What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.
by TheDude » Sat 26 May 2007, 12:22:29
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '.')..Why would the bulk of technology development affect intelligence? New materials for brake drums aren't going to make us smarter.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rsch20', 't')he bit about brake drums is akin to a strawman argument, 'what good are smaller IPods going to do' is the usual one. new brake drums may not make us smarter, new neural implants could.
Ah, but earlier you said:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rsch20', 'M')y guess about a human-machine merge is just that, a guess. The concept of the singularity is about the trend of accelerating technology,
which specific technology is used is not relevant and I was just offering my opinion on what I think is most likely.
(Underscore mine)
I did read The Road. Bowled over by it. I have Good News by Ed Abbey on the shelf and might tackle that next. Sounds like you're a Leftie! No gripe from me, just an observation. I tune in Democracy Now! in the morning myself.
Lucifer's Hammer I remember from the Media Reviews, I have parsed those a bit. One author I'd steer away from for Doom is SM Stirling. Touts the Wicca lifestyle every other chapter and his plotlines/devices are very artifical.
Damnation Alley by Robert Zelazney is even
older than the books we've listed but still I turned those pages. Hell, keep going, the Scarlet Plague by Jack London is a good post-apoc story.
About the only Saberhagen I've read is some of the Beserker stories. I like the idea of robots attempting to destroy all life, yeah, sounds like something we'd do...I'll maybe pick up a Book of Swords at some point - I see 'em on the shelves a lot. Those stories where fantasy and SF interface, like Zelazney's Lord of Light or Moorcock's books, are often good reading.
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
-
TheDude
- Expert
-
- Posts: 4896
- Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
- Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
-
by rsch20 » Sat 26 May 2007, 19:13:56
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rsch20', 'r')sch20 wrote:
the bit about brake drums is akin to a strawman argument, 'what good are smaller IPods going to do' is the usual one. new brake drums may not make us smarter, new neural implants could.
Ah, but earlier you said:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rsch20', '
')rsch20 wrote:
My guess about a human-machine merge is just that, a guess. The concept of the singularity is about the trend of accelerating technology, which specific technology is used is not relevant and I was just offering my opinion on what I think is most likely.
yep, no contradiction there, if not a new neural implant then a new gene therapy, or a nano-bot breakthrough, or intelligent software, etc etc. new brake drums may not make us smarter but there are
many other technologies that could.
If the trend of accelerating technology remains exponential, one or more of these things (or something else), will happen.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', 'I') did read The Road. Bowled over by it. I have Good News by Ed Abbey on the shelf and might tackle that next. Sounds like you're a Leftie! No gripe from me, just an observation. I tune in Democracy Now! in the morning myself.
Lucifer's Hammer I remember from the Media Reviews, I have parsed those a bit. One author I'd steer away from for Doom is SM Stirling. Touts the Wicca lifestyle every other chapter and his plotlines/devices are very artifical.
Damnation Alley by Robert Zelazney is even older than the books we've listed but still I turned those pages. Hell, keep going, the Scarlet Plague by Jack London is a good post-apoc story.
About the only Saberhagen I've read is some of the Beserker stories. I like the idea of robots attempting to destroy all life, yeah, sounds like something we'd do...I'll maybe pick up a Book of Swords at some point - I see 'em on the shelves a lot. Those stories where fantasy and SF interface, like Zelazney's Lord of Light or Moorcock's books, are often good reading.
Technically I'm a leftie, I don't think the democrats are much better than the Republicans, but I do think they are currently the lesser of two evils.
If you pick up the swords series I highly recommend you start with the original 3 volumes, I read a few of the Berserker books, and some of his other stuff, but I really consider the swords series to be his 'masterpiece' and was not very impressed with his other works.
Yes the blend of technology and magic are one of the things that make the swords series interesting, the bit about it being a distant post-apocalyptic world though is actually a bit of a spoiler, it's not really spelled out until the extreme end (the 3rd book 'ends', but the last of the second series reveals much more), Mostly you are only given small hints of what passed before.
-
rsch20
- Lignite
-
- Posts: 275
- Joined: Mon 26 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
-
by Omnitir » Sun 27 May 2007, 07:03:17
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', ' ')Can't believe I'm saying this but I think you need to read (not view) some more more SF.
I agree, novels can always delve much deeper into juicy SF concepts then films can ever hope to achieve. A few films try, and while they do manage to occasionally make some great points, doing so usually fails to deliver a good movie. Most people would rather watch Neo kicking butt in bullet-time than hear a sentient program philosophize on human-machine relationships. However, books also tend to suffer this problem. Even books with some fantastic concepts need to focus more on an interesting story rather then exploring future concepts to any satisfying level.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rsch20', ' ')If you seriously look at today's trends, it is very difficult to write a plausible future based story, SF writers describe a 'Wall' in the future that they cannot see beyond.
I do agree, but at the same time, there are a handful of authors that have come up with some pretty exotic concepts. Peter Hamilton comes to mind, whose works often push the boundaries of what readers expect from the future. He often develops some great ideas about how radically different people in the future are, as opposed to just the world they live in. Another author that comes to mind is Greg Bear. Eon, for example, explored some unique social concepts that broaden our perceptions on what a high-tech future may be like. The ability of certain characters to change their body at will, often resulting in bizarre appearances, is a concept that closely relates to the Singularity (in fact we will probably be able to do this well before the singularity once MNT is developed).
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', ' ')The idea of Technology predicated on Faith is a juicy bit of irony, too.
What faith exactly? Looking at an exponential trend in technology and predicting an outcome is no more faith than looking at an exponential trend in oil production/consumption and population growth and predicting an outcome. Therefore, if you are happy to consider those that predict a technological singularity to be believers of a faith, than you must also be willing to consider peaknics to be believers of a faith.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', ' ')
It's the method of attaining this Singularity that I'm wondering about.
There are several possible ways, though AI is often assumed to be the most likely. Some other technologies that may lead to the singularity include genetic engineering (simple concept of enhancing intelligence through our genetics), Neural Implants (human-machine linking and enhancement), and molecular nanotechnology (MNT), in which molecular assemblers are developed which can build nanotech devices (building things that are far superior to anything previous). The first assembler can then build further more advanced assemblers, resulting in rapid spreading of the technology. At this point, IT capacity will explode exponentially, as well as capabilities for producing any technologies that may support the singularity.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', ' ')Why would the bulk of technology development affect intelligence? New materials for brake drums aren't going to make us smarter.
It won’t. But it doesn’t have too. As all technology follows an exponential growth curve, we getter better breaks, AND higher orders of intelligence. We also get smaller iPods, quicker coffees, better drugs, cheaper widgets, and better cost/performance solar panels – none of which affect intelligence, nor help or hinder the singularity.
