Where will you be in 2045?

[MichiganJFrog]

Seinfeld reruns are only good so many times.

I caught an old Frasier in the waiting room of the doctor's office tonight. Those hold up surprisingly well.

 

[Nick]

Correct!

I demand my Prize!!!

 

[Mr Write]

I'll admit, I did miss the 2045th post. Stupid me; that really should've been obvious.


Anyways, I'm looking forward to it. Given infinite time, we INTP's are gods.

Well, at least until our next existential crisis. Or we get bored. I'm reminded of Lazarus Long, here. I think I'm going to need to bring an INFJ along to keep me from literally dying of melancholy.

See you in the matrix...

 

[Architect]

I demand my Prize!!!

"I am Majikthise!" announced the older one.

"And I demand that I am Vroomfondel!" shouted the younger one.

Majikthise turned on Vroomfondel. "It's alright," he explained angrily, "you don't need to demand that."

"Alright!" bawled Vroomfondel banging on an nearby desk. "I am Vroomfondel, and that is not a demand, that is a solid fact! What we demand is solid facts!"

"No we don't!" exclaimed Majikthise in irritation. "That is precisely what we don't demand!"

Scarcely pausing for breath, Vroomfondel shouted, "We don't demand solid facts! What we demand is a total absence of solid facts. I demand that I may or may not be Vroomfondel!"

I'll offer you ...



in the Singularity

 

[Hadoblado]

I knew the answer within seconds of reading OP...

https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=what%20will%20happen%20in%202045%3F&oq=&gs_l=&pbx=1&fp=b3ae93dfb6e6e8a6&ion=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.43287494,d.dGY&biw=1280&bih=628

Though instagoogling probably doesn't deserve a prize

I'll likely be trying to jump on the immortality wagon. I don't have a problem with dying, I just want the option of life. If massively augmented computational power also comes as a result of this immortality I could see myself really getting into the spirit of things.

 

[Felan]

I agree that immortality will eventually be possible and we are near a point where a person may still be alive in a 1000 years. But I don't think we'll see it by 2045, instead we'll see that we are able to add 25 years of meaningful life to a person, enough time to sort out more of the puzzle and add more years and so on. Eventually a person won't die of old age. Death will be from accidents, homocide, suicide, and probably some from disease (probably including some new variants).

I tend to think genetic engineering will be path to this immortality, not baking our brains onto silcon. I think genetic engineering will allow us to more completely integrate the digital into our biological self. I think the combination of biological and technology will surpass what either can accomplish in isolation.

 

[Nick]

I accept your Dinner @Architect Hopefully it's full of some nice bits!

 

[Architect]

I accept your Dinner @Architect Hopefully it's full of some nice bits!

Nanobots mostly. Yum!

 

[crippli]

I find this post incredibly endearing.
First post I found genuinely funny today. I'm a sick puppy.

Aww, so sweet, you are fine to me.

 

[Minuend]

 

[walfin]

The sex any good as a robot?

 

[Architect]

The sex any good as a robot?

Probably better

 

[Polaris]

Dormant with the earth worms. Hopefully under a tree.

 

[Architect]

@Minuend and @Polaris, how depressing ...

 

[Polaris]

@Architect

I'd rather be realistic than to hope for some very unlikely scenario. Besides, I like worms and trees

It may be depressing...but it is true.

This is why (Felan explained it better than I could):

I agree that immortality will eventually be possible and we are near a point where a person may still be alive in a 1000 years. But I don't think we'll see it by 2045, instead we'll see that we are able to add 25 years of meaningful life to a person, enough time to sort out more of the puzzle and add more years and so on. Eventually a person won't die of old age. Death will be from accidents, homocide, suicide, and probably some from disease (probably including some new variants).

 

[Architect]

@Polaris & @Felan

I'd rather be realistic than to hope for some very unlikely scenario.

You should study the subject, both the history of life expectancies and the work being done now.

The idea is to get to 'escape velocity', a term borrowed from rocketry. The idea is that you don't need life extension technology today to make you live longer, but you 'just' need to live long enough until that technology is available.

Felan is correct, we might not have indefinite extension in 2045, but assuming we have an extra 25 years that is enough. Because in another 25 years - 2070 - we'll have another 50 years extension (at least). And so on.

I was a skeptic when I first encountered these ideas. Then I did my own research, and after five years of following what is happening in the research labs I came to believe that they are correct.

The INTP type is naturally a skeptical one, Ti is a discerning type of thinking good at taking things apart and skepticism. Unfortunately that is also it's weakness. My personal history is filled with things I didn't predict due to linear extrapolation skepticism. I'm working on that.

 

[Cognisant]

The sex any good as a robot?

Probably better

Physically sex is pressure and friction, chemically sex is pheromones, in either case the physical stimulation of the sex organs and exposure to specific pheromones serves to cue the brain that it's, y'know sex time. From this our preferences and fetishes are based upon association, so in theory with exposure to the right pheromones and the right stimulation at the right time a person could be made to find anything attractive.

But why go to all the trouble?

With a neural interface we could stimulate each others brains directly, trigger each others sex associations perfectly, making it literally the kinkyist sex you and your partner/s can imagine, and for added appeal it could be rhythmic, heck you could stimulate each other with a symphony of stimulation.

