Imagine two worlds opperating with complete transparency – in one, a transparancy born of mutual desire to share all aspects of our experience, the other, forced into openness, an end by means of itself. While similar, these worlds also differ, infused with the residue of the path taken – the former brimming ebullient commeradary, the latter acrid resignation. The first world grows in a bed of deep empathy and insight into human nature. Only after countless seasons of meticulous care for our own inner workings could true respect and understanding lead us to acceptance – of ourselves individually, as much as one another. The dark path is the fast path. When humanity takes a second place to data, it subjects and subjugates humans to rapid acceptance of themselves – understanding without tolerance, without respect.

Here I'm thinking in part about the Dataism described by Harari as a force for evil the second case; subjugation could arise from either techno-humanist or artificial generally intelligent overlords. In the opposite vein, I conceive of very intentional postponement of technological prowess for the sake of acheiving insight along a less traveled path in Bostrom's space of insight, cooperation and technology.

Fear of the Dark Forest may be warranted, especially if the Fermi Paradox is resolved by first actor dominance as allowed by Tim Urban's conception thereof. It is sad to me that basal instinct, fear, provokes the darker path.

This next paragraph is notes taken during Hikari's and Sukraj's reading of the first paragraph of the above passage...

Hikari: Confusingly worded, but it makes sense. A bunched up yarn needs to be unwound versus cutting up all the string. Sukraj: each individual may have different personal preference for the path taken. My model of society is such that the path taken is a function of power allocation in society, and that power allocation somewhat favors the fast over the slow path. This means that people get what they don't want more than they get what they do want.