World spec'mode

SUMMARY:

•    Epistemic memory is a means for our civilization to endure, even beyond a potential collapse.

•    It would also allow us to pass on to our descendants everything that is important to us, whether positive or negative.

•    The history of our civilization, including its downfall, would help our descendants recreate a new, much better one.

•    All “knowledge,” whether rigorous, flawed, or speculative—that is, all ways of studying things—deserves to be preserved.

•    By preserving as much knowledge as possible, we can also preserve our cultural heritage by extension, if only because our heritage is one subject of study among others.

•    Our species could choose, as its ultimate mark on the Universe, the sustainable centralization of all its knowledge in a single point, rather than mere ruins.

•    Humanity could become the first intelligent species in the observable Universe to immortalize the Cosmos as a whole, through epistemic memory.

•    The cost of one, or even several, epistemic memory projects is negligible compared to what it costs to keep our civilization afloat.

Epistemic memory can save civilization

Let’s recap: knowledge can relate to fragile, ephemeral, vulnerable things that can disappear at any moment, never to return. Without improving the preservation of knowledge, we will definitely no longer be able to recreate it if it were erased, whether intentionally or not. Furthermore, knowledge has become an indispensable virtual resource for our industrialized world, which is fed by ICT. We increasingly need the help of knowledge to improve our standard of living in our society, with the additional consequences of greater prosperity, better education, better management, etc. At the same time, however, numerous phenomena threaten the integrity of this knowledge: entropy, natural disasters, wars, censorship, and even the simple collapse of our industrial civilization. Its days are numbered, with the proliferation of factors contributing to its decline: authoritarian tendencies, warmongering, global warming, resource scarcity, technological disruption, etc. For our knowledge to survive a potential civilization collapse, an action plan must be put in place to ensure the preservation of information on a large scale and over the very long term. This is what we will refer to here as an epistemic memory, a backup of all our knowledge, created with the aim of preventing collective amnesia among future generations in the event of a catastrophe. As has been said, future generations will not be able to rediscover everything we have discovered to date in terms of history, biology, archaeology, ethnology, and other fields if all or part of the world’s heritage institutions were to disappear, unless all these discoveries survive in a “black box”, an emergency Library of Alexandria, that is well shielded from destruction. One could even add that if a distant civilization developed its own science, part of it could be redundant with ours, and that civilization would then waste time trying to solve certain problems, while our current civilization has already done the work and our efforts are directly accessible in our information banks. In other words, the contribution of our civilization and that of our predecessors (Greco-Romans, Indians, Chinese, etc.) to our understanding of the world around us could become completely null and void if our knowledge were to be erased forever. All of this leads to the conclusion that epistemic memory is also an advanced memory of our own civilization, in addition to being a memory of our knowledge.

In fact, there are not only pragmatic issues at stake, although they are good justifications enough for an epistemic memory, but there are also many symbolic issues. Preserving our knowledge is not only about making it available to distant future civilizations, it is also an opportunity to immortalize many aspects of our civilization, much like the pyramids of Giza did for Ancient Egypt. First and foremost, the preservation of knowledge is an indirect means of ensuring the “survival” of our civilization beyond its expiration date. Preserving our knowledge would provide future generations with information about the different cultures of the Earth, through our documentation on our works of art, monuments, traditions, moral values, political systems, languages, lifestyles, social causes, etc. Certain achievements, everything that is dear to us today, could live on if our descendants set about deciphering our knowledge banks. Moreover, in addition to safeguarding what we are most proud of, preserving knowledge would also be a good way to pass on the memory of our biggest mistakes (world wars, genocides, ecological disasters, financial crises, social injustice, economic inequalities, etc.), thus providing feedback on what our civilization has failed to achieve, so that our descendants can succeed better than us in building a brighter future. This duty to remember would continue over time, along with the memory of our civilization’s great achievements (wonders of the world, great artists, space exploration, culinary specialties, etc.). If we manage to effectively preserve our knowledge in the midst of civilizational collapse, we could even create a kind of civilizational black box, a means of passing on to our descendants the data they need to analyze the exact causes of the collapse of our own civilization. A potential second industrial civilization would thus become much more sustainable, with access to entire chapters of our history, such as how we managed resources, how we legislated, or how we accepted or rejected certain new discoveries. Moreover, if we are going to pass on knowledge to distant generations, we could also pass it on to the generations that will exist just after the collapse: it might be possible to convey valuable information and know-how so that the dark interval between two industrial “golden ages” is as short as possible. This would include, for example, agronomy, metallurgy, DIY, recycling, pharmacology, etc. Perhaps even post-industrial societies (in the strict sense) could test new political and economic models that are healthier than our current ones, thanks to our science and philosophy, before even attempting a transition to an advanced civilization.

