.png)
.png)
.png)
Howard Bloom Repeals Entropy In a Sexy Cosmic Way
Oct. 17, 2024. 43 mins. read.
18 Interactions
Cosmic evolution, AI, and the audacity of life. Howard Bloom takes on thermodynamics in a provocative interview with R.U. Sirius.
Howard Bloom Repeals Entropy In a Sexy Cosmic Way
When I was in college studying creative writing, I had a professor who said I was trying to cram the entire zeitgeist into every sentence. Turns out I was thinking small; Howard Bloom tends to bite off the entire history of cosmic evolution in his books. Bloom’s forthcoming book is titled ‘The Case of the Sexual Cosmos: Everything You Know About Nature Is Wrong’. The book is a tour-de-force that tracks the continuing audacious spread of life from the Big Bang to this age of wild human created technological change.
Earlier books have included ‘Global Brain: Evolution of the Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century’, and ‘The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition into the Forces of History’. Bloom, now 81 years old, has had a long and interesting life that has included everything from doing public relations for innumerable musical acts to suffering from Chronic Fatigue System which left him almost housebound for approximately 15 years. And of course, many controversial and speculative books.
Bloom, known for provocative texts, hits the reader right up front in this one. He praises the “common sins” of materialism, consumerism, waste and vain display, calling them drivers in evolution that add to the “toolkit of the cosmos.” Some of those are not among my favorite vices, but you shouldn’t let that stop you. This is a fascinating book. It drew my attention away from everything else I thought I wanted to read for many weeks. And I hope you will find this conversation as interesting as I found the book.
The Case of the Sexual Cosmos: Everything You Know About Nature Is Wrong comes out January 1st, 2025. from World Philosophy & Religion Press.
RU Sirius: So since this is mainly an AI oriented website, published by SingularityNet, would you be able to state the premise of your book, and put it in the context of AI, and of any notion of the Singularity you would care to reject or embrace.
Howard Bloom: ‘The Case of the Sexual Cosmos: Everything You Know About Nature is Wrong’ makes mincemeat of two of science’s most cherished laws. And it tells the tale of the cosmos – from the Big Bang to what’s going in your brain as you read this sentence – from a startlingly new point of view.
Take the Second Law of Thermodynamics, that all things are constantly falling apart, that entropy is constantly on the increase, that disorder is always on the rise. The Second Law is wrong.
This cosmos is one where all things are falling together. It is not a cosmos constantly sliding downhill into what Lord Kelvin called heat death. It is a cosmos constantly stepping up an invisible staircase. Yes, stepping up.
And the cosmos is using her ability to churn out radical new inventions, whether those inventions are atoms, molecules, suns, moons, or stars, not to mention galaxies.
She’s constantly using these new creations to reinvent herself.
The greatest reinventors of this cosmos have been life and humans. Life is not a matter of laying down and being consilient (to use E.O. Wilson’s word) with what’s around you. Life is obstreperous. Life is audacious. Life is spunky. Life has moxie. Life takes on challenges. Life surmounts those challenges. And life creates new realities.
Those new realities reinvent the cosmos. They add to the cosmos’ toolkit. And in the 40 years since 1983, when computers became widespread, and since 1993, when the World Wide Web was started, we have invented more new capabilities, new tools for the cosmos, than any other children of the Big Bang have ever produced.
That’s one basic premise of the book. The cosmos is not proceeding on the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the law that all things fall apart. It’s proceeding on the First Law Of Flamboyance. The law that all things fall together.
Getting down to AI – the last year of the writing process for this book I had something brand new: AI. And that meant that I had the capacity to go deeper in my research than ever before, I always doubt every sentence that I write. I go back and fact-check it at least five times. Which explains why there are approximately 7,000 references in this book.
RU: Yeah. There are a lot.
HB: And it used to take two days to fact check a sentence. Even with the Internet and old-style search engines, it was a grueling process. But now we have Consensus, an AI offering which digs into all the scientific studies that it’s been able to get its hands on. So checking a fact has become a matter of 45 minutes. Now 45 minutes is a lot of time when you’ve got a lot of sentences in your book. But…
RU: Do you worry about errors?
HB: Oh, yeah. I’m worried that my premises could be wrong, the premises of the entire book. I’m worried that each paragraph could be wrong. And in fact, there was a chapter that I was setting out to write and it depended on a single contention. And for almost ten years I dug through a mountain of books and could not find the information to either back it or refute it. Then, helped along by AI, I was able to discover that no, there is no evidence for this contention of mine. None. And I was able to see that in a matter of days, not years.
RU: Would you care to say what that is?
HB: Well, the contention was that the amount of biomass on earth has increased since humans and modern industrial civilization, not decreased. I mean we spend $2.4 trillion a year on the care, feeding, and breeding of plants. It’s called farming.
One of the most important things Consensus helped with was pinning down dates: the date of the first bacteria in the sea, the date of the first bacteria on the land, the date of the first land plants, then the first land animals. Consensus also helped when I was going after the date of the first sex.
Meanwhile, it turns out that the premise that we have increased the planet’s biomass is not reflected in any research at all. What we have increased is sentience. So I had to switch to give you an idea of how humans have grown this planet. And we have grown this planet. In fact, we have grown the Universe. We have added to the tool kit of this Cosmos. And I had to show you how by telling you the story of the increase of sentience. Sentience is a word that I find awkward to use. But sentience has been around on this planet for approximately 3.9 billion years. ever since the first bacteria. And it has grown exponentially, especially in the last 200,000 years since we became Homo sapiens. And more recently, since the 1990s and the computer revolution.