"Mother Nature is a psychopathic bitch, and she is out to get you. You have to adapt, change or die." - Tihamer Toth-Fejel, nanotech researcher/engineer.
-
Omnitir
- Tar Sands
-
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Sat 02 Apr 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: Down Under
-
by Omnitir » Sun 27 May 2007, 07:04:12
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', ' ')It may well be singularity and THEN extinction of humanity by the AI, since it will then be the most intelligent and dominant "species" on earth. Why should it share resources with us?
Why should it not share resources with us? For that matter, why should any humans share resources with any other?
The basic problem with your way of thinking here is that you are committing classic anthropomorphism. This is using our intuitive skills that model other minds and applying it to nonhuman minds. It is inaccurate to think of an AI mind as simply a super-intelligent human mind, or similarly, that of a human government. Humans, and certain other social animals that we observe, act the way they do because of evolution. The basic thought process this gives us is to think that if a person is weaker then me, then I should consider bullying them around to my advantage.
Because we observe this trait, we tend to think that it is necessarily universal to all minds. We see it in other social species, we see it in humans today, and we’ve seen it throughout all of human history, so why wouldn’t it hold true in any future intelligence?
However, what we don’t tend to consider, is that it is perfectly feasible that new minds will violate these assumptions.
An AI mind will not be the product of biological evolution. Unlike our evolved minds, an AI mind will have been designed (even if that design involved a form of evolution, such as neural nets). If an AI mind is designed with a fundamental goal system, that’s what it is – unlike an animal mind, it won’t just spontaneously reprogram itself to be unfriendly.
The real issue is designing friendly AI in the first place, and avoiding the design of an unfriendly mind in the first place. Once the AI is built, the deed is done, and we can’t expect its moral system to spontaneously change.
Re. The Borg:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'Y')ou are predicting a future society with more individualistic cyborgs?
Try to imagine the desirable version of the borg. They are totally individual. Because of this, and their biological evolution, they care about appearances, so they are all physically perfect- no ikky cables running out of bodies, not grotesquely obvious implants, only completely natural looking supermodel bodies and faces everywhere we look. And even though they are individual, they can rapidly connect with many people over vast distances for communication and calculation (just are we are doing right now actually).
So you get the best of both worlds – the performance of enhanced cybernetics, but the creativity of individualism.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', ' ')Your claim, repeated above, of being on the side of a new "superior" race that would be justified in exterminating humanity after the singularity invites immediate comparisons to the Nazis.
Also, I disagree that it ever be "desirable" for humanity to be extinguished by the new postulated "superior race."
Nope, his argument makes perfect sense, and is nothing like the Nazis. It’s not about being okay with humanity being exterminated, as obvious that is undesirable. However, if we are going to be exterminated, which would you rather: the planet left lifeless with all of humanities memories destroyed, or the planet left with some new species, containing all of our history far into the future? Or, are you one of these people who has great difficulty caring about anything that happens once you have shuffled off this moral coil?
Last edited by
Omnitir on Sun 27 May 2007, 07:15:00, edited 1 time in total.
"Mother Nature is a psychopathic bitch, and she is out to get you. You have to adapt, change or die." - Tihamer Toth-Fejel, nanotech researcher/engineer.
-
Omnitir
- Tar Sands
-
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Sat 02 Apr 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: Down Under
-
by Omnitir » Sun 27 May 2007, 07:06:12
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rsch20', ' ')For your questions though, I do think we can withstand some hardship, and in fact already are, and that things will continue to progress, but the singularity is hardly assured.
Not assured, but I would say reasonably probable, as in, one of two of the most probable futures we face. Most likely, we face either the singularity, or we face rapid extinction through some disaster before we make it to the singularity. Therefore (IMO of course), the singularity if much more likely that a post peak oil decline into chaos.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rsch20', ' ')Here it becomes relevant to mention the lack of other intelligent species in the universe, our star is very young still and many other stars in the universe are much much older.
I once believed the common beliefe that there is ET intelligence out there, but they are merely far away and not communicating with us. But then I learnt about Fermi’s paradox. Quite simply, if they are anywhere else, they should be everywhere and clearly detectable. My opinion to Fermi’s paradox is simply that intelligent life evolving is a remarkable fluke, so remarkable that it has only ever happened once at least in the entire galaxy, probably the entire universe. Yep, that means we are the most advanced species in the universe, with out fast food, mass private car ownership and wars for oil.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rsch20', '
')The fact that we have not been enveloped by a post-singularity being 'God', indicates that it has not happened anywhere else in the universe yet. this implies either that other post-singularity species have some type of 'Prime Directive', or very strong odds against us.
Or maybe that intelligent life just isn’t nearly as common as Star Trek has led us to believe?
And speaking of Star Trek,
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rsch20', ' ')Incorrect, the borg are depicted as techno-zombies. controlled through a top-down system (the queen), rather than a true interactive environment.
I’ve often wondered about how potentially interesting a Star Trek story about how the Borg came to be would be. I’ve always pictured it as a kind of singularity gone wrong kind of scenario, as if someone actively sought to achieve an exponential increase in computation by hacking a societies cybernetics and linking everyone up into a hive mind.
While the Borg concept doesn’t offer much help in contemplating the singularity, and ultimately it’s just about good story telling, it does have the potential to offer a profound lesson about actively striving towards the singularity. It’s a shame that Star Trek never delved too deeply into the Borg beyond just another scary adversary. Even the Seven of Nine character didn’t offer much in the way of exploring deep SF concepts.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rsch20', '
')This is precisely why discussing this issue is important, there are many 'weak AI' scenario's proposed that indicate possible disaster if our early attempts at AI (or whatever) go awry.
For instance:
1. we create a new AI, and instruct it to 'make humans happy'. for reference, we give it a picture of a smiling human face. the AI then proceeds to tile the entire planet in smiley-faces.
2. we develop a new AI, it tricks us and takes over the planet, then doesn't develop any newer versions of itself to maintain dominance.
3. we create a new AI, instruct it to make us happy, give it detailed instructions on what that means, it examines our brain structures and then just blisses out our pleasure receptors, progress stops.
4. A human-machine merge happens, but the entire 'network' is controlled by a single insane individual.
Have you seen the Friendly AI Critical Failure Table? Very Amusing. I think this one is my favourite:
The AI determines people's wishes by asking them disguised allegorical questions. For example, the AI tells you that a certain tribe of !Kung is suffering from a number of diseases and medical conditions, but they would, if informed of the AI's capabilities, suffer from an extreme fear that appearing on the AI's video cameras would result in their souls being stolen. The tribe has not currently heard of any such thing as video cameras, so their "fear" is extrapolated by the AI; and the tribe members would, with almost absolute certainty, eventually come to understand that video cameras are not harmful, especially since the human eye is itself essentially a camera. But it is also almost certain that, if flatly informed of the video cameras, the !Kung would suffer from extreme fear and prefer death to their presence. Meanwhile the AI is almost powerless to help them, since no bots at all can be sent into the area until the moral issue of photography is resolved. The AI wants your advice: is the humane action rendering medical assistance, despite the !Kung's (subjunctive) fear of photography? If you say "Yes" you are quietly, seamlessly, invisibly uploaded.