Epistemic memory can save our culture

When we talk about knowledge, it is easy to immediately think of scientific knowledge, particularly that which relates to the so-called “hard” sciences, namely physics, chemistry, biology, earth sciences, and mathematics. It is also easy to imagine that safeguarding knowledge also indirectly involves safeguarding technological and medical expertise, i.e., the applied sciences. However, the goal of epistemic memory is to preserve all knowledge, or at least as much as possible. Although the natural and formal sciences already represent an immense body of knowledge, there are also many branches of science devoted to the study of humankind, society, culture, and history. These form what are known as the humanities and social sciences (HSS), and although there are methodological differences with the natural sciences, these differences exist mainly because humans are difficult to study in the same way as any other object in the universe. Furthermore, the rigorous nature of the HSS is not questioned in the scientific community, and the general functioning of these sciences remains familiar: a cycle of scientific publications with peer review, hypothesis testing, experimental protocols, logical reasoning, etc. Added to this is the fact that, more than in any other science, the social sciences and humanities place great importance on a plurality of scientific approaches and working methods, in order to multiply the avenues for solving a problem. All this is to say that all sciences deserve to be preserved, and not just those considered the most “fundamental” or “essential.” In fact, sciences dealing with specific subjects of study (specific periods, specific ethnic groups, specific species, specific systems, etc.) undoubtedly deserve greater attention, as these subjects of study are much more ephemeral, making knowledge more difficult to reproduce once these subjects are no longer there. How would our descendants retrace the history of their own civilization if ours disappeared without a trace?

Furthermore, when we talk about knowledge, we are referring by default to scientific knowledge, but it is important to realize that there are many disciplines in this world that attempt to solve the great mysteries of the cosmos. Admittedly, some of these fall under the category of pseudoscience and produce only “knowledge” of limited epistemic value (astrology, homeopathy, Scientology, ufology, etc.). However, on the one hand, there are many reasons to preserve the attempts from these disciplines nonetheless (they are expressions of our belief systems, they are hypotheses that should be preserved on principle “just in case,” they have value for a certain number of people, etc.), and on the other hand, not everything that falls outside the realm of science necessarily lacks rigor. Philosophy is another important part of culture that is dedicated to understanding the world and what it contains, including humans. Philosophy is a discipline that, in addition to science, offers all kinds of avenues for reflection, questions to explore, hypotheses, and theories about how things work. Admittedly, it is difficult to speak of philosophical “knowledge,” since knowledge is something that can be proven (or at least substantiated), whereas philosophy mainly produces speculation. But these speculations are complementary from scientific knowledge and, due to their -more or less- rational nature, they still have great value in the foundation of knowledge. The various other forms of wisdom developed throughout the world also deserve to be preserved, insofar as they are unique and can shed interesting light on the world and on humanity.

