The Future of Humanity

Why the Real Political Divide is Up vs. Down, Not Left vs. Right

Artificial intelligence (AI) has rapidly evolved from a futuristic concept to a defining force reshaping our collective destiny. Advancements once relegated to science fiction—such as Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) and the increasingly plausible notion of Artificial Superintelligence (ASI)—now dominate mainstream conversation. These breakthroughs have revived age-old questions about progress, human purpose, and our duty to safeguard life on Earth. Yet many of these discussions often conflate intelligence (the ability to know) with wisdom (the ability to recognize what we do not know). In a world racing to create more powerful AI systems, it is critical to distinguish between raw intelligence—data, algorithms, computational prowess—and genuine wisdom, which demands humility, ethical consideration, and the awareness that humanity’s understanding will always remain incomplete.

Dan Zimmer, a political theorist who specializes in global-scale challenges—from nuclear weapons to climate change and AI—highlights this central distinction in his talk on the “Humanities in the Age of Artificial Intelligence.” Drawing attention to a tectonic shift in political priorities, Zimmer contends that the most significant divide in our world today is neither left versus right nor progressive versus conservative. Instead, he proposes a new axis altogether: “up” versus “down.” This emerging conflict pits those who see salvation (and inevitable progress) in transcending human biology—via AI, transhumanism, or space expansion—against those who argue that our immediate responsibility is to protect and balance the ecosystems on which we depend.

This essay will examine Zimmer’s perspective on AI, transhumanism, and planetary ethics by synthesizing many of his key arguments. It will illustrate how conflating intelligence with wisdom poses a grave risk to our collective future, especially if pursued by a small elite that mistakes knowledge for understanding. In fact, the best illustration of this hazard can be found in the film Don’t Look Up, in which a wealthy entrepreneur’s insistence on mining a life-ending comet for financial gain—rather than destroying it—brings about Earth’s doom. This cinematic parable reflects the worst-case scenario of tech billionaires who see ever-accelerating development of AI and space technologies as progress, yet fail to grasp the limitations of their own foresight.

The Acceleration of AI and Its Political Implications

Over the past decade, AI capabilities have increased at an exponential rate. OpenAI, one of the most prominent firms in the field, is at the forefront of this acceleration. Already, its models can outperform humans in a range of economically significant tasks, from generating code to simulating complex decision-making. Sam Altman, OpenAI’s CEO, recently announced that the organization has achieved AGI—a machine that can match or exceed human-level abilities in most intellectual tasks—and is now pushing toward ASI, an intelligence so vast that it would dwarf humanity’s collective intellect.

However, this brisk pace of advancement carries profound political consequences. Donald Trump, in a bold policy move, revoked Joe Biden’s executive order on AI safety and simultaneously took credit for facilitating $500 billion of new investment into superintelligence research via “Project Stargate.” AI safety experts, such as Eliezer Yudkowsky, have publicly cautioned that superintelligent AI could drive humanity to extinction. Surveys in 2022 found that leading AI researchers assigned a nontrivial five percent probability to AI wiping out humankind.

Why, then, does society allow AI research to surge forward despite the dire warnings? Zimmer asserts that a mixture of greed, power, and an unwavering commitment to the myth of progress drives the people at the top. Figures like Elon Musk and Sam Altman appear convinced that expanding the horizon of intelligence (no matter the risk) is inherently justifiable. The crucial difference between intelligence and wisdom comes to the fore here: intelligence provides the technical skill to push boundaries and build advanced systems, yet wisdom reminds us to question whether those systems might lead to catastrophic outcomes.

Transhumanism and the Vision of Going “Up”

At the heart of the “up” worldview is the belief that humanity is merely a stepping stone for something greater. Elon Musk’s commentary that humans serve as a “biological bootloader” for a superior digital intelligence exemplifies this sentiment. Proponents of this position, broadly termed transhumanists, envision a future where consciousness is uploaded into durable, machine-based forms. Freed from the fragilities of organic life, this new digital species would theoretically unlock unlimited intelligence, creativity, and expansion across the cosmos.

For these transhumanist pioneers, life is fundamentally about data and computation. Biology, with all its limits—finite lifespans, susceptibility to disease, dependence on Earth’s resources—is but a clumsy vessel for consciousness. If the spark of intelligence can be transferred onto more efficient platforms, there is no reason, they argue, to remain tied to organic matter. This technological leap dovetails with Musk’s interest in Mars colonization. By leaving Earth, or at least expanding beyond it, humankind—or its AI successor—could escape planetary constraints and continue growing without limit.

Yet this perspective often overlooks the bigger ethical picture. The assumption is that advanced AI and space colonization will solve terrestrial problems by brute force, so moral caution is derided as unnecessary pessimism. Such an attitude confuses knowledge (we can build it) with genuine wisdom (should we build it, and do we understand the repercussions?). This, Zimmer warns, is the hallmark of many “up” thinkers—they know what to do to push boundaries, but they do not sufficiently ask whether those actions might destroy the very ecosystem that sustains conscious life in the first place.Neoliberal ideology (status qou) naturally favors the “up” vision because it allows business as usual to continue under the guise of progress. By framing humanity’s future as an upward trajectory—toward limitless technological expansion and interplanetary colonization—neoliberalism provides a convenient escape hatch from confronting the ecological and social crises caused by its own logic of endless growth. This narrative reassures the powerful that they need not question their consumption patterns, economic models, or identities, since the future will supposedly be solved through innovation rather than systemic change. Worse, it entrenches elite dominance by promoting the idea that without them—without billionaires, tech moguls, and visionary leaders—humanity has no future at all. This myth justifies their continued control while in reality it speeds up collapse.