"Mother Nature is a psychopathic bitch, and she is out to get you. You have to adapt, change or die." - Tihamer Toth-Fejel, nanotech researcher/engineer.
-
Omnitir
- Tar Sands
-
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Sat 02 Apr 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: Down Under
-
by tmazanec1 » Sun 27 May 2007, 14:39:47
An example of technological inevitability is the fact that two people invented the telephone ON THE SAME DAY!
A decent attempt at a post-Singular civilization is the Orion's Arm website. It is, of course, impossible by definition to imagine, but they are the best attempt I know.
I am one of Omnitir's agreeers, btw.
-
tmazanec1
- Tar Sands
-
- Posts: 506
- Joined: Tue 12 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
-
by I_Like_Plants » Sun 27 May 2007, 14:59:27
I'm a huge believer in technological inevitability too - I think in fact it was 3 or 4 people who came up with telephone-like devices at all about the same time. Same with the light bulb, same with the computer, same with a ton of stuff.
I'm also a Luddite, so I'm basically your enemy.
-
I_Like_Plants
- Intermediate Crude
-
- Posts: 3839
- Joined: Sun 12 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: 1st territorial capitol of AZ
-
by gg3 » Mon 28 May 2007, 01:43:03
I'm going to challenge the whole "singularity" concept.
It basically considers technology as if in a frictionless vacuum.
In the real world, improvements in technology have a strong tendency to cause increases in social complexity and other effects that exert negative feedback and bog down the rate of technological progress.
Also the "singularity" concept neglects the fact that vested interests act against innovation: witness Chevron's purchase of Cobasys in order to keep large-format NiMH batteries off the market and thereby slow the rate of progress in electric vehicles.
Last but not least, social lag. On the upside, individuals and societies are selective about their adoption of technologies, as well they should be: after all, slavish neophily is every bit as idiotic as slavish neophobia. On the downside, what does it say about our culture that three popular candidates for President expressed on national TV that they do not believe in evolution?
-
gg3
- Expert
-
- Posts: 3271
- Joined: Mon 24 May 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: California, USA
-
by Omnitir » Mon 28 May 2007, 02:15:48
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('I_Like_Plants', '
')I'm also a Luddite, so I'm basically your enemy.
May I ask you, as someone against technology, what level of technology do you consider acceptable, and why do you consider that level any better than any other level?
Last edited by
Omnitir on Mon 28 May 2007, 02:59:24, edited 1 time in total.
"Mother Nature is a psychopathic bitch, and she is out to get you. You have to adapt, change or die." - Tihamer Toth-Fejel, nanotech researcher/engineer.
-
Omnitir
- Tar Sands
-
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Sat 02 Apr 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: Down Under
-
by johnmarkos » Mon 28 May 2007, 02:28:39
I tend to think that we're headed for some bizarre combination of resource constraints and high technology: in other words, both sides are right. We never reach stasis; the world always presents more problems than we can solve now. In the future, the tools never seemed more powerful, what lies ahead never more fun and scary.
To get a taste of the future, read Bill Joy's nightmares, Kurzweil's fantasies, and Heinberg's anxieties, then mix them all together into the gumbo form that it will become.
To do serious futurism you need to think historically. The future is a kind of history that hasn't happened yet. - Bruce Sterling
-
johnmarkos
- Tar Sands
-
- Posts: 866
- Joined: Wed 19 May 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: San Francisco, California
-
by Omnitir » Mon 28 May 2007, 02:48:39
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', 'I')'m going to challenge the whole "singularity" concept.
It basically considers technology as if in a frictionless vacuum.
In the real world, improvements in technology have a strong tendency to cause increases in social complexity and other effects that exert negative feedback and bog down the rate of technological progress.
Also the "singularity" concept neglects the fact that vested interests act against innovation: witness Chevron's purchase of Cobasys in order to keep large-format NiMH batteries off the market and thereby slow the rate of progress in electric vehicles.
Last but not least, social lag. On the upside, individuals and societies are selective about their adoption of technologies, as well they should be: after all, slavish neophily is every bit as idiotic as slavish neophobia. On the downside, what does it say about our culture that three popular candidates for President expressed on national TV that they do not believe in evolution?
Not really, most predictions of a technological singularity acknowledges these and other frictions to technological progress. There have been a few individuals over the years predicting technological progress based on the frictionless environment you explained, and these are responsible for warped views of technological progress. Such views are responsible for beliefs that the singularity would be around now, rather then still a few decades away.
Because people predicted technological growth based on false trends, there have been many wildly inaccurate technological predictions over the years. Many people believed that we would be taking our holidays on the moon by now, establishing colonies on Mars, flying our cars to work, and making our AI housebot do all the household choirs. The problem was, these predictions assumed that technological progress would continue unhindered in the frictionless environment that you described.
Yet because these early predictions were wrong, does this mean that all predictions will be wrong? Upon looking at the well researched and strongly argued works that predict technological singularity several decades from now, we can see that the lag in technological trends have been taken into account.
Yet if we take a look at technological progress to date, regardless of what criteria different individuals use to measure paradigm shifts, we can see that change is indeed occurring at an exponentially accelerating rate.
This graph depicts the rate of paradigm shifts as considered by over a dozen different sources, and in ever case, we can see a clear trend of accelerating change.
The following similar graph depicts the process of accelerating change beginning with biological evolution:
From an article about
The Law of Accllerating Returns, it shows that even though technology does not live in a frictionless vacuum, it still advance forwards at an accelerating rate. As the following quote from the article explains, the time it takes to reach the next technological paradigm is shorter than the previous shift.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he paradigm shift rate (i.e., the overall rate of technical progress) is currently doubling (approximately) every decade; that is, paradigm shift times are halving every decade (and the rate of acceleration is itself growing exponentially). So, the technological progress in the twenty-first century will be equivalent to what would require (in the linear view) on the order of 200 centuries. In contrast, the twentieth century saw only about 25 years of progress (again at today's rate of progress) since we have been speeding up to current rates. So the twenty-first century will see almost a thousand times greater technological change than its predecessor.
This last sentence is well worth dwelling on. Based of the history of all progress, this century we can expect almost one thousand times the technological change that what we experienced in the twentieth century. Just how off can this prediction really be? Even if it's way off and the singularity never comes, even if we only get 10 times the progress, or even just twice the progress that we experienced in the twentieth century, that still accounts for a remarkable about of change to help us deal with the end of the fossil fuels age. But there is no indication that the prediction is wrong. This rate of change was not hindered by the Great Depression, and is unlikely to be hindered, at least for a while, by oil depletion.