But I wasn’t able to pin down my premise about humans increasing the biomass until the last time I went over the book. Then AI suddenly sprang into the picture and made life easier. Google Scholar is very useful, but it’s nothing compared to Consensus.
RU: So now you’re talking about how you used AI, but what about how does AI fit into your view of how life has evolved?
HB: The premise of the book is that life is not what we think it is. It is not in harmonious balance. Telling a deer that the lion tearing her to pieces while she’s still alive is a matter of harmonious balance… the deer would find the argument incomprehensible, for good reasons.
We think of the Cosmos as harmonious balance, we call that an equilibrium. We think that the Cosmos follows the law of entropy, which says basically that all things fall apart. That is not this Cosmos. This Cosmos is one where all things are falling together, where the Cosmos is constantly stepping up an invisible staircase.
It isn’t stepping down that invisible staircase, which entropy would tend to get us to believe. The Cosmos is using her products, whether they are atoms, molecules, suns, moons, and stars, not to mention galaxies. She’s constantly using these new creations to reinvent herself. And the greatest reinventors of this Cosmos have been life and humans. And life is not a matter of laying down and being in concilience, to use E. O. Wilson’s word, with what’s around you. As I said, life is audacious. Life is spunky. Life takes on challenges. Life surmounts challenges. Life creates new realities. Those new realities reinvent the Cosmos. They add to the Cosmos’ toolkit. And in the 20 or 30 years since computers have become widespread and since the invention of the World Wide Web, we have been doing more invention of new capabilities, of new tools for the Cosmos, than anything else the Cosmos has ever produced. That is one of the basic premises of the book.
RU: Right. You call it the First Law of Flamboyance.
HB: Yeah, the First Law of Flamboyance replacing the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
RU: All right, but what happens if we’re uploaded or if we unite with Artificial Intelligence. Does that turn into something else? Will we say we had thermodynamics, then we had Blooms’ First Law Of Flamboyance, now we have Prigogine’s idea that chaos comes back together at a higher level of complexity?
HB: I think Prigogine’s book is nonsense. It’s like walking the mile to the dentist’s office backwards. In other words, he defines everything in terms of entropy. Entropy has been radically disproved by what we know of the evolution of the Universe. And we know quite a bit about the evolution of the Universe now. And at no step does that evolution display the kind of universal entropy or heat death that Lord Kelvin talked about.
I mean, entropy was an idea of this little group involved in inventing thermodynamics from 1850 to roughly 1875. And they had a brilliant idea – that heat was not caused by a particle called the caloric, which was taken for granted up until then. They were certain that heat instead was the movement of atoms and molecules. And the very idea of atoms and molecules was totally unproven. So they took a big jump and they turned out to be absolutely right about the nature of heat.
But then they, arrogantly, went about giving two laws of thermodynamics. One was the conservation of matter and energy. And that has held up very well. The other was that entropy is constantly on the increase. And what did they mean by entropy? Well, Lord Kelvin put it perfectly in 1850, when he was still known as William Thomson. He did it in a paper on the dissipation of energy. He talked about the dissipation of energy in a steam engine… the idea that 75 percent of the energy produced by making steam is lost in a steam engine to friction.. And he made a big leap. He said that because of this same sort of dissipation of energy the earth would eventually run down and become uninhabitable by human beings. That’s what Hermann von Helmholtz later called ‘heat death’.
And Rudolf Clausius was a contemporary of Thomson’s. The two of them were batting papers back and forth like ping-pong balls across the distance from Scotland to Prussia. And Rudolf Clausius was the one who came up with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the idea that entropy is constantly on the increase in this universe. Which means the whole universe is falling apart.
So anyway, Consensus made my life fact-checking far, far easier. The change was beyond belief.
So what’s going to happen to AI? The AI panic, I think, is totally unwarranted. Elon Musk believes in it, but Elon Musk has come to believe a lot of crazy things over the last two or three years. And the fact is that everything we’ve ever invented has augmented us. And this panic is like a panic that Plato had.
Plato was panicked because there was a new technology. And kids were jumping into that new technology like crazy. And Plato thought that new technology was going to destroy the Greek mind, to break the ability of the Greeks to think. Why? Because up until then, every school child had been forced to learn by heart, word for word, every sentence of the Iliad and the Odyssey. And that’s what Plato felt made the rigor of the Greek mind, having to go through that process.
RU: McLuhan said that enhancements come with reductions, that the extensions of man come with amputations.
HB: Well, that makes sense, because if you put your entire brain…
RU: We stopped using our legs as much when we got the self-moving ‘automobiles’ and then people got fat.
HB: Well, that’s a good point, but the technology that Plato was panicked by was writing. What Plato didn’t realize is that with writing, instead of knowing two books, you could know a hundred books. You could know far more, and you could write your own thoughts down.
RU: Now I have more than that on my iPad, or on my cell phone.
HB: Things like writing become our augmentors. Things like writing become our enhancers. Things like writing make us more human than we’ve ever been able to be before.