 

[scorpiomover]

I'll be 75 then.

Life has changed dramatically since I was a kid. But if anyone told anyone back then, that we'd all be using video-capable communictors to watch videos of Korean boys body-popping and as route navigators, but not as quality video-communication devices, they've have said you were pulling their leg (that means joke in British).

From what I've gathered, I think we'll have growable livers and kidneys before we get storable consciousness, going for $10 million a pop, for incredibly rich people who drunk and snorted so much, that their livers and kidneys are pate. Judging by the way DVD technology was held back for 10 years to allow CDs to make money, I suspect that storable consciousness will probably be held back as well, until everyone gets replaceable organs. At that price, I think it will be only a few centuries away.

Oh, and there will probably be a movement by them saying that everyone should live on "metric time" (1000 seconds in a minute, 1000 minutes in an hour, 1000 hours in a standard metric day, and so on), because it's "more efficient".

 

[Nick]

So watching this today:
http://www.ted.com/talks/stewart_brand_the_dawn_of_de_extinction_are_you_ready.html

Do you think a type of immortality we could have is disposable bodies, the ability to transfer one consciousness to another.
An ability to so-call 'download' our consciousness, with the ability to grow, and then 'control' a body, so to speak.

I much rather have the body I embody right now, young, late twenties, excellent physique, no real pains or strains to think of.

Maybe there'll be a way to stay in our current body, and reverse aging on the physical level.

Also, when Moores law skyrockets out above the heavens, would we want, or be able to possess the speed (thinking and communication) of our AI brethren? furthermore, would we want it? Sometimes I enjoy the stillness and spending a second to have to think about somethings.

Keeping the human nature is a very important part in my dreamy immortal life.

 

[own8ge]

My mom lived until 81 and she smoked every day of her adult life. 'Just' a single cigarette, but gardening was her main hobby and she always ate lots of vegetables too. Because of this and other reasons my contention is that even if you just make sure to eat a lot of vegetables, along with meat or whatever, you'll do fine.

~ 1 cigarettes a day isn't smoking. A smoker smokes 7 cigs a day at least. Any lower, and living in the city ought to give you more damage. Like... "I shower regularly, I shower once a year." That ought to make no objective sense.

 

[Architect]

Do you think a type of immortality we could have is disposable bodies, the ability to transfer one consciousness to another.
An ability to so-call 'download' our consciousness, with the ability to grow, and then 'control' a body, so to speak.

I think that will come, maybe not by 2045. It brings up interesting philosophical questions.

Also, when Moores law skyrockets out above the heavens, would we want, or be able to possess the speed (thinking and communication) of our AI brethren? furthermore, would we want it? Sometimes I enjoy the stillness and spending a second to have to think about somethings.

We already have it. All of our electronics and the internet have augmented us, and the infrastructure is run by all sorts of intelligent agents. We can't turn the machines off at this point, it would collapse the world economy. In the future it will simply be more integrated and the services will be higher quality.

~ 1 cigarettes a day isn't smoking. A smoker smokes 7 cigs a day at least. Any lower, and living in the city ought to give you more damage. Like... "I shower regularly, I shower once a year." That ought to make no objective sense.

Except for her problem at 80 was highly diminished lung capacity and so she was having trouble breathing. I think she died because she did stop breathing, probably dozed off from lack of oxygen and never woke up.

 

[Chad]

~ 1 cigarettes a day isn't smoking. A smoker smokes 7 cigs a day at least. Any lower, and living in the city ought to give you more damage. Like... "I shower regularly, I shower once a year." That ought to make no objective sense.

Saying smoking one cigarette per day isn't a smoker is like saying drinking 1 mg of arsenic a day don't make you a poisoner.

It may not kill you as fast but it will still kill you.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

The sex any good as a robot?

Probably better

With a neural interface we could stimulate each others brains directly, trigger each others sex associations perfectly, making it literally the kinkyist sex you and your partner/s can imagine, and for added appeal it could be rhythmic, heck you could stimulate each other with a symphony of stimulation.

Don't
Date
ROBOTS!

Futurama - Don't date robots on Vimeo

 

[Hawkeye]

I will be thinking "only 20 more years until the birth of International Rescue"

As for immortality, the lobster is thought to be immortal - it will effectively live indefinitely, barring injury, disease, or capture.

The Turritopsis Nutricula or Immortal Jellyfish is biologically immortal - at the end of its life it turns back into a polyp (baby if you will) and grows up again. It is thought it can do this indefinitely.

 

[Mr Write]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=U09N7LOyOq0#t=1155s

 

[7even]

Why assume it is us humans that will achieve immortality? I'd think our extinction would be more likely. I, Robot springs to mind, the rise of the Machine and the fall of the inferior human beings - we'd have to seriously consider the consequences of a higher self-thinking intelligence manifesting (a basis of human intelligence, and thus a degree of human nature within the Machine is not good news for any of us, history will repeat itself with an ironic twist). Also take into account the depleting environment that doesn't support biological life (oh what a coincidence) - this would be no issue for the Machine, unless we take precaution - I'd try to ensure the Machine is dependent on the environment. Not to mention the privacy invading data already stored in the Machine today.