To date, history is on the side of the accelerating technology theory. It has only been the predictions of a few that have not accounted for various lag time in progress, but this does nothing to hinder the rate of change, only hinder peoples perceptions of it happening.
Last edited by
Omnitir on Mon 28 May 2007, 03:11:23, edited 1 time in total.
"Mother Nature is a psychopathic bitch, and she is out to get you. You have to adapt, change or die." - Tihamer Toth-Fejel, nanotech researcher/engineer.
-
Omnitir
- Tar Sands
-
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Sat 02 Apr 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: Down Under
-
by Omnitir » Mon 28 May 2007, 02:56:49
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('johnmarkos', 'T')o get a taste of the future, read Bill Joy's nightmares, Kurzweil's fantasies, and Heinberg's anxieties, then mix them all together into the gumbo form that it will become.
You know, I have to say, that this is probably one of the best and most sensible predictions of the future that I have ever read on this site. Bravo!
Of course, even if everything were to go Mad Max, if any of Kurzweil's fantasies ever come to be, we will have reached his vision of the singularity and will easily be able to undo any mess we may be in. I've often thought that the path to the singularity, if it happens, will be dark and difficult.
But I guess without the dark, you can't have the light.
"Mother Nature is a psychopathic bitch, and she is out to get you. You have to adapt, change or die." - Tihamer Toth-Fejel, nanotech researcher/engineer.
-
Omnitir
- Tar Sands
-
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Sat 02 Apr 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: Down Under
-
by rsch20 » Mon 28 May 2007, 03:20:45
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', 'I')'m going to challenge the whole "singularity" concept.
I welcome the challenge, and you make intelligent points, allow me to address them one by one. Before continuing I would like to restate my opinion that the Singularity is a
possible future, not a guaranteed one. There may well be limits that prevent us from reaching it, or we could simply fail.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', '
')It basically considers technology as if in a frictionless vacuum.
Not quite accurate, it notes the 'friction' (exponential curves levelling off) displayed in other areas, such as 'finished' technologies, and population growth. but notes that the possibility of increased intelligence makes this a unique area, that may not follow the usual trend.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', 'I')n the real world, improvements in technology have a strong tendency to cause increases in social complexity and other effects that exert negative feedback and bog down the rate of technological progress.
This is a limiting factor, and one we are encountering now.
Expressed differently, one issue is the cost of replacing infrastructure and distrubuted technology, another is the cost of factories, which increase in cost and have a shorter lifespan as technology accelerates.
When the telephone was invented and distributed, it was a staple technology for decades, and had that period of time to pay off investment in land lines etc. Now we are at the point where newly distributed technology measures it's lifespan in years instead of decades. How will companies profit when (if) it is measured in months instead of years? or days instead of months? This is already an issue for computers, new computers devalue extremely quickly as they are obsoleted practically as soon as they are made. the Razr phone was a huge smash and is already having trouble.
This is a huge problem, and combined with Peak Oil, is one of the most likely reasons for us not reaching a singularity. Failing does not mean the goal was impossible though.
Another limit, is research time, as each breakthrough comes faster and faster, if the curve remains exponential, we reach a point where more breakthroughs are happening
per minute than have happened in our entire history so far.
Clearly this would be impossible with human researchers, but it is accounted for in the AI model of the singularity, through a combination of things, one being that the first true AI would be able to design better versions of itself, in smaller increments of time, and another is the 'time compression' effect of faster processing, the more quickly you 'think' the slower time is relative to your perceptions, example, processing all the data contained on this entire board in less than a second. A third, I don't think I've read anywhere but just my own opinion, is that if an AI emerged, the fact of effectively combining every field of study into one and having an intelligence that was an expert at everything would lead to many advances that are overlooked by us currently because of our limited ability to store and process information.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', '
')Also the "singularity" concept neglects the fact that vested interests act against innovation: witness Chevron's purchase of Cobasys in order to keep large-format NiMH batteries off the market and thereby slow the rate of progress in electric vehicles.
It 'neglects' it in the same way that the Hubberts Peak 'neglects' the influence of Politics and Big Oil. i.e. it doesn't need to consider it to be a valid theory.
At it's most basic, the singularity theory says 'hey, we're making each new breakthrough about twice as fast as we made the previous breakthrough, and if that keeps up we'll be making lots and lots of breakthroughs by 2040, isn't that odd?'
that's no different than the hubbert peak pointing out that 'hey, we've run out of oil in these fields and they all followed a similar trend, if we apply it accross the country we'll start running out in the 70's, isn't that odd?'
I have no doubt that vested interests will get in the way wherever they can, but it's very difficult to stop the march of technology, I don't think it's something we could do even if we wanted to. A common refrain is that banning a technology only ensures someone else will develop it.
I would point to stem cell research, america is now rapidly falling behind while other countries fill the gap and will reap the profit.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', 'L')ast but not least, social lag. On the upside, individuals and societies are selective about their adoption of technologies, as well they should be: after all, slavish neophily is every bit as idiotic as slavish neophobia. On the downside, what does it say about our culture that three popular candidates for President expressed on national TV that they do not believe in evolution?
Social lag I referenced in my above reply, as to the creationist candidates, well they represent the entrenched position, which has historically been against change.
It also speaks to the current religious situation in America, which is itself partly a result of confusion and rejection surrounding rapid technological change, this is a deep subject and not explainable (by me) in a discussion board reply. I suggest reading "American Theocracy" by Kevin Phillips for an understanding of the rise of fundamentalism/evangelism in America and how it relates to technological change, including the belief in biblical inerrancy.
[edit] never mind, I see from the book/media review forum that you've already read it, in which case I say that I agree with his view on why 3 of the candidates don't believe in evolution 
-
rsch20
- Lignite
-
- Posts: 275
- Joined: Mon 26 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
-
by I_Like_Plants » Mon 28 May 2007, 04:20:50
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('I_Like_Plants', '
')I'm also a Luddite, so I'm basically your enemy.
May I ask you, as someone against technology, what level of technology do you consider acceptable, and why do you consider that level any better than any other level?
I believe our old hunter-gatherer way of life was best and the evidence of this by archeologists and anthropologists supports my stance overwhelmingly. It's better because of the sheer lack of "overhead', work hours are very low, socialization very high, and security very high - no hunter-gatherer ever worried themself into an early grave over credit card debt, mortgage interest, and whether they'd end up living alone under a bridge.
-
I_Like_Plants
- Intermediate Crude
-
- Posts: 3839
- Joined: Sun 12 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: 1st territorial capitol of AZ
-
by Omnitir » Mon 28 May 2007, 06:30:18
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('I_Like_Plants', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('I_Like_Plants', '
')I'm also a Luddite, so I'm basically your enemy.