For example, thanks to writing, we now produce 2 million books a year. And thanks to technological tools like oil paints and musical instruments, we’ve produced roughly 15 billion works of art, over 3,000 symphonies, and 80 million songs, Not to mention building 104,000 museums,
Our AI terror is overblown. Imagine a bunch of bacteria being around for approximately 2 billion years. And suddenly they’re hit with these newfangled things called multicellular organisms. They’d think it’s the end of the world for bacteria and for single-cell life. So it’s now a billion years later, and what has happened to bacteria? Well, there are more bacteria. There are ten times as many bacteria living in you as the cells that make up you.
They’ve found ways to use humans, for example, as their grocery shoppers. A human can’t digest a chocolate éclair. It’s the bacteria in your gut that digests that chocolate éclair. Bacteria can eat it. You can’t.
So the bacteria in your gut motivate you to go down to the local supermarket and buy them chocolate eclairs and bring the éclairs home for them. You’re their transport mechanism. And then you chew on the éclair and pass it down your esophagus to the bacteria in your gut. The bacteria then eat those éclairs and defecate out things like glucose that are food and fuel to you.
So the bacteria have not been eliminated by the existence of multicellular beings like you and me. They have been augmented. They have been given new powers like the power to get down to the grocery store and the power to chew. All these things are immense new abilities for bacteria.
And humans will co-evolve with AI. There’s no reason at all that AI should want to get rid of us – except for the AI that we’re building for war. That can turn on us. We have to be very careful about the commands we build into our killer robots, the ones operated autonomously by their own internal AI.
RU: I’m still wondering about this: if and when we unite with AI, will we have already gone past what you call the First Law Of Flamboyance and gone into something we can’t even begin to comprehend.
HB: We are going into something we can’t even begin to comprehend. The future is always so mind-boggling that it’s ridiculous. Or at least it’s been that way for the last 224 years since 1800. Since 1800 major technological changes have been hitting us every 15 years, And now it’s down to every five years. Possibly every year… when Apple and Google announce their new products, and when companies like Open AI come into existence. So the future is unimaginable to you and me. Nobody imagined what the future be in 1993 when Tim Berners-Lee inspired the idea of the worldwide web.
RU: I would say that lots of people were predicting things that might emerge from the internet in 1995. It was a heyday of futurism. What most people see now is that it’s more dystopian than a lot of people predicted in 1995. People are getting ripped off. We’ve had economic crashes in which the banks got bailed out while lots of other people lost their life savings. Ad infinitum.
HB: That may be true. But there’s an unbelievably empowering positive side. Today the web is rich in things that allow you and me to talk to each other face-to-face. While my laptop is sitting on my knees, on my thighs in my lap. And yet I’ve got you here. Back in 2011 or 2012, the Internet was already so far along that I was able to put together a Skype meeting between Buzz Aldrin and the 11th President of India, Dr. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam, who was the most respected politician in South Asia, a superstar in South Asia. And I was able to do that with my laptop on my lap, from here in Park Slope Brooklyn.
RU: Yeah, certainly we have things that would have seemed like a miracle a few decades back to people who weren’t paying attention.
HB: Yup. Let’s go back to the 1990s, when we already had cell phones. They were little bricks we carried around with us everywhere and they were immensely handy. They made possible all kinds of things we’d never been able to do before. Then the smartphone came along in 2007. Things exploded when Steve Jobs decided to make the smartphone available for third-party apps. And we have no idea where it’s gonna go next.
The same thing is true of AI. We’re just at the very beginning, and at the very beginning it’s almost impossible to predict what new things are going to be invented given the powers of AI.
There are apparently already artificial romantic partners, boyfriends and girlfriends, that you can find on AI. That is, the AI will fashion you a girlfriend or boyfriend of your dreams. And you don’t have to worry about dating anymore.
RU: That’s kind of sad. I mean, for people who don’t have a choice because of some condition it’s a plus. But people in good health, I think, should find human partners at least as their main relationship.
HB: I agree. And AI romantic partners could seriously shrink the population of the humans on earth.
RU: This is a theme of your book. The whole idea that we’re in a sexual cosmos that you connected with flamboyance as part of the ability to attract sexual partners in order to – you don’t use the term ‘reproduce’ – you say we’ve been creating originals not reproductions. Please say a little about that.
HB: Every new baby produced by sex is a product of gene-shuffling. It’s the product of gene splicing so complex that it’s hard for even the most intelligent among us to keep it straight. Sex is not about making carbon copies of yourself: it is not about ‘reproducing’. It’s about making something new. It’s about making one-of-a-kinds. Oddballs. New probes of the cosmos into possibility space. The way dinosaurs produced oddballs with feathers. And the way those oddballs eventually took to the skies. The way those oddballs actually made it through the meteor smash that wiped out their dinosaur cousins 65 million years ago. There are now twice as many species of these sky-soaring oddballs as there are of us nice, conservative, land-walking mammals. That dinosaur weirdness, that flying, is a product of gene-shuffling. It’s a product of sex. And the oddballs I’m talking about – the loony dinosaurs who flew – are called birds.
RU: We have the ability to create digital others, and we’re moving into a lot of post-gender ideations. We are moving into a culture where people get pretty pissed off if you tell them that one of the things you’re supposed to be doing is creating other human beings. It’s a whole different culture. How do you think about all that in terms of your theories of sexual attraction and the laws of flamboyance?