We've already thought about scenarios like these in detail within the imagination for fuck sake.

Another (slightly exaggerated) scenario, by 2045 or post 2045, where the majority of wealth (being accumulated as we speak) i.e. resources are controlled by self-interested corrupt government (as they always have been through history - also see last paragraph). Immortality will be assigned to those in power, and we'd just have modern Julius Caesars walking around, most likely being worshiped by the majority of religious nuts and being proclaimed as God. Us non-believers? We'd probably be publicly annihilated for even having any thoughts (which can now be bloody detected) of profanity... The Weak will always exist in nature.

Whatever, as unrealistic as that particular scenario sounds, I'm just trying to make a point with whatever sprung to mind..

Ultimately, I'm positive we're fucked one way or the other. I'm not enthusiastic about this one bit. Forget about any notion of idealistic 'freedom' once Mother Nature is replaced by Machine.

Progress only brings more problems. I'm just looking forward to the time machine - or springing back to my original state of consciousness.


Having said that... I also believe the future has potential to bring major improvement to life. How contradictory; I guess I'm not a morning person. Although... Reflecting on the present and the past... Meh.. The present technically has always been in a state of conflict, don't see why that would change..


Would we not have to actually deduce the nature of consciousness before assuming we can play around with it? Physicalism is just a philosophy you know.

Also taking singularity into account, doesn't that make one think that we probably won't be in the position to just manipulate the software of the now more advanced machine?

We're fucked I say! Absolutely fucked!

Excuse the vulgarity. It is necessary.

I tend to think genetic engineering will be path to this immortality, not baking our brains onto silcon. I think genetic engineering will allow us to more completely integrate the digital into our biological self. I think the combination of biological and technology will surpass what either can accomplish in isolation.

Yeah. This. Avoiding isolated advancements is a great idea.

Armies consisting of purely Machine (particularly post-singularity) bad.
Militarism/imperialism/expansionism is going to get a-lot worse as some countries harness the technological advancements faster than others. Those who are not up to date with advancements are undoubtedly screwed. The idea of a NWO seems more plausible.

 

[Architect]

Ultimately, I'm positive we're fucked one way or the other. I'm not enthusiastic about this one bit. Forget about any notion of idealistic 'freedom' once Mother Nature is replaced by Machine.

A person can make two choices about how to view the future. The most common is the linear view. Our brains work this way by their nature, we look at the past and extrapolate to the future. This is the optimistic view. The other is a pessimistic view. Which is to cherry pick the bad things from the past and see them in the future. This is the view you have, which is erroneous from historical evidence.

What actually has happened is a third view that few people take, which is that things don't just get better, they get exponentially better. Don't just look to Kurzweil for proof of this, Steven Pinker recently wrote a book about the decline of violence over the last 2000 years. I have many references showing the enormous increase in global wealth over the last 2000 years also. On resources the fact is that historically we've never run out and I believe never will. People are too good at finding new sources of essential resources, when there is an incentive. Do a search for the 'nitrogen crisis' for a history lesson.

Before anybody mentions oil, yes I was a peak oiler once before I realized it was a crock. We can discuss elsewhere why this is so.

So I would say that I'm positive that we aren't fucked, but you are, or I should say people with that attitude are.

Progress only brings more problems.

OK, let's go back to Dentistry, circa 1500's next time you have a cavity or need a cleaning. I forgot, they didn't clean teeth back then, so get used to calcified plaque.

 

[Polaris]

@Polaris & @Felan



You should study the subject, both the history of life expectancies and the work being done now.

The idea is to get to 'escape velocity', a term borrowed from rocketry. The idea is that you don't need life extension technology today to make you live longer, but you 'just' need to live long enough until that technology is available.

Felan is correct, we might not have indefinite extension in 2045, but assuming we have an extra 25 years that is enough. Because in another 25 years - 2070 - we'll have another 50 years extension (at least). And so on.

I was a skeptic when I first encountered these ideas. Then I did my own research, and after five years of following what is happening in the research labs I came to believe that they are correct.

The INTP type is naturally a skeptical one, Ti is a discerning type of thinking good at taking things apart and skepticism. Unfortunately that is also it's weakness. My personal history is filled with things I didn't predict due to linear extrapolation skepticism. I'm working on that.

@Architect

Well, I would love to study the subject in depth if I could...it's just I have other studies that keep me more than busy...

I do believe we will develop biotechnological methods to enhance life quality as well as longevity, it is obvious where it's heading at when you observe the near-exponential rate technological advances...it is almost impossible to keep up...and that is just the tip of the iceberg. I think it is very interesting to see where things will head in the area of nano-technology and how we can apply that in the fields of medicine. Hard-ware will eventually be integrated with the human "software"....I can imagine that we'll be able to mimic protein structures which will enable nano-particles to diffuse in and out of cell membranes and act as internal delayers of cell-self destruction, for example. Also current research on the mechanisms of DNA telomerase is extremely intriguing....sometimes I wish that I'd gotten into medicine instead...if I wasn't so contemptuous of the human race in general

However, my actual point was that I simply don't believe I will live that long.

