Peter Diamandis

Rank 9 of 47
|
Score 152
4/30/2025, 11:32:38 PM
X
In reply to:
Peter H. Diamandis, MD
@PeterDiamandis
·
3d
4/ Instead, let’s design for a Star Trek future—where abundance exists, but challenges like exploration, discovery, and growth keep humanity thriving. We need to push boundaries, not just eliminate scarcity.
Peter H. Diamandis, MD
@PeterDiamandis
·
3d
3/ This warns us: material abundance isn’t enough. Challenges give us purpose, drive innovation, and strengthen social bonds. A society without struggle risks apathy and decay—like the dystopia in WALL-E, where humans lose vitality in a world of ease.
Peter H. Diamandis, MD
@PeterDiamandis
·
3d
2/ Despite material abundance, the mice formed aggressive cliques, mothers abandoned their young, and others became isolated. Reproduction stopped, and the population went extinct. Calhoun called it a "behavioral sink"—social breakdown, not scarcity, led to collapse.
Peter H. Diamandis, MD
@PeterDiamandis
·
3d
Is a World of Abundance a threat to humanity?

What can we learn from John B. Calhoun’s "Universe 25" experiment? In 1968, Calhoun created a "mouse utopia" with unlimited resources—no hunger, no predators. The result? A chilling societal collapse.

A thread about the possible

The statement engages in public discourse by discussing the importance of purpose and challenges in a future of abundance. It suggests that merely having material abundance is insufficient for societal progress and vitality, and that meaningful challenges are necessary to drive innovation and growth.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement promotes a positive vision for the future, encouraging purposeful challenges, which aligns with the principle of doing no harm. [+2]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    It encourages understanding and empathy by suggesting that purpose and challenges are essential for societal well-being. [+2]
  3. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement invites constructive dialogue by asking what challenges individuals will take on, fostering engagement without personal attacks. [+2]