HB: It’s another one of those rebellions against nature that nature seems to love. Another movement of oddballs. In ‘The Case of the Sexual Cosmos’ I tell you stories that explain a simple, underlying rule of nature: nature loves those who oppose her most. The current obsession with gender fluidity is one more way of turning ourselves into something the cosmos favors, probes of possibility space. Probes into the unknown. Novelty makers. Boundary breakers.
Way back around 1976, I was flown down to Houston and named the Ambassador of Texas Culture to the World by the mayor of Houston. That same month I was named by Ray Caviano, one of the founding fathers of disco, a spokesman for the gay community. That gay community was using disco to build its pride. It was using disco to come out of the closet. So I was named a spokesman for Texas and for the gay community even though I’m neither Texan nor gay.
I learned something very interesting about the gay culture once I immersed myself in it. Gay culture takes flamboyance to the nth degree. Why? Because they don’t have to spend their disposable income on children. They can spend their disposable income on anything they want. And the result is a flamboyant creativity. So when HIV came around, and it was killing gay men ferociously, and the gay community needed help, people like Cher threw herself into this because gay designers had made her costumes, and her costumes had made her career. Bette Midler felt the same way: that the gay community helped make her who she was. When she first played the gay bath-houses of Manhattan in the early 1970s, the gay community adopted her. And they energized her. So we may not recognize the value of the gay community to the culture as a whole, but it’s made an enormous contribution.
RU: In other words, in terms of your analysis of flamboyance adding to sex which in turn adds to life, then gay people distribute some flamboyance to people with more normative sexual desires and that adds to the reproductive.
HB: A brilliant summation. When people break new boundaries it adds to the whole tool-case of the cosmos. Talk about breaking the boundaries of the possible, I mean, I ended up working with Michael Jackson, an amazing boundary breaker. On the surface, Michael and I simply did not belong together. And yet we did.
Look, I’m a science nerd. I’ve been in science since I was ten. I started at ten in microbiology and theoretical physics. I co-designed a computer that won some science-fair awards when I was 12, and was schlepped off to a meeting with the head of the graduate physics department at the University of Buffalo. We discussed the hottest new debate in science: the steady-state theory of the universe versus the Big Bang theory of the universe. So you may wonder how I came to work with people like ZZ Top and with the disco scene in New York City. Not to mention with Michael Jackson.
Well, at the age of 12, I became fascinated with this word from the black community, ‘soul’, and its clue to a higher level of experience. Soul was a peephole to an ecstatic experience where you are utterly taken over by something that’s bigger than you. Where something else dances you for a while. And that experience became important to my science.
I graduated magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from NYU. I graduated with fellowships from four grad schools in clinical psychology so I could study physiological psychology – what’s now called neuroscience. But then I realized something. If I go off to grad school, somebody’s going to stand over my head and train me. He’s going to train me to do experiments that follow up on his big idea or the big idea that he follows. If I go to grad school, it’s going to be like Auschwitz for the mind.
I mean, I’m going to spend the rest of my life giving paper and pencil tests to 20 college students in exchange for a psychology credit. And will I ever see kids having the kind of ecstatic experiences that I’ve been seeking, the ones that are captured by the word ‘soul’? Not on your life. Never. I will be totally isolated from the phenomena that interest me most.
So I co-founded a commercial art studio. And I did because it would be a periscope position into popular culture. And eventually I founded the biggest PR firm in the music industry and worked with Michael Jackson, Prince, Bob Marley, Bette Midler, ACDC, Aerosmith, Kiss, Queen, Billy Joel, Bill Idol, Paul Simon, Peter Gabriel, and David Byrne. And how many scientists have had this sort of privilege, the privilege of creating an attention storm? None. Not a single scientist I’ve ever heard of.
Alexander von Humboldt did astonishing things. He mounted the most publicized scientific expedition that anybody has ever seen. And he spent five years walking six thousand miles in South America cataloging so many new species that 300 species are named after him. And doing it so famously that 4,000 city streets, town names, rivers, and geological locations all over the world are named after him. And he influenced a much younger man through his journals. He published seven journals. And inspired by them, that younger man went off on another scientific expedition, another voyage of discovery. His name was Charles Darwin and his expedition was the Voyage of the Beagle. And it led to his concept of evolution.
But von Humboldt was not Darwin’s only influence. Darwin denied that his grandfather had influenced him. But that grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, had laid out of the history of the universe on an evolutionary timeline. And that provided a boost to the thinking of Charles.
My scientific expedition was different. I did not go to South America. That scientific expedition had been done. My scientific expedition was into the realm of the ecstatic experience, into the realm of popular culture. And all of my books are a product of that side trip, that 20-year scientific expedition into the forces of history. Looking for the forms that mass emotion takes. Looking for mass hurricanes of passion.
RU: I guess that work relates clearly to the questions of flamboyance because you entered a flamboyant culture. Some people in that music culture contrast ‘soul’ with flamboyance. They would say that the more rootsy sort of musician who does not do glam is expressing soul.
These things are dividable into subcategories. For example, within flamboyance itself you have the tacky flamboyance of Donald Trump, right? He made Trump Towers. There you have an ostentatious display. You use the term ‘vain display’ in your book as something important to the evolution of the entire cosmos
HB: Yes, yes.