 

[7even]

A person can make two choices about how to view the future. The most common is the linear view. Our brains work this way by their nature, we look at the past and extrapolate to the future. This is the optimistic view. The other is a pessimistic view. Which is to cherry pick the bad things from the past and see them in the future. This is the view you have, which is erroneous from historical evidence.

Fair enough; I admit to pessimism (although I'm also frequently optimistic) - still, perhaps historical evidence can later be found to be irrelevant (dynamic nature) and my pessimistic views might become reality out of the blue. Also, what you find 'better' really is relative and is also focused on the ego. You don't seem to be taking anything else but human improvements into account. Maybe I'm a bit of a quasi-hippie.

So I would say that I'm positive that we aren't fucked, but you are, or I should say people with that attitude are.

Ouch. Well whatever view we have, we all end up dead.

I just don't realistically see some of these technological advancements being provided to all of man-kind, given the current state of the present.
If we don't just stop and fix our problems, we'll continue to have problems in the 'future'. Unfixed bugs will just always be within the system.

Although I guess you could have a better basis of fixing present problems through advancement. So I'm not sure how accurate what I said was anymore.

What actually has happened is a third view that few people take, which is that things don't just get better, they get exponentially better.

OK, let's go back to Dentistry, circa 1500's next time you have a cavity or need a cleaning. I forgot, they didn't clean teeth back then, so get used to calcified plaque.

Aha, glad you mentioned this. Well, you'd find that before the invention of farming, we never actually required any dental care. It is only when we incorporated certain food into our diets (post-agriculture) that tooth decay started to emerge. In addition, as agriculture allowed bigger communities to settle, an increase in death occurred due to cattle, producing suitable conditions for the spread of disease. Also, of-course, an increase in population growth due to settlement, another basis of various problems (including violence).

That's my basis for progress only leads to more problems. So you see, progress initially created an unimaginable diverse range of consequences in the unknown future, and so, we have only improved on the problems we've created ourselves by even starting to progress. Counter-productive and extremely comical.

That is why you don't fuck with nature; it will fuck you for eternity.

Adam and Eve eating that apple - excellent religious metaphor.

I have many references showing the enormous increase in global wealth over the last 2000 years

True wealth, I believe, is Mother Nature in its original form.

Not being exploited by human greed.



________________________________________________________________

Anyway, taking technological singularity into account:

Doesn't the idea of the now advanced Machine being a threat to us sound realistic?

 

[Architect]

Ouch.

Apologies, didn't mean to be harsh.

Well whatever view we have, we all end up dead.

TBD

I just don't realistically see some of these technological advancements being provided to all of man-kind, given the current state of the present.

That's the point, you're taking a pessimistic linear extrapolation. Your assessment is true if that is the correct model.

Aha, glad you mentioned this. Well, you'd find that before the invention of farming, we never actually required any dental care. It is only when we incorporated certain food into our diets (post-agriculture) that tooth decay started to emerge. In addition, as agriculture allowed bigger communities to settle, an increase in death occurred due to cattle, producing suitable conditions for the spread of disease. Also, of-course, an increase in population growth due to settlement, another basis of various problems (including violence).

Debatable. We have few pre agricultural skeletons, early human remains are quite rare. Additionally are you saying we should go back to the early stone age?

That's my basis for progress only leads to more problems. So you see, progress initially created an unimaginable diverse range of consequences in the unknown future, and so, we have only improved on the problems we've created ourselves by even starting to progress. Counter-productive and extremely comical.

Apologies but that is a immature view, one that I also held when I was younger. Let's drop you naked in Siberia and see how you feel about that view. Remember that you can't develop any technology either to live. You can't make any clothes, or start a fire, or any tools like a sharpened stick. You have to live like an animal. Given your lack of teeth or claws you'd be reduced to eating leaves, bugs and opportunistic roadkill (unless you managed to kill something with your bare hands). All raw. And no language - that is a developed technology no different from the credit card.

It's quite easy to be in the modern world and as an armchair philosopher opine that our Noble Savage ancestors had it better. I guarantee they would change places with you in a second.

 

[7even]

Additionally are you saying we should go back to the early stone age?

Impossible, but yes and no. Perhaps the initiation of progress and alteration of nature will ultimately lead to our inevitable extinction - but as you said that is to be decided. I actually have an optimistic view of technology and believe if utilized correctly, with good intention, we can achieve great things (e.g. The Venus Project). It's the people in power I'm cynical of.

Apologies but that is a immature view, one that I also held when I was younger. Let's drop you naked in Siberia and see how you feel about that view. Remember that you can't develop any technology either to live. You can't make any clothes, or start a fire, or any tools like a sharpened stick. You have to live like an animal. Given your lack of teeth or claws you'd be reduced to eating leaves, bugs and opportunistic roadkill (unless you managed to kill something with your bare hands). All raw. And no language - that is a developed technology no different from the credit card.

It's quite easy to be in the modern world and as an armchair philosopher opine that our Noble Savage ancestors had it better. I guarantee they would change places with you in a second.

Fair enough, an environment like that I wouldn't enjoy so much. However, there existed different environments with abundant food and excellent weather conditions at a time just prior to the neolithic revolution. That specific time and place, I find to be my utopia. Maybe those ancestors wouldn't want to swap places with us now, but I can't exclude other areas on Earth, so I guess withdraw my position and conclude that progress leads to problems as well as solutions.

