The two most complicated system we've found in the universe have to be the human mind and the climate. If you're not a climatologist; the only rational way to act in the next generations best interests is to listen to them.
If the situation we somewhat reversed and climatologists could prove glaciers would sweep majestically sweep across the landscape, turning us in to a 'barbarian from the North (tm)'; we might we reasonably decide to pump CO2 into the atmosphere. Low cosmic rays or not.
Thats why if the two major playbooks in the world at the moment are followed :- The Constitution of Liberty by F. Hayek And Dugins Foundations of Geopolotics We are in for a grim future, because they do not promote any kind of collective action to solve world wide problems; which managing climate change is going to require.
]]>The way I've unpacked it is thus :-
Point 1.
This is about what is rational to do in the face of an existential threat. Here we have both of the parties making a decision on what to do. The questioners have already decided, in the event you decide not to group mind, you loose the ability to affect them. The implication being death for you.
You then have the choice to live or die. From a game theory point of view, the rational choice would be to choose group mind. I'd like to point out that you already are the product of generations of individuals making the right choice in the event of existential threat.
Point 2
This is about the evolution of intelligence.
The way the groupmind is portrayed in the question is interesting; to 'render your individual mental boundaries permeable to one another, and allow any other human complete access to your thoughts and memories.'
This sounds a lotlike the galactic civilisation in Julian May's 'Galactic mileu' series, which in turn takes its core philosophies from Teilard de Chardins ' The Phenomenon of Man, The Divine Milieu,'
I'd recommend a glance through its wikipedia entry...
Right now the most complex thing we know of is the human brain, we have no evidence of anything more complex. We have the belief that there ought to be, even that we will create greater complexity; but as yet we are as complicated as it gets. What's the next stage? Groupmind is a good answer... otherwise it's just our brains getting bigger and that's going to be just as bad. If you're going to have a Groupmind, what's the best one to have? The ideas in de Chardins work (stripped of the religious labels) provide much to think on. If we get to see the highest level of complexity in the universe, I think there's a good chance the notion of individuality will be radically different to our own.
What would I do? Join. As the question seemed to imply 'join or die'
]]>(Um. OK I lied; it's not secret information, and it's not a meteorite, it's climate change)
]]>