I just flet like clarifying some things.
1) Some desciprtion of how global integration os taking place
2) a clarification of what a singleton is
3) My views regarding religion and consciousness relating to the Moral Apex
This is a TED talk called Who Controls The World?
It discusses the ongoing concentration of power by a collection of transnational corporations. There is a clear trend towards global integration.
Another good TED talk is on How the Net Destroyed Democracy.
It also reveals an ongoing integration of society through the evolution of the media. The health of democracy has varied in different stages of the media, and the current media is deeply harming democracy. My position is that it would be profoundly helpful if the social media companies revealed their information about us and all demographics to us. This would lead to a unified agency.
I would like to reiterate that:
Yet another way in which a singleton could form is through convergent evolution, e.g. if it turns out that all sufficiently advanced individuals or cultures come to accept fundamentally the same values or goals. These common values in combination with all the individuals and cultures that embrace them would then be an “agency” in the broad sense intended here, and it would constitute a singleton.
From "What is a Singleton?"
Regarding China:
We shouldn't expect China to be ruled by all of the same values as the west, but already China is cooperating with the west through the shared value of trade as well as international agreements. It seems to me that China is cooperating with the world more than the United States.
From the Wikipedia page on China's foreign policy:
China officially states it "unswervingly pursues an independent foreign policy of peace"
In 2007, Foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang made a statement about the eight-point diplomatic philosophy of China:[41]
- China will make judgment on each case in international affairs, each matter on the merit of the matter itself and it will not have double standards. China will not have two policies: one for itself and one for others. China believes that it cannot do unto others what they do not wish others do unto them.
- China advocates that all countries handle their relations on the basis of the United Nations Charter and norms governing international relations. China advocates stepping up international cooperation and is against unilateral politics. China should not undermine the dignity and the authority of the U.N. China should not impose and set its own wishes above the U.N. Charter, international law and norms.
- China advocates peaceful negotiation and consultation so as to resolve its international disputes. China does not resort to force, or threat of force, in resolving international disputes. China maintains a reasonable national military buildup to defend its own sovereignty and territorial integrity. It is not made to expand, nor does it seek invasion or aggression.
- China is firmly opposed to terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. China is a responsible member of the international community, and as for international treaties, China abides by all them in a faithful way. China never plays by a double standard, selecting and discarding treaties it does not need.
- China respects the diversity of the civilization and the whole world. China advocates different cultures make exchanges, learn from each other, and complement one another with their own strengths. China is opposed to clashes and confrontations between civilizations, and China does not link any particular ethnic group or religion with terrorism.
Regarding Religion:
The Moral Apex doesn't postulate an individuated savior or messiah. The four components are a 1) unified body of knowledge, 2) ethics, 3) purpose throughout a 4) integrated civilization.
I mentioned religion in my initial Moral Apex email, but my only point was that cultural evolution seems to explain religion in a way that secular culture hasn't yet clarified. Jordan Peterson is beginning to flush out what the stories mean, functionally speaking, rather than what they look like from face value. Also, consciousness is very weird. Personally, I'm inclined towards Monism and maybe Open or Empty Individualism (the view that we are all the same subject beneath appearances). As Alan Watts said, we emerge out of the universe, and perhaps every subject emerges from the same source. Some reasons to be inclined towards this view are:
1) Philosophers of mind are constantly going on about the binding problem
2) the attentional spotlight
3) the nature of intentionality.
4) The Problem of Other Minds and Solipssim
5) The Everett view of Quantum Mechanics, that there is no collapse of the wavefunction and it only seems to each of us like there is a collapse. Combine this with the Many Worlds hypothesis and it seems that there is no 'universe' but only a multiverse with sensoriums as their own universe. This is also called the Many Minds interpretation.