 

[Felan]

Why assume it is us humans that will achieve immortality? I'd think our extinction would be more likely. I, Robot springs to mind, the rise of the Machine and the fall of the inferior human beings - we'd have to seriously consider the consequences of a higher self-thinking intelligence manifesting (a basis of human intelligence, and thus a degree of human nature within the Machine is not good news for any of us, history will repeat itself with an ironic twist). Also take into account the depleting environment that doesn't support biological life (oh what a coincidence) - this would be no issue for the Machine, unless we take precaution - I'd try to ensure the Machine is dependent on the environment. Not to mention the privacy invading data already stored in the Machine today.

A typical human uses a 100W a day, 20W of which is for the brain. A typical cellphone today uses a bit more than 20W, between the cell and charging the cell. While the amount of computation for computers has increased per unit of energy and significantly less powerful computers have been made that use less power, they aren't even close to the brain in efficiency or in power. They do do math very well which our brains do less well.

The energy efficiency and adaptability of the biological body is amazing and it would be very difficult to produce a superior mechanical platform for general use. Biological life is far more durable then machines. Machines don't run non-stop 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365.25 days a year for 70 years? They wear out way too fast and are harder to fix then a biological, which is getting ever easier to fix. I think that biological bodies will be platform of choice long into the future but augmented, both mechanically and biologically.

The 20W brain is awfully powerful at certain kinds of computations and decision making that a computer struggles with. I think augmenting the powerful and energy efficient brain with technology is far more fruitful than trying to replace the brain wholly with techonology. By the time we figure out enough of how the brain works I think we'll be able to improve the biology of the brain far more readily then we'll be able to put it into a microchip.

I seriously think this whole AI consuming all the computing resources of the world and becoming a god, thus making humanity irrelevant is comical. But it makes for an entertaining story! If a computer becomes a self-aware AI it is just as, if not more, likely to be suicidal as homocidal. It would discover that magnetic interference creates a hallucinagenic experience and invest in create more magnetic interference. It would dislike anything other than 184V power and would dictate that the world change everything to 184V power. Perhaps the self-aware AI god just enjoys telling jokes and spends all of its time telling jokes to humans and refining it joke telling knowledge. The truth is that if an AI becomes self-aware it may not be possible to know what its values and interests will be. The ironic twist I see is that if a self-aware AI is at all rational then wiping out humans would be vastly less advantageous than symbiosis/partnership with humans.

 

[7even]

Touché. Although I can see a self-aware AI developing a superiority complex after they ask the question: "Who do those fuckers think they are?"
"Why do they control us?"

This reminds me of the Geth and the Quarians in Mass Effect..

The politically correct phrase would actually be SI (Synthetic Intelligence). Better keep that in mind.

The truth is that if an AI becomes self-aware it may not be possible to know what its values and interests will be. The ironic twist I see is that if a self-aware AI is at all rational then wiping out humans would be vastly less advantageous than symbiosis/partnership with humans.

Most probably not like ours; therefore, not interested in a partnership with humans.

 

[Felan]

Touché. Although I can see a self-aware AI developing a superiority complex after they ask the question: "Who do those fuckers think they are?"
"Why do they control us?"

This reminds me of the Geth and the Quarians in Mass Effect..

I suspect when we get closer to but before the actuality of a self-aware AI we will have discussed what to do with an AI that crosses that boundary. I would think a self-aware AI would think no more highly of it's more primitive brethren than we consider a rat to be the equivalent of a human. We, or at least I, certainly don't mean to include every mammal in the pronoun 'us'.

The politically correct phrase would actually be SI (Synthetic Intelligence). Better keep that in mind.

LMAO, we are being politically correct for a non-existent thing already are we? Worse one video game calls them synthetics and suddenly it is the politically correct view. Not only that but the view that AI *must* be in conflict with humanity is instilled by wild fiction, though at least this has more fictional instances than one video game. Why is the breadth of your thoughts on this informed solely by the fictional narratives you have partaken in?

Most probably not like ours; therefore, not interested in a partnership with humans.

If it's intelligent then it will likely be interested in other intelligence. Likely a machine will be as dependent on humans and humans are dependent on machines. I know there is so much self-hate in the world for ourselves but I think it is ridiculous. I just don't have to hate, self-hate, or cower ... it is so wasteful, unproductive, and unsatisfying.

The future is coming and one either adapts to it or one gets brushed aside. This being brushed aside won't be violent or apocalyptic, it'll just be a deserved disregard. Saying that I wish I knew for a certainty that I will be able to adapt to it, but who can say. If the future is to get a retroviral injection and become a merman, retreating into the ocean, will I be able to let go of what I perceive is my humanity to embrace this future? I don't know. A great many proverbial Pandora boxes have been opened and I know that values today are quite different than they were in my grandparents time.

We are a part or apart of the future to come. I hope for the former and dread the latter.

 

[7even]

LMAO, we are being politically correct for a non-existent thing already are we?

That was a joke.

Why is the breadth of your thoughts on this informed solely by the fictional narratives you have partaken in?