May I ask you, as someone against technology, what level of technology do you consider acceptable, and why do you consider that level any better than any other level?
I believe our old hunter-gatherer way of life was best and the evidence of this by archeologists and anthropologists supports my stance overwhelmingly. It's better because of the sheer lack of "overhead', work hours are very low, socialization very high, and security very high - no hunter-gatherer ever worried themself into an early grave over credit card debt, mortgage interest, and whether they'd end up living alone under a bridge.
I would be interested in reading any scientific arguments for this. Do you have any links I could check out about this? Most of what I have read, as least from scientific sources, indicates that H/G lifestyles were fraught with danger and typically lifespans were much shorter. Popular belief seems that the H/G lifestyle was much easier, safer and healthier then evidence suggests. Likewise, popular belief is that we live in harsh times with much suffering, but the truth is that we as a species are currently living in a time of abnormal peace and abundance. Most other times in history have actually been much more difficult than life today.
But the reason I asked you about what level of technology you consider acceptable, is because of progress. As Johnmarkos correctly pointed out above, we never reach stasis, we are always changing. Living at any level of technology, regardless of what that level is, can result in either progress as the tools of the day enable the next generation of tools to be developed, or possibly regression, as society collapses and we lose technological capability. So stasis at a particular technological level is not possible. The lower the technology, the longer it takes to reach the next level (which is why technological innovation is accelerating), but even low level H/G technologies involve progress towards more advanced technology. Eventually, it results in an industrial age.
So it seems that to be against technology and to desire a lower tech level of existence, you must believe that it is possible to maintain a level of stasis. Technological stasis has never been achieved, and it seems most unlikely that it ever will; there will always be someone trying to find a way to solve a problem in a better way. This leaves us with only two possible scenarios: progress towards singularity, or regression towards extinction.
From our current level of technology, if we were to ever reach a H/G level again, it would only be for a relatively fleeting moment on our path to the extinction of our species.
This is why I can’t understand the Luddite position. Either they don’t understand/believe what we know of how technological progress works, or they prefer eventual extinction to striving towards the only possible long-term sustainability.
"Mother Nature is a psychopathic bitch, and she is out to get you. You have to adapt, change or die." - Tihamer Toth-Fejel, nanotech researcher/engineer.
-
Omnitir
- Tar Sands
-
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Sat 02 Apr 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: Down Under
-
by UFCjunkie » Mon 28 May 2007, 07:28:48
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', 'F')rom our current level of technology, if we were to ever reach a H/G level again, it would only be for a relatively fleeting moment on our path to the extinction of our species.
That I do not believe.
If you live like hunter and hunt for an example buffalo. You do nothing but to hunt this buffalo and live in the nature where the buffalo lives. you make your clothes from buffalo you make your tools and weapons from buffalo and trees and rocks. You have limits for what you can make, you are not setting the limits, the limits are set by nature.
People have lived like hunters for thousands of years without going in to high tech. They have reached ther limit and dont feel like change anything, a change would mean that they have to harm their enviorment.
So the two ways you leave us is BS if you ask me. Maybe for somekind of people it is true, but
lets hope those who dont believe in living in harmony with nature die in the transition to the new world and leave those people alone who want to live in peace and harmony with nature. Let those sick minds die and leave this earth for good and health.
I have faith in humanity but I have no faith in modern society. Let those who believe in the modern society vanish toghether with it.
I have not start to pray but maybe I have to. Then the bold part would be my prayer.
But dont tell me humans can't reach a limit in tech, thats f crap. Some people maybe can't. But the solution is not to follow those people who can't, the solution is rather to follow those who want to preserv their enviorment they are living in. It dosen't take to much thinking to understand the difference.
I don't want to persuade anyone, I believe thats impossible. I believe some people may be unable to understand BUT the beauty of it is that it dosen't matter! What's coming is coming anyway. If I survive I will do everything to preserve the nature. I will do everything I can to be a hunter. If I wont survive I hope those who do will do the same.
This planet is a system, eather we adapt or we die. I believe we are able to make that choice, some people maybe don't but don't let those people talk for all of us!
I Love This Planet, I Don't Want To Kill It Anymore!
Man Belongs To The Earth * Earth Do Not Belong to Man
27/3-07 The Day UFC Won The War!
-
UFCjunkie
- Peat
-
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Thu 08 Feb 2007, 04:00:00
-
by Omnitir » Mon 28 May 2007, 09:16:18
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('UFCjunkie', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', 'F')rom our current level of technology, if we were to ever reach a H/G level again, it would only be for a relatively fleeting moment on our path to the extinction of our species.
That I do not believe.
People have lived like hunters for thousands of years without going in to high tech.
Firstly, when I say "relatively fleeting moment", I mean in the grand scheme of things. It may last for many generations, maybe even for many thousands of years, but humans as a species will not last very long in such a way. The total existence of our species will be a very short one compared to most species on this planet. Evolution is trying it's hand at an intelligent tool using species. I believe, for many reasons too complex to detail here, that the result will be either a spectacular rise to greatness, or a spectacularly quick rise and fall out of all existence. Our species being sustainable for the geographic long-term as a hunter gatherer species is completely unrealistic (again, for many reasons too complex to detail now).
Though by the sound of it, you, and many like-minded individuals, would be more than happy if humanity would revert to a hunter gatherer society even if it only lasted the geological blink of an eye. Personally I think achieving true long-term sustainability is the most noble and logical thing to strive for.
Regarding the un-sustainability of hunter-gather lifestyles;
The hunter gatherer lifestyle appears sustainable because progress occurred over many tens of thousands of years, but even so, progress was still occurring. Technology was advancing, just at such a slow rate that we consider it to be a sustainable way of life. And certainly, from our perspective, it is a sustainable way of life. It was a period when humanity was at one of the most “in tune” with nature that it’s ever been. But technological progress did occur. Of course progress occurred – otherwise we would still be hunter gatherers. Even comparing the evidence of ancient hunter gatherers from many tens of thousands of years ago, to less ancient hunter gatherers shortly before the agricultural revolution around 10,000 years ago, we can see a difference in technology.
So consider the accelerating rate of progress that we observe throughout human history. The historical evidence shows that the rate of change has been accelerating from the earliest evidence of human existence. Going backwards, the rate of change has been rapid in modern times and less rapid the further backwards we go.