Consequently, an epistemic memory does not simply serve to preserve all existing scientific publications (articles, journals, conferences, debates, etc.), or even scientific archives (we mentioned earlier fossils, archaeological sites, ancient writings, etc.), but also other non-scientific publications, such as philosophical works, encyclopedias, journalistic media, or any “item” that can constitute a study of something. In fact, since science and philosophy have a cultural side to them, by safeguarding ethnological and anthropological knowledge, an epistemic memory also indirectly safeguards all kinds of aspects of our earthly culture. By saving literature on art history, for example, we could also indirectly save all kinds of masterpieces. By saving analyses of a particular work, we would also save the work itself at the same time. By saving old historical archives, we would also indirectly save all kinds of creations from past periods. By seeking to save all of our science, we can therefore save our entire heritage by extension. So even though scientific knowledge has been at the heart of the discussion so far, the sole purpose of epistemic memory is not to preserve all or part of our scientific literature for entire generations, but also to make our entire culture accessible to our distant descendants, including all philosophical, artistic, cinematic, musical, literary, political, anthropological, sociological, etc. It would be a shame if we were able to pass on our science, but not all the many other creations that make human life much less miserable.

Epistemic memory can immortalize the Universe

Saving knowledge is also a goal in itself, since knowledge could be defined as a form of immortalizing things. Knowledge is, in a way, the power to capture an aspect of the real world, to transform ephemeral existences into virtual eternity. Every tree that has ever been described by a human being has managed to survive beyond its death, by first being converted into a mental object called “knowledge” about that tree, which can only be understood by human beings. Isn’t it said that if humanity were to die out, the Universe would lose its best biographer? Moreover, the natural environment is not the only container in the Universe that can escape death through “epistemification”: we must not forget that we ourselves, as a species or as a civilization, are also containers of this Universe, particularly ephemeral ones at that, and that by converting ourselves into knowledge, we are able to transcend our own mortality. We individually leave traces of our passage through our epitaphs, our biographies, our testimonies, and our artistic creations. We collectively leave traces of our passage through libraries, museums, archives, monuments, and other repositories of knowledge. Humanity as a whole could therefore leave the ultimate trace of its passage in the Cosmos through an epistemic memory.

An epistemic memory, something that by definition centralizes as much information as possible about the known world, can also be seen as a great triumph of humanity in the face of the universe that surrounds it. Even if we cannot know everything about Reality in its entirety, our species is unique in that it is still capable of virtualizing the world around it into a handful of concepts, ideas, and representations. The simple act of accumulating theory upon theory, school of thought upon school of thought, question upon question, is in itself an enormous and unparalleled achievement, light years ahead of anything else. Being able to centralize this knowledge in a dedicated place would be a way for humanity to duplicate our universe, to recreate a second universe that is certainly imperfect and distinct from its model, but which is nonetheless a very rich and close reflection of it. A reflection whose diversity is matched only by the diversity of what it reflects. By making this place resistant to the passage of time, it would be as if the Cosmos were endowed with a memory of itself, with human beings as its workers. This would result in a sort of miniature universe encoded within itself, at a very specific point in space-time. A whole within the greater whole. 

Achieving such a feat would also send a signal to other potential major civilizations that populate the cosmos, whether human or not, terrestrial or not. It is not certain that among the many intelligent civilizations that may populate our world (statistically, this is quite likely, given the estimated number of planets in a galaxy, as well as the estimated number of galaxies in the observable Universe), all succeed in creating such a profusion of knowledge as ours. It is not impossible that many species and civilizations will become extinct before they have had time to create a great memory of the Universe on their part. But if humanity was at least able to create a memory of the richness of our civilization, a comprehensive and lasting memory, before it disappears itself, we may have achieved a rare feat in the cosmos. We would satisfy our anthropocentric pride with the most humanistic of projects. Perhaps this could even be a starting point for new civilizations or even new species that would inherit our knowledge after bumping into traces of our civilization. We would have bequeathed the best possible message to our descendants, to other life forms, and to the universe itself in its entirety. The ultimate message of our civilization is the most complete of all, that is, the biography of the great Whole.