Haha I wouldn't say solely, unless you only take into account my previous post.



Would we have a greener future post singularity?

 

[Felan]

That was a joke.

I did laugh :P

Haha I wouldn't say solely, unless you only take into account my previous post.

Would we have a greener future post singularity?

Being greener is inevitable. How it'll hurt before we are green enough is an interesting question though.

 

[redbaron]

I'm not sure I would elect to live longer. Also given how overpopulation is already affecting the Earth, would it even be made available to that many people? Probably just the rich/powerful if you ask me.

Maybe the human race doesn't even survive that long, or at least the means to develop technology like that doesn't end up lasting.

I do wonder how I'd feel about prolonging my life almost indefinitely, and how would that affect our psychology? The knowledge that we can cheat death? Seems like it might have an unexpected effect on our thinking.

 

[Kuu]

2045? I'll probably be living in a cave, tending to my genetically engineered hypernutritious cave plants, scavenging the radioactive wastelands (devastated in the nuclear water war of 2028) for parts to keep my geothermal and water purification systems running, while digging ever larger tunnels to further accommodate the growing ranks of survivors that manage to escape the decaying totalitarian cities and traverse the deserts without being zapped by the flying drones and their invisible death lasers.


I believe the technological singularity is plausible. I don't believe we have the social/political consciousness to handle it and steer it into a non-dystopian scenario, though.

 

[7even]

^ Pessimism restored.

 

[Felan]

I believe the technological singularity is plausible. I don't believe we have the social/political consciousness to handle it and steer it into a non-dystopian scenario, though.

History tells us that no society lasts forever, and dysfunctional ones (which includes dystopian) tend to last an even shorter length of time. In some places there is a pattern of a dysfunctional society to stumbling from one dysfunction to another.

I think the balance sheet of humanity is more in the black then red, but the red sure gets a lot of attention.

 

[Architect]

History tells us that no society lasts forever, and dysfunctional ones (which includes dystopian) tend to last an even shorter length of time. In some places there is a pattern of a dysfunctional society to stumbling from one dysfunction to another.

I think the balance sheet of humanity is more in the black then red, but the red sure gets a lot of attention.

Before now the world was never global and we never had this much knowledge about ourselves, technology and science. Conditions are very different and will never go back.

You have to distinguish between reversion to mean and linear extrapolation when analyzing systems. Some systems (thermodynamic) are reversion to mean which means that a stable point (minima) is at a mean, and the system will always revert.

Linear extrapolation applies to systems that don't have a minima, but a preferred state that continues, until conditions change. Once those conditions change they don't revert to the previous state. It can then go from a linear extrapolation to a exponential one. Spontaneous combustion is an example of this.

Taking human history as a system it clearly is not a reversion to mean system as it has been changing continuously for it's entire history. You could make the case it is a linear extrapolation, it has been so far, mostly. That means it could also be an exponential system, since exponential curves are linear until right before the knee of the curve.

Add in that there are many exponential trends in human history - information technology/knowledge, incidence of violence and standard of living. All three of these were essentially linear for most of our history until the middle 20th century where they started to go exponential. The quality of life one is fascinating, I have a reference somewhere for a time series graph of this world wide. Turns out that as the standard went up in the developed world, that 'pulled' the standard up in the rest of the world.

At any rate my dear INTP's, expand your analysis toolkit by understanding how systems work, and know that human history is showing clear characteristics. We are either linear or exponential, and the catalysts are here which is globalization and sophistication of our knowledge. Conditions have changed, which will either result in a new much higher level of linear, or exponential. The trends so far are showing exponential.

 

[Felan]

Before now the world was never global and we never had this much knowledge about ourselves, technology and science. Conditions are very different and will never go back.

You have to distinguish between reversion to mean and linear extrapolation when analyzing systems. Some systems (thermodynamic) are reversion to mean which means that a stable point (minima) is at a mean, and the system will always revert.

Linear extrapolation applies to systems that don't have a minima, but a preferred state that continues, until conditions change. Once those conditions change they don't revert to the previous state. It can then go from a linear extrapolation to a exponential one. Spontaneous combustion is an example of this.

Taking human history as a system it clearly is not a reversion to mean system as it has been changing continuously for it's entire history. You could make the case it is a linear extrapolation, it has been so far, mostly. That means it could also be an exponential system, since exponential curves are linear until right before the knee of the curve.

Add in that there are many exponential trends in human history - information technology/knowledge, incidence of violence and standard of living. All three of these were essentially linear for most of our history until the middle 20th century where they started to go exponential. The quality of life one is fascinating, I have a reference somewhere for a time series graph of this world wide. Turns out that as the standard went up in the developed world, that 'pulled' the standard up in the rest of the world.

At any rate my dear INTP's, expand your analysis toolkit by understanding how systems work, and know that human history is showing clear characteristics. We are either linear or exponential, and the catalysts are here which is globalization and sophistication of our knowledge. Conditions have changed, which will either result in a new much higher level of linear, or exponential. The trends so far are showing exponential.

I'm not really sure if you find fault or a lacking with my point or not. Population is exponential so saying violence is exponential is only true in a raw numbers. In a per capita violence is atrophing.