RU: Okay, in Trump you have, in some ways, the ultimate vain display. You can contrast that with maybe someone like Mick Jagger, whose display is fun or like Salvador Dalí, who makes it funny and playful. Whereas with Trump there’s a kind of rot at the center of it.
HB: Because there’s no moral compass. That’s a problem. Almost all of us come equipped at birth with a moral compass. Donald Trump did not. And that sickens everything he does.
RU: Let’s look at the values you say drive the evolution of the cosmos: materialism, consumerism, waste, and vain display. I’m pretty happy with the vain display. I can sort of embrace waste because my room’s a mess. Now materialism, consumerism… for me, it was always a bit of a cliché when people would say, “Oh, you’re a new left hippie, therefore you’re not materialistic.” That’s a simplistic misunderstanding of what I was trying to do. I was never opposed to material, per se. But then again, I mean, materialism, consumerism… it got me to thinking about how boring it is to be at a really bourgeois party where everybody’s talking about their houses and their yachts and their cars and how their kids are going to the best schools. It’s a really banal thing. I mean, material wealth, business itself, I think, is pretty dull, and the people who are engaged in it are pretty prosaic.
HB: I found business exciting. First of all, I co-founded Cloud Studio, my art studio, which I had no credentials for. And the artists I was working with were exciting. That’s one of the reasons I got into it.
RU: Yeah, it worked for you. But your inventors and discoverers are more interesting than the financiers.
HB: I stayed away from the financiers. But I was going to visit art directors. You would think that would be boring, visiting art directors at the major advertising agencies and at the major magazines and book publishers. It wasn’t boring at all. Each one of them was a human being and every human being is a new experience.
RU: That’s your experience and it’s within the arts. But on the other hand, the web, the internet was a really free place where you could move across everything and dig into everything. And now there’s nothing but turnstiles, and roadblocks… firewalls.. and all of it is because people want to…
HB: People want to monetize it so they can pay their staff. Makes a lot of sense.
RU: You ask most people what they think of the internet today and they’ll tell you it’s pretty bad. It’s what Cory Doctorow calls ‘enshittification’. It’s really warped the entire experience so it can actually be unpleasant.
HB: But look at the Internet’s positives. Especially now that we have the first primitive AIs. Every Wednesday night, I go on 545 radio stations for three-and-a-half to four minutes doing a news commentary. And my host, George Noory, throws me my topic anywhere from 1 o’clock in the afternoon to 9:30 at night. Then, in three hours, I have to become one of the world’s leading experts on the topic. And then write my script. How can I pull this off? I mean, it’s true that I was doing this before there was an internet. But I was forced to rely on just a few magazines and The New York Times News of the Week in Review. Now, with the internet and search engines, I can consult over a hundred publications from all over the world. In just two hours.
RU: Maybe you’re using an AI thing because the basic Google search now is not good. It’s become cluttered. A day doesn’t go by that I don’t see someone saying that Google search is useless.
HB: Well, my research on a Wednesday night used to take me four to five hours. My research on the show I did three days ago, took me less than two hours. That’s a huge difference.
RU: Sure.
HB: That’s massive because I can ask AI the question I’m trying to pursue instead of trying to come up with search terms.
RU: Yeah. AI has definitely made a change… that’s a good change for that purpose.
HB: The one problem is that I need to check everything that AI tells me because AI comes up with serious hallucinations.
I don’t know if it still does this, but six or seven months ago, when I was using AI, I asked who first came up with the term ‘assortative mating’. And it gave me what sounded like a highly credible source from 1903, complete with the name of the author, the title of the article, the name of the publication, and the date of publication. It was a perfectly well-formed piece of information. But when I went to check it, I couldn’t find the name of the author anywhere. He may not have existed. When I searched for the title of the article, there was no such article. The AI made it up, but it did a brilliantly convincing job. I don’t know if they’ve solved that problem.
RU: There’s still hallucinating going on, I believe, although that’s a very strange thing to attribute to something. Because hallucinating is an experience. So, we’ve embedded into that language this idea that whoever is saying that the AI is hallucinating thinks that the AI is having an experience.
HB: that’s an interesting point. I hadn’t thought of that. Still, this tool is proving to be very helpful even in its infancy, in its crawling years.
RU: So maybe it’ll write your next book for you. Maybe you could just say “what would be the next book Howard Bloom would write?” And it’ll be so advanced it’ll just do the whole thing.
HB: I know what the next book is. It’s going to be a real challenge. This book is the ‘Case of the Sexual Cosmos: Everything You Know About Nature is Wrong’. The next book is ‘The Grand Unified Theory Of Everything In The Universe Including Sex, Violence, And The Human Soul’.
RU: It sounds like an extension of what you’ve been doing
HB: It’s the attempt to pull together all the threads of the previous eight books.
RU: You don’t go for small slivers of content.
HB: You might as well be outrageous. You know what T. S. Eliot said in ‘The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock’? Its essential message is… If you have something heroic to do, do it now. Start today. Do not wait. Or you will start putting it off and putting it off until one day you wake up and realize you no longer have the life energy: the life force to do it. And you will live the rest of your life in regret.
RU: One of your themes is that nature demands competition. Maybe that’s something we want to evolve past, that competition that causes damage, that causes hurt…
HB: Well, we have to get past war. War is outrageous.