Finally, on an individual level, such a project would also be a way to preserve our small existences, our names, our lives, our achievements, and our mistakes, to throw a bottle into the sea that will survive longer than us but that will appease and reassure us before we die. A bottle that will remind us that, deep down, we were part of something grand, we were part of the great Whole, we were part of the project to make it immortal, and to remind the Universe of our little existence.

Preserving knowledge is less costly than preserving ourselves

Whatever the (many) reasons that might lead us to consider an epistemic memory, it should be remembered that even now, before such a memory has been created, the maintenance of archives, museums, libraries, computer servers, and all other forms of cultural capital does not come at a considerable cost compared to many other aspects of society. Nations spend dozens of billions of dollars on defense, advertising, construction, industrial zones, and gigantic infrastructures, gigantic even in relation to the size of the planet (viaducts, tunnels, skyscrapers, road network etc.) Additional billions are also allocated to scientific research, education, technological development, and medicine. We need an astronomical amount of energy and materials to run our modern society, via thousands of power plants, factories, mines, vehicles, roads, railways, gas pipelines, oil pipelines, electrical cables, etc. And yet, in parallel to this, heritage institutions like archives represent only a tiny fraction of all the buildings constructed by civilization. Computer servers and maintaining the correct temperature for ancient manuscripts require only a fraction of global electricity production, while the rest supply our homes, our industries, our public lights etc. The amount of money needed to maintain museums is significant, but ultimately insignificant compared to what is needed to maintain other parts of our civilization. Even education does not require as many resources as the military or public health to be effective. In terms of human resources, it is also not essential to mobilize a large portion of the available payroll in order to effectively preserve intellectual capital around the globe, even though this capital is immense. Even when we send samples of our knowledge into space, aboard probes or in the form of radio messages, The creation of the message itself is significantly less expensive than the manufacture of other instruments on board a probe, or even less expensive than the construction of powerful radio transmitters. In fact, even in terms of time, sending a message into space requires few resources and therefore does not interfere with the smooth running of the aforementioned space exploration programs.

The negligible cost of a kind of “epistemic black box” is also insignificant compared to the cost of preventing global industrial disasters: energy transition, mass recycling, research and development—all these efforts to combat global warming and the increasing scarcity of resources may well be within the reach of the global economy, but they still represent a considerable expense. We can therefore consider that it is much easier to create a backup of our civilization’s knowledge than to save civilization from its downfall, although both are possible. To be clear, though: epistemic memory is not intended to replace the fight against global warming; at most, it’s a Plan B. In any case, it is so insignificantly costly to build an epistemic memory that launching several such projects at the same time would come only with a negligible increase of global expenditure for nations seeking to protect themselves from disasters. In fact, since longevity is an important aspect of the design of an epistemic memory project, with very little ongoing maintenance once the project is set up, this means that the cost of such a project would ultimately be immediately amortized. This logically leads us to the following conclusion: since the objectives of a large knowledge preservation project are very important, both from symbolic (create a buffer memory for our Universe, no less) and pragmatic (create a useful memory of our Science for our descendants) point of views, since we do not need all the money, all the time, all the staff, and all the energy in the world to carry out such a project, and since such a project would not really compete with other major social projects (medical research, education, poverty alleviation, energy transition, space exploration, defense, etc.), what real objection can be made to such a project? The only remaining obstacle, namely the need for technology capable of gathering a huge amount of information, is about to be overcome. Ultimately, despite the ambition to create a new, more sustainable Library of Alexandria, we are fortunate that this ambition is purely intellectual and much less of a financial drain than many other projects (nuclear arsenals, fighter jets, viral marketing campaigns, new cities, expeditions to Mars, etc.), while potentially having a much more lasting impact than the latter. Especially since the failure of such a project is a relative concept: if the project succeeds, the benefits of making knowledge available to our descendants would in any case be enormous: all our science, our ideas, our culture, our history. If the project doesn’t get off the ground, then we’ll have nothing left to lose, only our descendants could lack knowledge that they would not even suspect existed.

Note: there are no references for this article