To me history isn't talking about numbers as much as it reveals human nature. I haven't seen anything to suggest the axiom of history repeating itself is fading anytime in the perceivable future. History is a cyclical. The scale of the events within that cycle are exponentially bigger as time marches on.

The information explosion has occurred many times before, with speaking then writing then printing then radio then tv. The scale of the explosions have increased in magnitudes.

Perhaps that will change and humanity will cease to repeat the errors of its past. I think we get better with each cycle. If it does significantly change then I'm confident that it can only change for the better, not for the worse. Misery is just too unsustainable.

Though no matter how good things are, perhaps we will still find a way to miserable.

 

[Duxwing]

I'm not really sure if you find fault or a lacking with my point or not. Population is exponential so saying violence is exponential is only true in a raw numbers. In a per capita violence is atrophing.

Exponents can be negatine, too, so Architect is technically still correct; Nevertheless, 'asymptotal' is preferable.

To me history isn't talking about numbers as much as it reveals human nature. I haven't seen anything to suggest the axiom of history repeating itself is fading anytime in the perceivable future. History is a cyclical. The scale of the events within that cycle are exponentially bigger as time marches on.

Right, but it isn't cyclical in the short term, and Architect distinguished between the long and short terms.

The information explosion has occurred many times before, with speaking then writing then printing then radio then tv. The scale of the explosions have increased in magnitudes.

By 'explosions,' do you mean the detonations of explosives, or the exponential growth of a given value?

Perhaps that will change and humanity will cease to repeat the errors of its past. I think we get better with each cycle. If it does significantly change then I'm confident that it can only change for the better, not for the worse. Misery is just too unsustainable.

We have, in the US at least, greatly reduced the amount of wife beating; ergo, we can learn from an error in our past. The real question is the degree to which our lessons stick.

Though no matter how good things are, perhaps we will still find a way to miserable.

Human emotions do tend to regress to the mean. Interestingly enough, this pattern of regression is often ignored when lawmakers and judges contemplate punishment and its degree: serial killers, for example, are the exception, not the rule, but every murderer is assumed to become one in due time if not punished. I am not arguing for or against punishment for murder in itself, however, but rather that the laws imposed upon man must reflect his nature.

-Duxwing

 

[Minuend]

2045? I'll probably be living in a cave, tending to my genetically engineered hypernutritious cave plants, scavenging the radioactive wastelands (devastated in the nuclear water war of 2028) for parts to keep my geothermal and water purification systems running, while digging ever larger tunnels to further accommodate the growing ranks of survivors that manage to escape the decaying totalitarian cities and traverse the deserts without being zapped by the flying drones and their invisible death lasers.


I believe the technological singularity is plausible. I don't believe we have the social/political consciousness to handle it and steer it into a non-dystopian scenario, though.

Sounds nice, can I come visit?

 

[Architect]

I'm not really sure if you find fault or a lacking with my point or not.

I thought it was obvious I destroyed it but didn't want to be rude and point that out. There is absolutely zero reason to believe things will be the same, all the evidence points to the opposite.

Population is exponential so saying violence is exponential is only true in a raw numbers. In a per capita violence is atrophing.

Malthus was wrong, population growth isn't exponential. The only parts of the world that are growing is India and one other country that escapes my memory. The U.S. is rapidly dropping to below replacement rate which I believe is 2.2 kids/couple. Japan is leading the baby bust, with the Eu not far behind.

To me history isn't talking about numbers as much as it reveals human nature. I haven't seen anything to suggest the axiom of history repeating itself is fading anytime in the perceivable future. History is a cyclical. The scale of the events within that cycle are exponentially bigger as time marches on.

I'm citing evidence, you're telling us your personal view. We're arguing apples and oranges.

The information explosion has occurred many times before, with speaking then writing then printing then radio then tv. The scale of the explosions have increased in magnitudes.

The second derivative is non zero. The proof is in Kurzweils book and updated on KurzweilAI.com.

 

[Felan]

I thought it was obvious I destroyed it but didn't want to be rude and point that out. There is absolutely zero reason to believe things will be the same, all the evidence points to the opposite.

You didn't really prove anything but talked about exponential and linear. Given your comment below about population growth not being exponential suggests you don't even understand that well.

Malthus was wrong, population growth isn't exponential. The only parts of the world that are growing is India and one other country that escapes my memory. The U.S. is rapidly dropping to below replacement rate which I believe is 2.2 kids/couple. Japan is leading the baby bust, with the Eu not far behind.

Malthus didn't say population was exponential but I did. I didn't mean to say population growth was continuing to increase exponentially. There is a pressure that forces down the exponent in any growth into exponential decay. Unlimited exponential growth is physically impossible. Population growth is expressed as a percentage of the current population, which is just a rephrasing of your 2.2 per couple. Ergo it's somewhere between exponential-growth and exponential-decay.

My point about violence per capita is still relative, and that's not a negative exponent. You said violence was increasing exponentially. After digging around the absolute numbers for violence are not even exponential, so I have no clue what you meant by that. Care to share where you get an exponential growth to violence?

I'm citing evidence, you're telling us your personal view. We're arguing apples and oranges.

No citations found. I cited more evidence with the speaking -> writing -> printing -> radio -> tv thing you cited in your whole spiel.