Look at what’s happening in the Sudan, something like twenty million lives are at stake. The number of actual deaths so far is over 300,000. And it’s a racist war. It’s a war of the Arab north on the Black population of Sudan’s south.
RU: Isn’t that more motivated by material? By resources?
HB: It’s motivated by the drive for power…
RU: Did you ever read “What Does WoMan Want” by Timothy Leary?
HB: No. What does it say?
RU: At the end of the book, he starts referring to the drugs that he was interested in, which would have been the psychedelics, but also stimulants like cocaine, as ‘brain reward’ drugs. He proposes that this chemical culture could be a new way of satisfying the reward circuits in our brain that are now satisfied by power…. Let’s talk about religion though – that is something you go into quite a bit in the book.
HB: Well, every religion says, in essence, once our group rules, once our religion is in charge, we will have peace. This is the battle between group identities among humans.
RU: Monotheism… they’re all murderous… it goes back to Jehovah. He kills everybody for not honoring him properly or whatever.
HB: Right. And God laid out a commandment to kill all of the Canaanites. And that’s genocidal.
RU: In some ways, neoliberalism has the same idea: if everybody was under capitalist democracy, then the entire world would be at peace.
HB: Good point, very good point. The battle between group identities for alpha position in the dominance hierarchy is eternal. We have to figure out how to turn it toward peace.
RU: You’re very focused on the idea that everything continually grows. Life is basically equivalent to growth in your vision. But growth can be cancerous as well.
HB: In the Bloomian grand scheme of things, “Every good thing in excess is a poison.”
RU: There’s a kind of predestinarianism in your vision.
HB: Yes. It’s called teleology. There is a sense that there is an invisible staircase and the Cosmos has been climbing up that invisible staircase ever since the first instant of the Big Bang.
RU: Should we make decisions based on this? We do make choices.
HB: Well, we should take this into account. Ultimately, the most important thing we have is our moral compass. That is the most important thing. And if you have this information, you realize that Nature’s call is not to freeze everything the way it was in 1650, before the Industrial Revolution. The most important call of Nature is to add to Nature’s powers… to add to the powers of the Universe.
Yes, take care of existing things. Always care about ecosystems and species diversity. But don’t stop the evolution of novelty. Don’t stop the evolution of totally unexpected things. Because that is what the Cosmos calls for. The Cosmos has been stepping up this invisible staircase for 13.7 billion years now. It isn’t going to stop because we want to stop it at one point, like 1650, before the industrial revolution.
Nature is restless. Nature is constantly looking for the next opportunity in possibility-space. It may be a mistake to be as concerned about invasive species as we are. In evolution, Nature has always used invasive species to open up new opportunities. To try new things.
You know, Charles Darwin went to the Galapagos Islands and he took notes especially on the Galapagos Islands’ finches. And ever since then, the Galapagos Islands has been regarded as a paradise of Nature. But that paradise is what it is because of invasive species. The Galapagos iguanas came from South America and were invasive species 10.5 million years ago. And the finches came 2.3 million years ago. They, too, were an invasive species. And those iguanas and finches are now the species that we think have always been there. They are now the species we think of as natural. So do we really have the right to stop invasive species? Well, if there are species that we love that are about to be destroyed, yeah, we have that right.
RU: We have a capacity for making decisions despite whatever predestination might be in play. And humans are going to try to create novelty. Do you feel like it requires an argument that you need to present for this to continue? You talk about — or to — environmentalists at various points in the book. Do you feel there are forces that want to stop us from creating novelty?
HB: Yes. So I’m saying there are two systems that are trying to stop things dead in their tracks. One is the Islamic system. And the other is extreme environmentalism. And the extreme environmentalists are a subculture that has been with us since the 1960s. That subculture has managed to gain control over our schools. And it’s taken over a good many of our scientific institutions. And extreme environmentalism is anti-technology and anti-modernity. Some of its adherents believe that technology should be stopped dead in its tracks.
RU: That’s a big generalization. There are plenty of environmentalists who are not anti-technology, not anti-novelty.
HB: Well, I applaud the ones who are not but I’m disturbed by the ones who are.
RU: Right. And you seem to feel they have a lot of power?
HB: They have a lot of power. There’s no question about it. They’re not overt about their anti-technological approach. They’re covert about it. They’re sneaky.
The mind of a culture is determined by the competition between its subcultures. And each subculture has a different premise, a different hypothesis about what the world is.
And in the battle between subcultures for control of the group mind, the environmentalists have done astonishing things. I mean, Earth Day was in 1970. And within five years of Earth Day, when I walked past the local grammar school, I saw all of these ecology posters that kids had drawn in the windows. And then you got the IPCC: the committee that meets to figure out how close the temperature and CO₂ levels are to producing a catastrophe.
And at the core of the group, I believe, are people who are anti-technology. Folks like this say that space is a waste, it’s simply a joyride for the super-rich. They say that we should take the money we spend on space and use it to solve problems on Earth. We should use it to feed and clothe the starving. And that looks at first to be a generous and humane view. But it’s not. These people are crazy.
RU: That’s about class not environmentalism
HB: Well, how so?
RU: It’s not obvious? They’re indulging because they have billions of dollars. There are a few billionaires that control over 50% of the wealth while other people live limited and sometimes wretched lives.