The theory of accelerating paradigm shifts is that ever since the Big Bang, the rate of paradigm change has been accelerating. Our galaxy took a certain amount of time to form. Then our solar system formed in a shorter amount of time. Then the basic building blocks of life began to form in a shorter time. Then life itself began, quicker again. Than more complex organisms appeared, quicker again than the previous paradigms. Eventually mammals appeared, and in short order a new, highly adaptable, group of species capable of manipulating the world around them appeared, again much quicker than previous paradigms. Human ancestors eventually appeared on the scene, and in another acceleration of paradigm shift developed the first technologies – fire, cutting tools, crude ranged weapons. This is the hunter gatherer period, and it was the most rapid rate of progress the world has ever known. And eventually this lead to the agricultural revolution, another step up in the rate of change. This in turn lead to ever more advancing rates of change until we get to today, where once again, the tools developed in the previous paradigm are being used to advanced to the next paradigm more quickly.
This is the theory of accelerating change, and it argues that each paradigm utilized the tools available of the previous paradigm to advance more rapidly to the next change. This is what the universe did, what the planet did, what hunter gatherers did, and what we are doing. It follows a perfectly smooth exponential growth curve, from the beginning of time, to around 30 or 40 years in the future where it goes almost vertical.
So despite how hunter gatherer lifestyles appear to us living in the hectic modern world, and despite how in tune with nature this lifestyle is compared to anything else humans know about, the truth is that it too was
ultimately an unsustainable lifestyle that was progressing. It was progressing ever so gradually over many thousands of years, but it was still progressing.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'l')ets hope those who dont believe in living in harmony with nature die in the transition to the new world and leave those people alone who want to live in peace and harmony with nature. Let those sick minds die and leave this earth for good and health.
I do understand your perspective, I really do. But from my perspective, it is those that only care about themselves and their immediate descendants, damn the long-term survival of the species, that have the sick mind. I know I can't convince you of anything, just as you can't convince me, but I do hope that you can at least understand my perspective as I understand yours.
You think it would be just great if our species could live as one with nature for many hundreds or thousands of years. I think it would be tragic if we relinquished any chance we may have of keeping the world habitable for millions of years as nature (yes, thanks to us) tries to heat the planet and make it uninhabitable for large mammals, or as she tries to release some of the pressure building in super volcanoes which will destroy anything larger than a mouse, or as she hurtles massive chunks of rock at us from space which destroys all of our "sustainable" hunter gatherer tribes...
No, to follow your tone, I think it is despicable that anyone could care so little for our species that you would be willing to condemn us to extinction because you hate the modern world, all for the sake of only a pitiful few generations that get to live like we did in the 'good ol' days'.
The Luddite movement is as dangerous as any nuclear arms race or build up of dangerous toxins in the atmosphere. Unfortunately, most people can't see the progress towards sustainability for all the technology in the way.
"Mother Nature is a psychopathic bitch, and she is out to get you. You have to adapt, change or die." - Tihamer Toth-Fejel, nanotech researcher/engineer.
-
Omnitir
- Tar Sands
-
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Sat 02 Apr 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: Down Under
-
by UFCjunkie » Mon 28 May 2007, 19:40:46
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', 'T')hough by the sound of it, you, and many like-minded individuals, would be more than happy if humanity would revert to a hunter gatherer society even if it only lasted the geological blink of an eye. Personally I think achieving true long-term sustainability is the most noble and logical thing to strive for.
Of course it would. Can you please tell me what the next step of the universe will be and in what direction to achive this future you talk about. To me it sounds like a dream and a fantasy of someone whos walking right into the death with billions of people and even more animals because this quest only led to a destroyd planet. This guest that seemed so logical and noble. sorry, but the geological blink of an eye is what I call the modern society, soon I will call it the ancient society. It will just be a blink of an eye in the timeline of this planet, just a smelly fart that just as quick will vanish.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', 'R')egarding the un-sustainability of hunter-gather lifestyles;
The hunter gatherer lifestyle appears sustainable because progress occurred over many tens of thousands of years, but even so, progress was still occurring. Technology was advancing, just at such a slow rate that we consider it to be a sustainable way of life.
I don't know who you talking about but there are today tribes that want nothing to do with us or our techs. The don't want change their lifes a bit. They will stay exactly the same for one million years if we never would tuoch there forests. The only thing that would change their techs would be a change of their enviorment, their forest, their nature, their home. As long as their nature dosent change the tribes don't change.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', 'S')o consider the accelerating rate of progress that we observe throughout human history. The historical evidence shows that the rate of change has been accelerating from the earliest evidence of human existence. Going backwards, the rate of change has been rapid in modern times and less rapid the further backwards we go.
That means that we have advanced in technology. We have become weaker as a species. I know we live longer but we are weaker in mind, body and soul. We eat the wrong food we dont exercise enough we are spreading our deformed bodys with for an example heart disease. Instead of a boy who would die young can now thanks to technology live to a higher age and get kids that have the same heart disease and so on. The same thing with million of others of diseases. We are getting weaker. We cant live without our technology, we will die. Our acceleration will get to a stop and I hope this stop come soon. The technology is killing us.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', 'S')o despite how hunter gatherer lifestyles appear to us living in the hectic modern world, and despite how in tune with nature this lifestyle is compared to anything else humans know about, the truth is that it too was
ultimately an unsustainable lifestyle that was progressing. It was progressing ever so gradually over many thousands of years, but it was still progressing.
What you say here is that all living creatures on this planet is living an unsustainable lifestyle that are progressing. If thats the case then it have to have its course it cant be changed with technology, I don't believe it can. We have a place in nature, what makes you think that have changed? What is our new goal? What is the goal with your vision? What is your vision? I know "achieving true long-term sustainability". But what exactly does that mean, who do we achive that? By killing a hole planet or just half of it then it will appear to us? That just sounds nuts to me...
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', 'I') do understand your perspective, I really do. But from my perspective, it is those that only care about themselves and their immediate descendants, damn the long-term survival of the species, that have the sick mind. I know I can't convince you of anything, just as you can't convince me, but I do hope that you can at least understand my perspective as I understand yours.
Believe me I understand you, I have been brought up with your way of thinking. But the hole 21 century I have changed my point of view, and it's just getting stronger everyday that passes by. To change my point of view I need to see some progress, not in technology but in humanity. Right now we are kiling our selfs and I do not see progres in that, the technology is killing us not making us a new species. Ok, maybe a new, but weaker and dying one.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', '[')b]You think it would be just great if our species could live as one with nature for many hundreds or thousands of years. I think it would be tragic if we relinquished any chance we may have of keeping the world habitable for millions of years as nature (yes, thanks to us) tries to heat the planet and make it uninhabitable for large mammals, or as she tries to release some of the pressure building in super volcanoes which will destroy anything larger than a mouse, or as she hurtles massive chunks of rock at us from space which destroys all of our "sustainable" hunter gatherer tribes...
