a separate ruling class. So it's not as though it's incompatible with human nature to separate off. Compare Switzerland and Rwanda to see the process on a geographical basis.
Until now though, human genetics and tribal friction has always resulted in boy meets girl and nature doing the rest to keep humans in one big mob. There was some genetic drift over many millennia in the post ice-age human diaspora, but reintegration is rapidly underway with mass human migration from everywhere to everywhere over the last several hundred years.
But imagine quantum computing, genetic engineering and It forming a holy trinity. The difference between that tribe and ordinary people would be far greater than the difference between humans and chimps. It would be like the difference between humans and nematode worms [or maybe between humans and algae].
It's not that the historic random mutation humans would be enslaved or anything, we'd just be left to ourselves, in the same way that we ignore termites unless they get in our woodwork. They might even throw us some crumbs or hire us to do massage or something.
Luddites being as they are, they'd no doubt try to stop such progress. Whether they'd have a majority is doubtful. No doubt the wheel had opposition when it was invented and probably fire too. Most things are opposed when first invented. They are considered scary and threatening. Young people are usually less concerned and more keen to adopt new things where they can see some benefits to themselves. So they over-rule the old fogies [or wait for them to die out - the young ones ALWAYS end up winning the arguments].
My strategy is to sell the means of building It to the young ones [via QUALCOMM]. They seem to be keen to buy.
Mqurice |