I was just watching a piece about kids in the U.S. that rely on school lunches because they’re hungry. A great percentage of our young population go hungry and they rely on their school lunches. And they’re not all free. Some get it free, but if their parents earn a few dollars above a certain amount, then the parents have to pay a fairly decent amount of money. And if the parents miss their payments, they harass the children at some U.S. schools.
HB: That’s monstrous.
RU: There’s all kinds of examples, all kinds of class issues. And in terms of the environment, if you live in certain neighborhoods, you end up with asthma. It affects your ability to breathe. That’s pretty real. That’s a real day-to-day situation. And climate change, throughout most of your book, is a big abstraction. Earth’s climate has been changing radically over and over since it first formed and I guess the cosmos had crazy shifts before earth. But in this local pinpoint of space and time, it’s a danger, particularly to people who are living in places that are vulnerable to being wiped out.
HB: But Ken, let’s go back to opening new frontiers like space for a minute. Every time we’ve opened a new frontier, we’ve elevated the living standards of the poor. I mean the beggar who mooches for change at my local supermarket has a bicycle and a cell phone. Do you know how much one of the richest tech lovers of the 1800s would have been willing to pay for a cellphone and a bicycle? That rich tech lover was Prince Albert, Queen Victoria’s husband. He was at the height of the British class system, yet he died at the age of 42 of a stomach ailment. But when one of my homeless friends, Derek, who used to beg in front of the local supermarket came down with a stomach problem, he cycled five blocks to the local hospital, checked himself into the emergency room, and was given an antibiotic. Prince Albert died at 42. My friend Derek, the beggar, lived to 78. That’s how opening new frontiers lifts even the poorest among us.
Then there’s climate. The Case of the Sexual Cosmos advocates climate stabilization technologies. That is, we do need to take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, to the best of our ability. And we need to switch over from fossil fuels. China still heavily relies on coal for God’s sake. So does India. We need to get out of the coal era entirely. We need to get out of the gasoline era as rapidly as possible.
RU: They’ve been saying that for a long time.
HB: Yeah, so I agree with the environmentalists about all of that.
RU: Keith Henson has been talking about bringing solar energy from space for years.
HB: The guy who started space solar power was Isaac Asimov in 1941. Keith is a member of a group that I run: the Big Bang Tango Media Lab every Sunday night. So I see Keith every Sunday. And I see him again nearly every Monday night in the Space Development Steering Committee, another group that I run. So yes, we have these debates.
RU: Henson also wants to build a space elevator.
HB: I don’t think that’s ever going to happen, but what do I know about the future? The most important thing is that this book supports climate stabilization technologies and offers a climate stabilization technology that can bring us to net zero, that can achieve the goals of the Green New Deal. And that technology is solar power harvested in space, as you just said, solar power transmitted to earth using the kind of harmless microwaves that our cell phones use. And that’s an almost infinite source of power, a huge huge source of power without any greenhouse gas emissions at all.
RU: Yeah, but how do you get it? How do you get any of that to happen?
HB: I’ve been working on it.
RU: When Jerry Brown was campaigning for president in 1976, he talked about getting solar energy from space at some university…
HB: Really!?
RU: Yeah and he was basically laughed out of the electoral process. That was part of the Governor Moonbeam image. Although he kept after the idea for several years beyond that.
HB: That’s amazing…. And disturbing. But, as I said, I’ve been working on space solar power. So I put together a meeting on Skype between Buzz Aldrin and the 11th President of India. Buzz had introduced me to the engineer who designed the Lunar Lander, because that engineer, Hugh Davis, was totally gung-ho into space solar power. And Dr. Kalam, the Indian 11th President, was also head over heels into space solar power. And I learned later that an email that I sent Dr. Kalam was what turned him on to space solar power. Then he became a collaborator of mine for the next four years.
So I’ve tried many things with space solar power. I don’t feel I’ve really gotten anywhere. But hopefully a few people will read this book and see how space solar power solves the problem of net zero. But ‘The Case of the Sexual Cosmos’ says that this is just one climate stabilization technology. We have to develop as many other climate stabilization technologies as possible because beyond the climate crisis of the moment looms the next Ice Age, or the next real global warming.
In the past, nature warmed this planet so much that there were tropical dinosaurs living at the South Pole and the North Pole 155 million years ago. Tropical dinosaurs: that’s global warming big time. And that’s not caused by tailpipes and smokestacks. That’s not caused by human kind. That’s nature.
RU: You also show how Nature has coughed up, so to speak, climate stabilization technology, or techniques of its own during these episodes.
HB: Carbon dioxide is a climate stabilization technology invented by Nature. Because it’s carbon dioxide that keeps this planet warm enough for life. So monkeying with the carbon dioxide level is a dangerous business; it could bring about the kind of global warming that raises the sea level 70 feet and wipes out all of our coastal cities, including Park Slope Brooklyn, where I’m sitting. Brooklyn is surrounded on three sides by water.
So yes, ‘The Case of the Sexual Cosmos’ tries to tell you there are bigger things to watch out for. Watch out for man-made global warming, but realize that Mother Nature is not nice. Mother Nature is bizarrely, wackily creative and driven by novelty-lust. A lust to create impossible new things.
And sex, as ‘The Case of the Sexual Cosmos’ tries to show, is the most impossible thing this Cosmos has ever contrived. It goes against Pierre Louis de Maupertuis’ Law Of Least Effort, and shows that Nature is willing to use amounts of effort that are utterly unimaginable to achieve unimaginable goals.
RU: We are doing this interview for Ben Goertzel’s Mindplex supported by SingularityNET. So let’s return to the theme of AI.
HB: Say hi to Ben for me. AI is one of the most wonderful things to come along in my life. It expands what I can do as a human being. And I see the way that it could expand what I do – and what I am – far, far more in the next – who know? – two years? Five years? We’ll see, but changes tend to come every six months in AI.
The idea of the Singularity is, I believe, off base. Humankind has gone through an almost infinite number of singularities up until now. We have this very stable sense of human nature when we read Plato or St. Augustine. It’s as if they’re our contemporaries. They’re people just like us. No, they were not people just like us. They didn’t have laptops. They didn’t have smartphones. They didn’t have cars and planes. They were radically different from us.
We’ve been through so many singularities since their day that it’s ridiculous. But Ray Kurzweil’s idea is that there is one singularity, and once we get to the other side of it, we will be dramatically changed, changed in ways that we can’t recognize. No. I don’t believe that. These singularities are incremental. We don’t even notice them. And yet we have been through them in your lifetime and mine.
RU: I feel that a billion and more people getting online has been a social singularity and that people can’t really locate themselves and figure out what the boundaries are anymore just on the basis of that.
HB: Well, something new is congealing. I came up with this field I call Omnology, a scientific field for the promiscuously curious, for people who want to be in many disciplines, not just one, and who want to get rigorous about them.
One woman in the Howard Bloom Institute pointed out to me a few days ago that all kids these days are omnologists because they all carry smartphones and may bounce through seven topics in an hour. And it’s true. You can soar on your smartphone through so many different disciplines that it defies belief.
So yes, people are undergoing a singularity at this very moment, and they’ve been undergoing singularities of this sort ever since 1800 when steam engines were first mass-produced.
Since 3.2 million years ago when we crafted the first stone tool, we’ve been changing the nature of what it means to be human. And every time we change the nature of what it means to be human, we add new tools to the tool kit of the Cosmos itself.
RU: I like that perspective. Let’s close it off there.
Let us know your thoughts! Sign up for a Mindplex account now, join our Telegram, or follow us on Twitter.
5 Comments
5 thoughts on “Howard Bloom Repeals Entropy In a Sexy Cosmic Way”
The article claims the universe is in a state of ascending order, yet most of the arguments within the article depict a cyclic order?
🟨 😴 😡 ❌ 🤮 💩
Calling someone 'rotten' simply because they oppose your political views is shameful. Trump has Trump Tower because he's 'rotten'? What about the thousands of Democrat elites in Hollywood, Wall Street, and the Media? They have even flashier assets, daily parties, or whatnots but they don’t even get an honorable mention? Sad!
A man who claims to understand the universe seems to lack a basic common sense: awareness of double standards!"
🟨 😴 😡 ❌ 🤮 💩
I love the positive vibes, but refuting the law of entropy with flashy slogans doesn’t prove a thing! Everything in the universe, every bit of empirical, observable, and even unobservable data, confirms it. On the other side, no one has proved or witness a single violation of the second law.
From the interview, I doubt the book offers any scientific arguments, models, formulas, or even hypotheses to challenge the law of entropy. Sexy slogans may lift spirits, but they’re empty echoes that eventually dissipate—thankfully, the law of entropy handles that!
🟨 😴 😡 ❌ 🤮 💩
First, let me say I am familiar with Howard B.'s work, at least some of it, and within that body of work, I found some aspects not agreeable (I am being polite here).
This is really positive and agreeable, so thank you, guys. I am glad I read this long interview from start to finish, digesting every word. Despite Mindplex AI estimating the reading time at 43 minutes, it took me nearly an hour.
If the interview captured the spirit of the book (well, Howard B. is very spontaneous, and I might find some of his statements very offensive: offensive not because it contradicts my beliefs but because it's an unfactual claim against my beliefs), I am excited to read it, and I will wait for its official release (Giulio, I envy you for your early access to the draft).
I have one comment or question, though. Based on this interview and Howard B.'s answers, the upcoming book is a statement about how the cosmos is always ascending (has been and will be) and that the entropy law doesn't apply to it because the cosmos is an open system while entropy applies to closed systems. Okay, I think I have grasped the main concept correctly.
However, Howard B. says his next book will be about a grand unified theory of the cosmos and everything. For me (and for logic as well), this is a contradiction. One cannot formulate a grand unified theory about a cosmos that is continually ascending. It is like saying I know what the future of this ascension will look like, so I can tell you the grand unified theory of this ascension. I find this absurd: a continual, always creative, always ascending cosmos cannot have a grand unified theory. Maybe this book is the grand unified theory that concludes the cosmos ascends.
🟨 😴 😡 ❌ 🤮 💩
I've read Howard's final draft and I think it is a totally awesome book (like all of Howard's books). My favorite concepts from the book:
"Nature favors those who oppose her most… those who reinvent her”
And of course:
Nature has given us a job: “to garden the solar system and to green the galaxy... To bring space to life by bringing life to space. And to lift life, sentience, and soul beyond the skies.”
🟨 😴 😡 ❌ 🤮 💩