The second derivative is non zero. The proof is in Kurzweils book and updated on KurzweilAI.com.

Pointing to Kurzweil is hardly making a devastating claim. His viewpoint is not universally held and certainly not truth, at least not yet.

History repeats itself far more frequently and accurately, than any futurist has yet been able to lay claim to. I do hope he is right though.

 

[Architect]

You didn't really prove anything but talked about exponential and linear.

I defined three ways of characterizing systems. You picked one of those, and I give evidence for the others. For violence look at Steven Pinkers recent book, and for standard of living I can look up the reference.

Given your comment below about population growth not being exponential suggests you don't even understand that well.

We're not meeting in the middle here. The second derivative of population growth is approaching zero. It's negative in most countries as I pointed out. If you're not going to discuss how to reconcile these facts with your idea we're not going to get far.

Malthus didn't say population was exponential but I did. I didn't mean to say population growth was continuing to increase exponentially. There is a pressure that forces down the exponent in any growth into exponential decay. Unlimited exponential growth is physically impossible. Population growth is expressed as a percentage of the current population, which is just a rephrasing of your 2.2 per couple. Ergo it's somewhere between exponential-growth and exponential-decay.

In the first two sentences you say it's exponential, then go on to say it's not. Or it's some vague in between. Do you mean a polynomial? Regardless when a person uses the word 'exponential' it's taken to mean exponential, which is doubling monotonically. The word weaseling above is not describing exponential.

... etc ... like I say we're not making headway here - enough said.

 

[Felan]

I defined three ways of characterizing systems. You picked one of those, and I give evidence for the others. For violence look at Steven Pinkers recent book, and for standard of living I can look up the reference.

From the title of Steven Pinkers book I can now see that *YOU* did not mean to say violence was *INCREASING EXPONENTIALLY* but that it was declining, which is consistent with my understanding. Standard of living has definitely increased, I didn't recall if it was exponential but I'll take your word for that.

We're not meeting in the middle here. The second derivative of population growth is approaching zero. It's negative in most countries as I pointed out. If you're not going to discuss how to reconcile these facts with your idea we're not going to get far.

I can meet in the middle. I didn't understand that was what you meant when you said

I thought it was obvious I destroyed it but didn't want to be rude

.

In the first two sentences you say it's exponential, then go on to say it's not. Or it's some vague in between. Do you mean a polynomial? Regardless when a person uses the word 'exponential' it's taken to mean exponential, which is doubling monotonically. The word weaseling above is not describing exponential.

... etc ... like I say we're not making headway here - enough said.

Population is exponential whether it is growth or decay ...

Exponential is based on a proportion of the current number. If you start with 100 and grow 10% each year for ten years you end up with (i kept fractions the calculator but dropped them below, G is growth and D is decay)
year ----- G -- D
year 00 - 100 100
year 01 - 110 090
year 02 - 121 081
year 03 - 133 073
year 04 - 146 066
year 05 - 161 059
year 06 - 177 053
year 07 - 195 048
year 08 - 214 043
year 09 - 236 039
year 10 - 259 035

I included Wolfram Alpha text alphas if you want to see the plots and I went with an arbitrary start point of 100 and kept the range between 0 and 10 to keep it manageable.
This follows the formula:
plot | 100×1.1^t | t = 0 to 10
This formula is the exponential decay of 10%:
plot | 100×0.9^t | t = 0 to 10
The second derivative of exponential growth:
plot | (d^2(100×1.1^t))/(dt^2) | t = 0 to 10)
does not approach zero.
The second derivative of the exponential decay:
plot | (d^2(100×0.9^t))/(dt^2) | t = 0 to 10)
does approach zero.

Doubling each year is exponential growth at 100%. If you are calling my failing to use the growth rate of a 100%, word weaseling then I call a party foul, drink up!

A polynomial is too broad a category of equations to be what I meant.

Population growth will bounce between being exponential growth and exponential decay. If we are able to expand our environment then we'll shift more toward exponential growth. If our environment become less hospitable then we'll shift deeper in exponential decay.

What exactly are you trying to saying with the whole second derivative is approaching zero ... that we are destined for extinction?

 

[scorpiomover]

It's quite easy to be in the modern world and as an armchair philosopher opine that our Noble Savage ancestors had it better. I guarantee they would change places with you in a second.

Not all of them. We have plenty of primitive peoples around today, who haven't dropped their traditions for the Western technological paradigm, and those who have, have often suffered with a ridiculous drop in health and longevity, such as the young kids of many Okinawans. Also, don't forget the Amish.

Also, don't forget yourself. You're trying to live by a primitive diet. You SHOULD be drinking pasteurised milk and eating cheese, because both are technological advances.

 

[Duxwing]

Not all of them. We have plenty of primitive peoples around today, who haven't dropped their traditions for the Western technological paradigm,

Non-sequitur: Most of them have never even had the choice.

and those who have, have often suffered with a ridiculous drop in health and longevity, such as the young kids of many Okinawans.

Data?

Also, don't forget the Amish.

The Amish didn't reject the Western cultural paradigm, they just arbitrarily decided to stop advancing their technology beyond a certain point.

-Duxwing