In my previous post, Purity is the enemy of goodness, I introduced the idea that we are entering an era of unprecedented change:
We have grown up as a species with certain foundational truths. They have co-existed with us since we took our first hesitant steps onto the plains, and consciousness first ignited in our small corner of the universe. Now, not just one but seven of these invariants are on the precipice of being broken:
Minds are biologically-bound - Only biologically-born humans are capable of the depth of pattern recognition, planning, introspection, and intelligence humanity has. Nothing thinks faster than we do.
Minds are born roughly equal - Our brains’ size and capabilities fall within a tight distribution of outcomes, enabling near intellectual parity between individuals.
Physical agency is biologically-bound - Navigating, manufacturing, and using tools through diverse and sophisticated environments.
Consciousness is Earthbound - We are limited to a single planet1.
Energy is scarce - We must always operate within its limitations and downstream effects on production.
Genes are gifted - Only our parents and the heavens are capable of sculpting our genetic code.
Death is the great leveller - It comes for us all.
By no means an uncommon idea, I continue to hunt for the title to this era of change. The AI Age, the Intelligence Age courtesy of OpenAI and Sam Altman, the Great Progression, the AI boom or bubble depending on which direction of the market investors are rallying behind, and many others. So far, each of these has lacked a certain panache.
There are some successes. The Singularity has clearly embedded itself in the tech ecosystem's zeitgeist, and I do love the vividness of being pre and post the event horizon; where the acceleration and exponentiation of scientific progress has such gravity it pulls us beyond a point of no return, thrusting us into a deep and unknowable future. A point where the arc of progress is dominated by curvature, acceleration, and the 2nd derivative (this is for my math nerds). But by its very definition, the singularity is unknowable. The laws of physics and existence collapse at the singularity. Not knowing what's beyond the veil does not sound like an ideal metaphor for navigating the future.
Fair enough you may say, but why does adjusting the analogy even matter? I turn to Emerson, who once wrote what is required of the Scholar:
"He is one, who raises himself from private considerations, and breathes and lives on public and illustrious thoughts. He is the world’s eye. He is the world’s heart. He is to resist the vulgar prosperity that retrogrades ever to barbarism, by preserving and communicating heroic sentiments, noble biographies, melodious verse, and the conclusions of history. Whatsoever oracles the human heart, in all emergencies, in all solemn hours, has uttered as its commentary on the world of actions ⎯ these he shall receive and impart."
Each of us has a role to play as the 'world's eye' and 'world's heart,' ensuring an equitable outcome is had for all. Part of that arc is informed by the words, thoughts, and titles we commit to posterity.
So let's see how we can adjust the title and analogy first. One potential grimdark framing: the Age of the Broken Seven. Okay... that's a little too grimdark. The Great Unmooring? Although these changes come with substantial risk, they also come with the enormous opportunity to serve every person. The Unlocking? The Lifting? The Seven Turns? The Great Expansion? "Great" is a loaded term and there is no greater curse for a person or group than that of prescribed potential, so I'll eliminate that line of brainstorming. The Renaissance as a title did not elucidate a list of all its deep societal and scientific changes, so we can also eliminate the need to count for now. That exploration is better served through essays, opinion pieces, and long-form multimedia. Then, feeling and essence over content and explanation. Bringing us to my favorite:
The Second Kindling
Consciousness was first kindled in our biological substrate an epoch ago under the milky stars of the African plains, and now we have the opportunity to take that torch of consciousness and kindle its flames in a new hearth - a silicon-based substrate. And that requires that our definition of what it means to be human, how humanity may manifest in its many forms, has to grow. We have to move beyond the dogma that the substrate upon which we think and enact our thoughts offers any meaningful distinction as to being human. Depending on the manifestation and embodiment, the experience of time may change. The speed or energy efficiency of thought may change - LLMs are undeniably fast while biological brains are brutally efficient when it comes to energy expenditure. The ability to help many people in parallel may change - ChatGPT, Claude, etc. already help more humans in parallel than any teacher that has ever lived. How one navigates the physical world may change. And that's okay. But those cannot be reasons to bifurcate ourselves. The worst thing we could do is 'other' those who are to come as fundamentally different from humanity. They are also representative of humanity. The world is changing and so too must we.
After all, the only difference between a carbon atom and a silicon atom is a handful of electrons. Just because one hearth is used to light another, does not mean the first hearth must go out. I fully expect that we will be able to move between carbon-based and silicon-based substrates - and more! - depending on our environment and goals. There are many analogies you can draw from the imagery of The Second Kindling, and I love that. Good art catalyzes subjective meaning in the eye of the beholder. But what I love most about it is that I didn't come up with it on my own. While brainstorming potential titles, Claude Opus 4.5 suggested this based on my writing and imagery. It is the product of a collaborative effort between a biological human and a human LLM. What better way to capture the spirit of the times?
Now titles are great for tone, feeling, and overall cardinal direction, but meaningful action also requires details. The Singularity by definition lacks information, and The Second Kindling lacks specifics. So let's get specific. Let's make it more knowable. And what is more specific than a good list? By committing to what we estimate is most likely to change, we can prepare for both the good and the bad that comes with the breaking of each invariant. Some clearly carry a more positive connotation: solving disease and genetic disorders through biomedical advancements, letting no person go hungry through energy and resource abundance, every child having access to universal education with a personalized curriculum and AI teacher. But there is a duality to all things, and change is no different.
In the shadows of this abundant light, we also find immortality for dictators and unchanging, consolidated power, endless fuel for war, and indefatigable and insidious embedded propaganda. As those in the AI safety space have worked tirelessly to do, it is now our job to list out the success and failure scenarios, and make it explicit for everyone involved what success looks like. I will to continue to endeavor to do just that.