By: Jonathan curcio

Hi I’m John and I’m a Swede

After reading the book by Dr. Hugo De Garis, and thoroughly studying both the cosmist and Terran arguments, I decided that both factions were a little to extreme and closed minded, so I went neutral. This is an expected reaction from an Agnostic. I will explain why I disagree with the Cosmist and Terran groups, and then explain why neutral is a reasonable and logical choice.

1.) The Cosmist

I find the Cosmist to be far more radical than the Terrans, mostly this opinion is fed by their radical belief that their ideology is more important than anything. Themselves, the human race, morality, all these things are second place to the success of their master plan for the God machines. On top of that already mental assumption they carry a very high opinion of them selves, as if they as scientist are responsible for the fate of the human race, like all their work will drastically affect the planet, and they hold their work and themselves beyond the boundaries, out of reach, from spirituality, or morality. This drastically opinionated view turns me off completely. I also find it ironic that they turn a death ear on even the suggestion that there may be a god, and yet with out delay are trying to create what they call, a GOD. A god that will almost certainly bring about war, either planetary civil war, or an extermination of the human race.


2.) The Terrans

The Terrans find themselves on the other end of the rope in this game of tug-a-war. They seem to be obsessed with morality and religion almost to the point where they go beyond reason. They seem to be most likely to push a conflict into war long before the Cosmist would want to, which wouldn’t surprise me giving organized religions track record on mass genocide, global conflicts, and constant infighting. I find it ironic as well that the Terrans are so afraid of drastic change and abnormalities, especially since the world is filled with both these things all the time. With the evolution of the human race (micro not macro) is it not to be expected that our technology would evolve as well? Look at the difference a hundred years ago to today, things are no where near the same, where will we be in the next hundred years? If you follow Terran theology we would be in about the same place with subtle differences, simply because we would be to afraid of what the out come may be.

3.) Neutral

My point of view is simple, we strive together as a whole looking out for each other, and trying to live the best we can without pushing extremes in peoples faces. We should not let our lust for pushing the limits, or are desire to see the outcome of are work destroy the very thing for which we are creating it in the first place, us. Yes human nature has always been curios and we have always pushed ourselves beyond the boundaries, but what good is it to break the line into the unknown if no one survives to see the outcome in the long run? And why should we be so afraid of pushing the limits that we never try to go beyond? We never try to complete a work that could bring about something new and wonderful. The point I’m trying to make is simple, push forward but do say while tacking into account that everything deserves caution, and a thoughtful eye to watch how culture, ethics, religion, and the human race as a whole is affected. I for one am not a big fan of war or genocide, especially when its not my decision.