Posthumanism and Going “Down” to the Roots

Opposing the transhumanist current is what Zimmer calls the “down” faction—those who argue that our real crisis stems from ecological imbalance. Drawing on systems science, cybernetics, Indigenous knowledge, and environmental philosophy, this perspective views Earth’s complex web of life as too fragile to endure unlimited technological escalation. Ecological thinkers remind us that even small disruptions in a tightly interconnected biosphere can result in catastrophic outcomes, affecting climate stability, food security, and basic survivability.

Posthumanist critics do not necessarily reject technology outright; rather, they highlight that wisdom demands caution, humility, and a deep respect for our planet’s living systems. While transhumanists hail AI as the next evolutionary step, posthumanists warn that raw intelligence without ecological prudence could lead to existential threats—from unsustainable resource extraction to the possibility that an uncontrolled AI system might treat humanity and other species as disposable obstacles.

This underscores the essential difference between being “smart” and being “wise.” Intelligence can craft advanced algorithms, but wisdom questions whether releasing such technology to corporations, militaries, or power-hungry governments might amplify inequalities, destabilize economies, or place an existential burden on our climate.

From Left vs. Right to Up vs. Down

Zimmer’s most illuminating argument is that these concerns have far outgrown traditional political boundaries. The classic left-right spectrum has historically revolved around how humans should govern themselves or distribute resources among classes. But in the face of climate collapse and AI breakthroughs, politics is increasingly moving toward global and even interplanetary scales.

Hence, the “up” vs. “down” divide cuts across old partisan lines. On the “up” side, we have a coalition of tech entrepreneurs, futurists, and Silicon Valley visionaries who see escaping Earth’s limitations—whether biological or geological—as humanity’s primary task. On the “down” side, ecological philosophers, environmental activists, and their allies call for safeguarding the planet and respecting the intricate balances that sustain life. They view cosmic expansion without ecological wisdom as reckless, dangerously reminiscent of colonialism on an interplanetary scale.The fundamental question dividing the UP and Down fractions is whether human beings should remain as they are—living symbiotically within Earth’s biosphere—or “upgrade” themselves into a new form of digital life that no longer depends on the planet of their origin. In other words, do we reclaim our role as stewards of Earth, or do we strive to become cosmic nomads?

Existential Peril in the Age of AI

Zimmer insists that the battle between transhumanists and posthumanists cannot be left to abstract theorizing. AI progress is happening now, with real decisions being made in corporate boardrooms and government agencies. The difference between intelligence and wisdom emerges starkly in these high-stakes scenarios. Without wisdom, the “top” players—those powerful entrepreneurs and political leaders with outsized influence—will race toward advanced AI, rationalizing that more knowledge and computational might is always better, even as the potential for unintended consequences looms large.

The catastrophic plot of the movie Don’t Look Up underscores this risk. When a comet threatens life on Earth, the billionaire character champions a plan to mine it for valuable resources rather than destroy it outright. This short-sighted, profit-driven logic dooms humanity because he confuses his intelligence—understanding how to extract precious metals—with wisdom, which would entail admitting that no monetary or scientific gain justifies the existential risk. Society’s challenge is to prevent such a scenario from unfolding in real life. Instead of advocating blind escalation, we must question whether our pursuit of superintelligence is wise, or if it simply leverages knowledge without humility.

Intelligence vs. Wisdom—A Battle for Our Future

As AI advances, Dan Zimmer’s up-down framework forces us to confront the colossal stakes of planetary ethics and the human condition. “Up” thinkers champion the leap beyond biology, believing that expansions in intelligence—through transhumanism and space colonization—can ensure our survival and prosperity. “Down” thinkers stress that ignoring ecological dependencies, social inequalities, and the humble recognition of what we do not know risks catastrophic collapse.

Beneath these debates lies the essential distinction between intelligence and wisdom. Intelligence is knowing facts, developing algorithms, building rockets, and pushing boundaries. Wisdom is the awareness that, despite our progress, we are fallible and that Earth’s life-support systems are fragile. Put simply, intelligence is knowing; wisdom is knowing we don’t. Confusing the two—thinking that more computational power equates to moral or existential prudence—is precisely the hubris that could imperil us all. If a small group of powerful actors continue to conflate intelligence with wisdom, humanity may find itself charging headlong into a future it neither desires nor survives.

In the end, the world does not merely need more knowledge; it needs the tempered humility to ask questions and acknowledge limits. Real progress hinges on realizing that there is always more to learn—and that no AI system, no matter how “intelligent,” can replace the profound wisdom required to protect and sustain the fragile tapestry of life on Earth. We stand at a crossroads: fight the “top” who advocate blind escalation, or insist on forging a wiser, more sustainable path forward. The choice between intelligence and wisdom will determine our faith. Together we can build a future worth arriving in, but it requires us to chose wisdom

.