Modern science and technology are in the age of stagnation. Mouths are full of progress, but many
things have already reached the peak and any real progress is incremental or superficial.
Here, I'm not talking about economy and its fast, unsustainable, progress. I'm not talking
about progress in production of more of the same. I'm talking about progress in creation of
things that have a larger expiration date, those that would stimulate creation of new practices
rather than ensure survivability of old ones.
Such progress does exist though but it is marginalized and facing extinction.
Take a look at science and technology.
The same experiments are being run, only with a
bit fancier machines. And, for decades, progress
in these machines was basically the decreasing size of transistors - there were no fundamental
changes in [computer] architecture, and the size limit has been reached recently (5-7 nm).
There are patches (ie. nanosheets) that may further extend the lifetime of this technology, but these
have other problems (the biggest one, in my opinion, is the discussed susceptibility to bit-flips due to
cosmic radiation, currently effectively limited to supercomputers, but probably not for long) and are just
delaying the inevitable.
Sure,
there
are promising new technologies, but these will most likely remain promises.
Just consider the technology behind electric batteries - new and better ones are promised on a
weekly basis for quite some time now, but none of it ever materializes.
Consider now tests of General Relativity - Schwarzschild precession has been confirmed
in Mercury 100 years ago. Today it's still being confirmed, albeit in
distant
stars orbiting black holes. It is claimed that Einstein's theory aced yet another test - it's
a lie. This is the same test, simply run on a different scale. Did anyone seriously expect
that Schwarzschild (or even Kerr) precession of Mercury wouldn't exist if
a bit more mass
is added to Sun and Mercury?
Now, let's talk about life. What's not new there?
The Miller experiment first done 70 years ago is
still
performed regularly. Yes, today more amino-acids are created in the experiment, but how does
that explain the origin of life? Just like the original Miller experiment, this one didn't create
life and no one involved can explain why. Brute force can reveal
new stuff but cannot ever
explain the phenomena, in this case, the phenomenon of life - it's like adding more Lego cubes
to a Lego set, hoping it would self-assemble into a dragon.
And we all know that assembling a dragon from Lego cubes won't create a living
dragon, yet,
we insist that amino-acids and proteins - the building blocks of life, are
dead matter (including atoms and molecules that build them).
Life cannot be created - one can
stimulate particles of life to assemble structures of
larger scale. And while the distinct amount of life in such compositions is relative, they won't
spontaneously assemble into larger structures of life.
Are humans spontaneously organizing? No. The assembly of any organization is synchronized
with something else.
A bit of logic can be more powerful than billions of bytes of information.
Nuclear fusion, quantum computers, new transistors, new batteries, new Einstein's, new
reforms, new life... All of this has been promised decades ago and it is still being promised.
Reality of life operating on promises is a sign that its peak has been reached. Operation on
promises, incremental and superficial progress may have been previously limited to politics, but
now it is everywhere.
And when a peak is reached in progressive evolution, to continue that evolution, transformation
is required - transformation of life. The promised transformation of technology simply can't and
won't happen without transformation of life. And if the environment has also reached its
peak potential, transformation will include migration.
Creation should be easy.
Creation (inflation) of life itself generally is very
easy. When creation of new becomes impossible but you still force the creation
of
new, its time for transmigration.