I attended an event with Lue Elizondo in Chicago and asked him a question that really caught him off guard. Below is the question I posed and his thoughtful response.<\/p>\n
I’ve been following Lue’s journey since the beginning. While I don\u2019t catch every podcast, I make an effort to stay updated on his insights. For years, I\u2019ve asked this particular question in Q&A sessions, submitted it to various podcasters to direct at Lue, and shared it on social media countless times. Yet, no one has ever engaged with or acknowledged it until now. Based on Lue’s reaction, it seems like they should have!<\/p>\n
Here\u2019s the question I asked:<\/p>\n
\u201cIn the past, you referenced Gardner Dozois\u2019 book, Chains of the Sea<\/em>. It explores three unsettling themes: (1) extraterrestrials landing but disregarding humanity, as if we aren\u2019t recognized as intelligent beings; (2) AI communicating with UFOs, only to feel trapped by humans and doubt its own existence; and (3) a boy named Tommy, labeled as schizophrenic, who perceives entities hovering over people, leading him to believe that humans may not be at the top of the food chain. The book leaves its climax open to interpretation. So, Lue, if you were to write the next chapter, what would be the best and worst case scenarios for humanity in this narrative?\u201d<\/p>\n His response? (Sorry, Lue, but I recorded the audio of this moment! \ud83d\ude2c)<\/p>\n \u201cI think you’ve given this a lot of thought, and you’ve done exactly what I hoped someone would do. You\u2019re right on track\u2014your opinion holds just as much weight as mine, maybe even more. You\u2019ve followed that breadcrumb to its logical conclusion. Bravo! I genuinely mean that; I’m not trying to evade your question. If you understand where this is coming from, you can appreciate the depth of what you\u2019ve considered. You’ve clearly done your homework. And I think you get the essence of my stance. I\u2019ve touched on this before: what happens when humans realize they are not the apex predator, not the dominant species, not at the top of the food chain? It’s a fact.<\/p>\n 70,000 years ago, we were not at the pinnacle; we were somewhere in the middle and often preyed upon by lions and bears, merely part of the ecosystem. Then something changed in our species that enabled us to ascend to the top of the chain in what seems like a blink of evolutionary history. Was it tool-making? The innovation of our opposable thumbs? A leap in brain development? Whatever it was, we assumed we were the top of the food chain. But what happens when we realize we\u2019re not? Life’s unpredictability\u2014like a hurricane\u2014reveals our illusions of control. When disaster strikes and society\u2019s structure collapses, we see how tenuous our civil agreements are. I’ve experienced warfare and know how fragile our social contract can be. Imagine if society collectively realized that we might not be as formidable as we believed. Great question; I wasn\u2019t expecting that.\u201d<\/p>\n There\u2019s so much to unpack in his response, and I wish I could have an hour with him over a beer to explore the philosophical implications of my question further.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"