"Arrival," The Oscars, Market Anarchy, and the Kardashev Scale

So, apparently the Oscars were held a week or so ago.

I don't really pay attention to what happens in Hollywood, but I like films (who doesn't). I particularly enjoyed the murky tone and feeling of Arrival, which won an Oscar in the category of "Best Sound Editing."

--There are no spoilers in this article--

The film employs an overarching plot device in order to tell a very intimate story of loss, personal conflict, and discovery. In this respect, it is very similar in construction to other recent films like Interstellar [2014] and Moon [2009].

Of course the overarching plot in Arrival is first contact with extraterrestrials, who arrive on Earth in 12 separate, but identical spacecraft. Even though the film itself is about first contact with aliens, the  movie's overall message has nothing to do with aliens, and instead grapples with questions of determinism and the Sapir-Worf Hypothesis.

However, I wanted to use Arrival to discuss my theory that mankind's use of government is merely an evolutionary stage in our development as a species--one that we either will, or must outgrow in order to continue our existence.

While the alien species does seem to be organized in some general way, it is not apparent in the film whether if that organization is governmental. There is nothing in the film to suggest that it is. I would argue that interstellar travel would effectively be impossible unless human civilization can shed itself from the yoke of government.

As I touched on in an earlier piece, Star Wars--Rogue One: Why I Wouldn't Join the Rebel Alliance, I do not think that a single government could encompass an entire planet, much less a planetary system, star cluster, or an entire galaxy.

I believe that the rise of populist nationalism signifies the unsustainable nature of global governance. Across history, humans time and time again have yearned for local governance. There is a reason that colonies almost always become independent nations.

Therefore, the future of human civilization is decentralization or radical secession down to the level of the individual. In fact, this is a necessity if we are to evolve to level I on the Kardashev scale of civilizational advancement and harvest all the Sun's energy that falls upon Earth.

In fact, this idea was blindly stumbled upon by Stephen Hawking, who isn't necessarily a champion of liberty. In 2015  he stated that "human aggression could destroy us all." Did he stumble upon the non-aggression principle?

Stephen Hawking is considered by many to be the most intelligent human being alive, but is wrong from time to time. Politically speaking, he supports universal health care and political action against "climate change."

He has also been wrong scientifically with his condemnation of the black hole information paradox which relates to the idea of the holographic universe and string theory.

Ron Paul and Daniel McAdams discuss Hawking's 2015 comments below (apologies for the poor audio):

Hopefully the rise of national populist movements is a net-positive for liberty and leads to decentralization, which we know is a  necessary prerequisite for liberty and real human progress.

Thanks for stopping by Liberty Weekly. Have a great Saturday night!

Image Credit: https://blackgirlnerds.com/

Follow me on Steemit (I follow back)! https://steemit.com/@libertyweekly 

This post is 100% Steem Power! Support Steem by Powering Up!

Find me on Twitter, Facebook, or sign up to my email list on my home website http://libertyweekly.net