Exactly, I think that would be great. The way things are going now we wont last nearly a blink of an eye of that time. We are destrying our home with tech that some people seems to think is going to save us. It's the techs that put us in this situation to begin with. We only have to learn from it and don't let this happen again. Now we have tried, it didn't work, let's go back to something that did work and go on from there. This time we wont have oil to do the same idiot things we just did. The last hundred of years have just been I giant step in the wrong direction, it will be an expensive misstake and more and more expensive for each day that passes.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', 'N')o, to follow your tone, I think it is despicable that anyone could care so little for our species that you would be willing to condemn us to extinction because you hate the modern world, all for the sake of only a pitiful few generations that get to live like we did in the 'good ol' days'.
Who dosen't care about our species? Me? Is it me who support the way of life that's soon is going to wipe out billions of people? Is it me who supports a way of life that have billions people living in poverty and in fear of war. Is it me who support a world where we are destroying our enviorment so bad that the animals and our own species can't survive. I think you got it twisted in your head. You are talking about that technology is going to make us live for billions of years while I see that technology is going to kill us in less then 100. I gotta say your dream and vision sounds great but its far from the reallity i've learned to see since I reached my 20's and stoped listen to those (parents, grownups) who forced me to believe those things you are telling me. I need proff not words. When does this world come? Before or after we wiped out our selfs?
good' ol' days'?
Take a look at your life, that's going to be the good old days for you quite soon if my wishes come true, you better hope they wont because this planet will feel super but your computer wont.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', 'T')he Luddite movement is as dangerous as any nuclear arms race or build up of dangerous toxins in the atmosphere. Unfortunately, most people can't see the progress towards sustainability for all the technology in the way.
Are you for real? Of course you are. You are the one with the solution to the next million years of humainty in a super body with super ninja high technology in our bodys so that we can breath properly. If theres something that is more dangeruos than nuclear arms and the other things mentioned is the way of life that creates those things, and that's your way that create those.
My way is the best for not only us but also for the bees, dogs, birds, fishes, trees, rivers, flowers, horses and for the grass.
You have your way of thinking and I respect that, I have mine and we just have to wait and see who is closest to the truth.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts! Now I gotta sleep, been working all day...nighty.
I Love This Planet, I Don't Want To Kill It Anymore!
Man Belongs To The Earth * Earth Do Not Belong to Man
27/3-07 The Day UFC Won The War!
-
UFCjunkie
- Peat
-
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Thu 08 Feb 2007, 04:00:00
-
by Omnitir » Tue 29 May 2007, 05:34:40
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('UFCjunkie', ' ')Can you please tell me what the next step of the universe will be and in what direction to achive this future you talk about.
What have we been talking about in this thread? The direction that can lead to true long-term sustainability is the technological singularity. Anything else, even a return to a simple way of life, will just be a geological blink of an eye.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')They will stay exactly the same for one million years if we never would tuoch there forests.
Early tribes did progress, over several hundred thousand years they went from bone tools to stone tools. They went from throwing rocks, to simple spears, to simple spear launching devices, and eventually to archery. Some tribes even developed the first technological flight in the form of the Aboriginal boomerang. Technological progress has been a part of humanity since we developed the first technology.
No group of humans throughout history have ever been in a true state of technological stagnation. It’s always just been a matter of the speed of progress. Even one million years to progress ti the next technology is still progress.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')The only thing that would change their techs would be a change of their enviorment, their forest, their nature, their home. As long as their nature dosent change the tribes don't change.
Okay, now this is the crux of the issue regarding sustainability.
Do you honestly think the natural environment is static? Even without the massive damage the industrial revolution caused, the earths natural systems are in a constant state of change. In some post civilization return to hunter gatherer life, the Earths natural systems will not magically restore themselves to an ideal climate.
It all comes down to how resilient the Earth is. The anti-technologist crowd seems to think that reducing further damage will save the world. It is my belief that any passive solution will fail; simply trying to reduce future damage is not nearly enough, we need to actively clean up the damage done to the planet during the original industrial revolution.
It is my belief that environmental events have been set in motion that will not naturally stop all by themselves. Even if all industrial activity were to stop today, it could still well be too late, but of course the damage is only going to intensify as we turn to more dirty sources of fuel once oil peaks. If we do lose our tech once that happens, there is very little chance of the earth cleaning itself and becoming an ideal human environment all on its own. I think it is unrealistically optimistic to think that at this late point simply stopping environmental damage will save the world. It is far more realistic that the earth will naturally continue to become ever more inhospitable to human life.
Hunter gatherers aren’t going to be able to stop this; the only possible chance is powerful new technologies.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')We eat the wrong food we don’t exercise enough
Speak for yourself 
The despicable fast food couch potato culture that the US has fostered is hardly a solid argument that technology is not accelerating or that technology is bad for us. Technology, and what we choose to do with it, is too completely different things. Personally, I use modern technology to make my life fitter and healthier than average. Technology has helped me do this, not made it harder. The problems you refer to are purely cultural.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')e have a place in nature, what makes you think that have changed? What is our new goal? What is the goal with your vision? What is your vision? I know "achieving true long-term sustainability". But what exactly does that mean, who do we achive that? By killing a hole planet or just half of it then it will appear to us? That just sounds nuts to me...
We are nature, what makes you think we are unnatural? We are just animals that happened to have the right biological tools to develop technology. Technology is a byproduct of a completely natural system, and anything we do with technology, no matter how artificial you think of it, is still a byproduct of a natural system. So why should we stop using what nature gave is, that is, technology?
As for achieving true sustainability, that’s about the singularity. But you’ve got it all wrong by thinking that it’s about destroying the planet. Once (if) we get there, in only a few decades (really the blink of an eye), we will have the power to clean up the mess we made. Specifically how is too complex to go into right now, but there are many benefits to the various technologies in the pipeline.
I will quote myself here in case you missed this example of how only technology will allow for sustainability:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', ' ')I think it would be tragic if we relinquished any chance we may have of keeping the world habitable for millions of years as nature (yes, thanks to us) tries to heat the planet and make it uninhabitable for large mammals, or as she tries to release some of the pressure building in super volcanoes which will destroy anything larger than a mouse, or as she hurtles massive chunks of rock at us from space which destroys all of our "sustainable" hunter gatherer tribes...
Just how environmentally friendly do you think ‘nature’ will be in the future when ‘nature’ destroys 99% of life on Earth? It is going to happen. The climate will change. At some point a massive asteroid will collide with the planet. At some point, the next super volcano will blow and wipe out most of the biosphere. It will be perfectly natural, but I would rather live in an “artificial” world were intelligence is so great that we could actually advert such disasters.
