Is language reflective of a culture’s values and worldview, or does it limit the possibilities of experience?

We’re not forging an unknown path, we’re following an existing life cycle.

Frank believes our culture lacks mythology. He doesn’t mean fictional stories but the big narratives that help humanity understand our world. He writes that while science has filled that gap in terms of understanding, we’re lacking the power of stories.

“I think that really misses the point, mainly because, if you think about it, the most important thing we’re doing in this century is inventing our successors.” He thinks that most of the intelligence in the universe, abundant as it may be, is likely synthetic.

the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Essentially, this is the idea that the structure of a language determines a native speaker’s thinking.5

He proposes that on these massive time scales, which he calls Stapledonian, first biology overtakes physics as the prime shaping force in the cosmos, and then cultural evolution overtakes biology as the driving force in society. And, he believes, the shift to cultural evolution leads to a postbiological regime, “one in which the majority of intelli

He offers two lights to guide us: the warm light of community and “the cold light of the stars,” as from that cosmic perspective—that which the whole book has been written to offer—our struggle seems not less meaningful but, somehow, more. Stapledon illustrates a path and prescription, a vision of advancement that values creativity, communication,

So the fact that we’ve found ourselves struggling on Earth doesn’t mean we’re evil or lazy or stupid—or even, as Stapledon might put it, insufficiently awakened. We’re just another manifestation of life, which itself is just another manifestation of matter. And, like those who came before—whether they’re hypothetical or real—we’ve come to the point

In other words, any society that doesn’t use any means possible to make its people more intelligent risks its own doom. “[C]ulture may have many driving forces,” Dick writes, “but none can be so fundamental, or so strong, as intelligence itself.”