Indeed, as you said, killing the planet or just part of it sounds nuts. But that’s exactly what will happen, 100% guaranteed, if we don’t reach the technological singularity.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')It's the techs that put us in this situation to begin with. We only have to learn from it and don't let this happen again. Now we have tried, it didn't work, let's go back to something that did work and go on from there. This time we wont have oil to do the same idiot things we just did. The last hundred of years have just been I giant step in the wrong direction,
Yes, technology brings peril, as was discussed earlier. But it also offers many benefits, which you don’t seem to be able to acknowledge. The fact is that the last one hundred years has seen unparalleled benefit to the human condition. But just because we have not yet brought the benefits to all of humanity, and have not yet solved all of our problems, does not mean that we have failed.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')Who dosen't care about our species? Me?
Sure seems that way. You would prefer to see our species go extinct in order to survive a little longer rather than risk our species going extinct whilst trying to save the world and achieve true long-term sustainability.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')soon is going to wipe out billions of people
Can I borrow your crystal ball, because I don’t know the future. I don’t know if we will reach the singularity, or blow ourselves up, or whatever. But you seem to have all the answers. Please, enlighten me.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')You are talking about that technology is going to make us live for billions of years while I see that technology is going to kill us in less then 100. I gotta say your dream and vision sounds great but its far from the reallity i've learned to see since I reached my 20's and stoped listen to those (parents, grownups) who forced me to believe those things you are telling me. I need proff not words. When does this world come? Before or after we wiped out our selfs?
Before. The singularity is estimated to be around 30 to 40 years away, long before, according to your crystal ball, technology kills us within 100 year. But you should know that long before then, in as little as 10 to 20 years, we get one of the first big technologies of the new age – molecular nanotech. Once this happens, we won’t need to consume much energy any more, we won’t need to take our resources from the ground, and we will have the means of restoring much of the earth to it’s former glory.
Try doing that with hunter gatherer technology. 
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')If theres something that is more dangeruos than nuclear arms and the other things mentioned is the way of life that creates those things, and that's your way that create those.
Well yes, I agree with you. As we disgussed earlier in this thread, as technology advances, and we get all these great benefits, the risk also greatly increases. But how do we avoid these risks? Bury our heads in the sand, as you seem to be suggesting? Outlaw technology developments? Do you have any clue what this would cause? Imagine if nuclear technology was outlawed. Instead of the worlds top scientists developing the Manhattan project under many watchful eyes, we would have had all sorts of secret underground developments occurring. Russia probably would rule the world right now!
You simply can’t stop technology. If you try, all you succeed in doing is pushing it’s development underground, and ultimately greatly increasing the risk, since it’s the more dangerous and evil aspects of technology that will be developed in such a scenario.
The way forwards is not to stick your hands on your ears and scream “La-la-la-la-NOT listening!”, the way forwards is to accept that technology is here, it has many benefits along with risks, and to responsibly set about a path that strives to intelligently avoid the risks will seeking to utilize the benefits.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')My way is the best for not only us but also for the bees, dogs, birds, fishes, trees, rivers, flowers, horses and for the grass.
Well, until some secret enemy of the free world unleashes some bio-engineered pathogen that destroys said bees, dogs, birds, fishes, trees, rivers, flowers, horses and the grass, which could have been avoided if biotechnology was not outlawed but governed responsibly. Or replace bio-tech with any other potentially dangerous new technology. Or alternatively, your way is better until an asteroid collision destroys most life on earth. Or any other number of natural disaster scenarios.
No sorry, the anti-technology position only sounds natural and good for the environment on the surface. But if you step back, take a look at the big picture, and actually think about all aspects of the equation, you should be able to see that technology is our only hope.
Peace.
"Mother Nature is a psychopathic bitch, and she is out to get you. You have to adapt, change or die." - Tihamer Toth-Fejel, nanotech researcher/engineer.
-
Omnitir
- Tar Sands
-
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Sat 02 Apr 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: Down Under
-
by TheDude » Tue 29 May 2007, 14:02:53
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', 'I')'m going to challenge the whole "singularity" concept.
It basically considers technology as if in a frictionless vacuum.
In the real world, improvements in technology have a strong tendency to cause increases in social complexity and other effects that exert negative feedback and bog down the rate of technological progress.
What's an example of social complexity bogging down technological growth? I don't see obsolecence playing much of a part in hampering this intelligence amplification project which I assume is the crux of Omnitir's Singularity.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')lso the "singularity" concept neglects the fact that vested interests act against innovation: witness Chevron's purchase of Cobasys in order to keep large-format NiMH batteries off the market and thereby slow the rate of progress in electric vehicles.
Actually the prime impediment to any of these projects I'd say is resource depletion. Remember resource depletion? It well might get the best of molecular nano before it ever comes online, if indeed it's possible in the first place. Might always be 50 years in the future like fusion. Microchips are very energy intensive to make, and decidedly optional for people who are facing energy constraints, as we are to an extant right now. Faced with rising gas prices will people spend as much on computers? How will the tech industry fare during rolling blackouts?
Also I also get the feeling that people are expecting these developments to unfold seamlessly, gg3's "frictionless vacuum," or not get sidetracked into less productive ventures - nano being employed for military purposes, to cite an obvious example.
My comment about Faith and Technology referred to those who are counting on Tech to make its appearance, your molecular nano and Singularity for instance. You're just laying a guess given current trends of course, but some place the same kind of intense confidence in its inevitability as do those waiting for the Rapture, hence all the snide comments on this Forum about Cornucopians. Dunno what the religious analogue to those commentators is.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'L')ast but not least, social lag. On the upside, individuals and societies are selective about their adoption of technologies, as well they should be: after all, slavish neophily is every bit as idiotic as slavish neophobia. On the downside, what does it say about our culture that three popular candidates for President expressed on national TV that they do not believe in evolution?
Oh, there are no shortage of slavish neophiles out there who'll gladly take part in this Singular experiment. Or maybe despots of the near future will impose it on people, ala your Matrix.
Adressing sustainability, I agree with Omnitir that ultimatelly more "primitive" societies are doomed to extinction, by gradual resource depletion if not his more dramatic scenarios. Also not knowing any better they'll repeat the same mistakes we have made - and are making. Personally I'd like to see each scenario come to pass - people living lightly on the Earth, and a ramped up intelligence fixing the place up for us, putting back those mountaintops we've removed to mine coal, getting all that garbage out of the oceans, etc., and moving out into space, where resources are for all practical purposes limitless. I want to see some pics too, AI dude!
People in these more "primitive" cultures were often very contented with their lot, living in a rich culture and busying themselves among families and friends. This isn't just a myth, or some sort of excuse for my supposedly embracing Luddism - it's just human nature, we are contented with keeping busy and being part of our society, which isn't necessarily being fulfilled by the Industrial era's prosperity. I don't have in mind the slum dwellers of modern cities, more like the peasantry of any number of different countries. Plenty of song, story, folklore, and people from these cultures very often would remarked how much fun they had, as hard as life might have been.
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
-
TheDude
- Expert
-
- Posts: 4896
- Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
- Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
-
Return to Open Topic Discussion
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests
