Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 2:09 am Post subject: Re: Super-Cornucopian 2020
Dunno what those authors have been smoking or dropping as they have seemed to be tripping through more than worm holes.
Still if for some pecular reason or dumb luck we pull that proverbial rabbit out of the hat and replace oil with a higher level source of energy there are a lot of looming risks that will prevent humans from overrunning the universe. Foremost among them is the role of technology itself, namely Artificial Intellegence. I think given enough years of unimpeded progress, science will blur the lines of "humanity" before we even contemplate leaving this rock. I cant imagine or fathom what a theoretical fusion of nanotech, AI and biology would bring. Certainly not recognizable in my imagination.
Going 50 years into this future already lines would blur. 100 years? 200 years? One thing about our species is we don't quit. Not voluntarily anyway. If progress can be made, it will be damn the costs. Done wrong it will cost us our lives. Done "right" and it could cost us our humanity. And speaking of that how would we even be able to define it? Certain percentage biological? Who knows.
Without peak energy we may have gotten far enough to uncap some real world altering changes. We may still but the chances are probably much smaller. _________________ UNplanning the future...
http://unplanning.blogspot.com
Joined: Oct 23, 2005 Posts: 1787 Location: East of Eden
Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 2:29 am Post subject: Re: Super-Cornucopian 2020
Omnitir wrote:
technological change, new energy sources (all the way from deeper within the Earth to outside the planet) and resource substitution, which have been the three key energy drivers in the 21st century.
They have? Damn it, I'm buying the wrong newspapers... _________________ "If a path to the better there be, it begins with a full look at the worst." — Thomas Hardy
Joined: Apr 02, 2005 Posts: 1001 Location: Down Under
Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 6:48 am Post subject: Re: Super-Cornucopian 2020
Stratovarius wrote:
Consider that we are possibly at the brink of all these problems and that even with accelerating development in technology we won't "make it fast enough".
That we are at the brink of all these problems is highly debatable. Even the leaders of doomer groups have often argued lengthy time spans for these disasters to play out. We may be at the brink of disaster, but then, disaster may take several decades to unfold. In the mean time, technology marches on. True, change may end up not happening fast enough. But then if you study technological progress you will see that the rate of change we can expect this century is radical, to say the least. Looking at both rate that these problems should play out, and the rate of change we can expect, it seems probable that change will indeed occur fast enough.
Mididoctors,
True limits is running up against the laws of physics, not the current laws of economics. We are currently approaching the limits of growth as defined by humans. This definition can be changed (as it has many times in the past). However we will eventually run up against true limits as dictated by physics, and these limits can not be broken.
As for time spans, it is impossible to estimate. Research “technological singularity” to understand. It’s called the singularity because, like singularities in physics or mathematics, one cannot predict what occurs on the other side.
Pea-jay,
You made some good points. What you describe is trans-humanism and the technological singularity. Essentially humanity will evolve to a new level through the advance of technology. While some people will likely end up retaining their natural existence (I’m sure most people around here would prefer that!), most likely the majority of civilization will become one with technology. It probably won’t be us and the machines; we will be the one species (which incidentally is partly what we are now). So you’re right, we won’t be human, we will be post-human. Or if things go bad we’ll be wiped out. But we sure ain’t heading towards post-oil medieval wonderland.
Coyote,
I suggest you read the article linked to in the OP. It’s a hypothetical summery of the future, not a report on the past few years. _________________ "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.
Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 10:30 am Post subject: Re: Super-Cornucopian 2020
"Imagination, it's funny. It makes the whole world seem sunny. . ."
It is alright to spend some portion of your time imagining a future in which the gravest of today's problems are solved or ameliorated. We need the both the cornucopians and the doomers to find the narrow path.
Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 11:02 am Post subject: Re: Super-Cornucopian 2020
Omnitir wrote:
Mididoctors,
True limits is running up against the laws of physics, not the current laws of economics. We are currently approaching the limits of growth as defined by humans. This definition can be changed (as it has many times in the past). However we will eventually run up against true limits as dictated by physics, and these limits can not be broken.
As for time spans, it is impossible to estimate. Research “technological singularity” to understand. It’s called the singularity because, like singularities in physics or mathematics, one cannot predict what occurs on the other side.
that strikes me as an odd answer.. if you can not calculate these limits how do you know they exist?
Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 3:35 pm Post subject: Re: Super-Cornucopian 2020
Omnitir wrote:
Just as technology has always extended the limits of growth. We’ve barely begun and we still have a long way to go before we encounter true limits.
It is difficult to say, how far those true limits setted by laws of physics, material science and finnancial constrains are, but I think, we may be approaching them.
Joined: May 24, 2004 Posts: 3429 Location: California, USA
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 7:17 am Post subject: Re: Super-Cornucopian 2020
Quoting Omnitir here: "...like singularities in physics or mathematics, one cannot predict what occurs on the other side."
Yes, and one can say the same thing about death itself. The faithful believe that death will be followed by joyous rebirth. Their entire program resembles nothing so much as an end-times eschatology.
"Technological singularity" is another version of a hereafter for atheists. At least it doesn't give rise to the abject selfishness of the cryogenics crowd ("freezers for geezers"). But even so, it is hope without responsibility for ourcomes. I prefer my afterlifes without additives.
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 1:08 am Post subject: Re: Super-Cornucopian 2020
Is/was technological singularity and some degree of post-human evolution an inevitable destination in an energy UNLIMITED world. Or would some technological limit constrained us? Or put more simply are we safe to assume that the exponential increase in technology we have witnessed in the last 50 years continue for the next 50. The drive for that is almost certainly there--enough research and more importantly MONEY can be made from this to warrant continue development which most likely occured at the incremental rate so we could adapt to newer tech.
For example, the insertion of a human brain in an android-like robot (ROBOCOP STYLE) would be hugely controversial if it occured in the near future. However using life like-artificial limbs and organs would not be and more than likely be viewed positively. Incrementally keep replacing "fallible" human parts with tech though and in a few decades you still get to robocop status without a peep of discontent from the masses.
But I digress. In an energy constrained world, would the uberintellegent continue to tinker with tech (as the lights flicker out) or would the crash kill "progress" once and for all. If we dont crash and somehow manage a miserable decline, would that stop or slow progress? I dont have the answers for that and havent really thought this aspect of the future through.
Joined: Apr 02, 2005 Posts: 1001 Location: Down Under
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 6:57 am Post subject: Re: Super-Cornucopian 2020
mididoctors wrote:
Omnitir wrote:
Mididoctors,
True limits is running up against the laws of physics, not the current laws of economics. We are currently approaching the limits of growth as defined by humans. This definition can be changed (as it has many times in the past). However we will eventually run up against true limits as dictated by physics, and these limits can not be broken.
As for time spans, it is impossible to estimate. Research “technological singularity” to understand. It’s called the singularity because, like singularities in physics or mathematics, one cannot predict what occurs on the other side.
that strikes me as an odd answer.. if you can not calculate these limits how do you know they exist?
I'm not saying you can’t calculate limits, I'm saying you can’t predict how long it will take to reach them post singularity. It’s kind of like asking a primitive hunter gatherer what date oil would peak.
Likewise estimating what the true limits to growth are today would be as accurate as asking our early hunter/gatherer how big can suburbia get in the U.S. He wouldn’t know what suburbia or the U.S. is much less any notions of sustainability. Likewise, how can one possibly estimate what will be the limits of growth to an uber-advanced post-human civilization? The speed of light perhaps?
But the point is that we only are reaching the limits of growth as we currently understand them. Our early hunter gatherer friend might have once reached his tribes limits to growth as he knew them too, until he broadened the possibilities by moving out of his jungle. Hitting the limits of growth only to redefine the limits has repeatedly occurred throughout human history, and today is no different. _________________ "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.
Joined: Apr 02, 2005 Posts: 1001 Location: Down Under
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 6:58 am Post subject: Re: Super-Cornucopian 2020
gg3 wrote:
Quoting Omnitir here: "...like singularities in physics or mathematics, one cannot predict what occurs on the other side."
Yes, and one can say the same thing about death itself. The faithful believe that death will be followed by joyous rebirth. Their entire program resembles nothing so much as an end-times eschatology.
"Technological singularity" is another version of a hereafter for atheists. At least it doesn't give rise to the abject selfishness of the cryogenics crowd ("freezers for geezers"). But even so, it is hope without responsibility for ourcomes. I prefer my afterlifes without additives.
I reject the argument that the singularity is simply something for atheists to believe in. The singularity is a hypothesis on the outcome of an observable trend. It is not a thing to be worshiped or to pray for. It is not something to take comfort in knowing that one day we will be with our lord. It is not something to believe without question nor something to preach to others as the one single truth. And it is not something to kill countless lives over in the name of. It is merely a hypothesis on what the future likely holds. It is most certainly not an afterlife.
Though I can clearly understand why the religious faithful would have issues with the concept of a technological 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.
Last edited by Omnitir on Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:03 am; edited 1 time in total
Joined: Apr 02, 2005 Posts: 1001 Location: Down Under
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:00 am Post subject: Re: Super-Cornucopian 2020
pea-jay wrote:
In an energy constrained world, would the uberintellegent continue to tinker with tech (as the lights flicker out) or would the crash kill "progress" once and for all. If we dont crash and somehow manage a miserable decline, would that stop or slow progress?
What drives technological progress? Is it really as simple as a society having time and energy to spare?
Technological evolution is actually very similar to biological evolution.
Now I’ve had this argument here before and was up against people insisting that technological and biological evolution are completely different things simply because they function through different mechanisms. But the fact is both forms of evolution, while employing different mechanisms to progress, still progress in exactly the same way; they utilise the two main resources available to evolve ever more complex and sophisticated solutions. Those resources, for both biological and technological evolution/innovation, are simply chaos and order. Chaos of the environment in which an evolutionary process takes place thus providing options for further diversity, and the ever increasing order of the evolutionary process itself.
In biological evolution chaos is in the form of mutations and changing environments, while in technological evolution chaos comes from human ingenuity and ever changing market conditions.
In biological evolution an example of increasing order would be the advent of DNA allowing more rapid “experiments”, while an example of increasing order allowing more rapid progress in technological evolution would be computer aided design tools allowing more rapid development of the next generation of computers.
So the argument is that environmental chaos and ever increasing order in technology are the primary, and virtually limitless, resources that drive technological progress. Not oil.
So even in a Mad Max apocalyptic doomer heaven, technological innovation will continue accelerating. As long as humans are alive, it can’t be stopped. _________________ "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.
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:21 am Post subject: Re: Super-Cornucopian 2020
Omnitir wrote:
So even in a Mad Max apocalyptic doomer heaven, technological innovation will continue accelerating. As long as humans are alive, it can’t be stopped.
Easter islanders were also thinking that way. It was all fine, as long as trees were there.
Quote:
Now I’ve had this argument here before and was up against people insisting that technological and biological evolution are completely different things simply because they function through different mechanisms. But the fact is both forms of evolution, while employing different mechanisms to progress, still progress in exactly the same way; they utilise the two main resources available to evolve ever more complex and sophisticated solutions. Those resources, for both biological and technological evolution/innovation, are simply chaos and order.
You are missing one important point.
There is no purpose in biological evolution, eg it was not meant to create humans for example after few billions years of struggle.
Biological evolution is only driven by "quest" of species to adapt to always changing environment.
This means, that in more and more inhospitable environment (eg a degraded or energy starved one) biological evolution will select for simpler and simpler life forms, which can live with less.
Technological evolution on the other hand is driven by quest of one particular species to make themself as comfortable and "in charge of environment", as they possibly can.
This quest is mainly driven by unsustainable sources of energy in short sighted haphazard fashion.
It is very likely (and IMO close to certain) that those primary sources of energy will run out before any hypotethical technological singularity is achieved.
Once this had happened many of our technological achievements and large parts of actual knowledge will be lost.
Joined: Apr 02, 2005 Posts: 1001 Location: Down Under
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:11 pm Post subject: Re: Super-Cornucopian 2020
EnergyUnlimited wrote:
There is no purpose in biological evolution, eg it was not meant to create humans for example after few billions years of struggle.
Biological evolution is only driven by "quest" of species to adapt to always changing environment.
This is focusing on the mechanisms of how biological evolution works, rather then the end result. Yes, there is no purpose to natural selection, it’s all random. However the end result is a solution of some kind.
Quote:
This means, that in more and more inhospitable environment (eg a degraded or energy starved one) biological evolution will select for simpler and simpler life forms, which can live with less.
In an energy starved environment biological evolution will ultimately find solutions by selecting life forms that consume new forms of energy (species that eat previously inedible foods). Likewise, in a similar situation technological evolution will find solutions of selecting technologies that better utilise the most available forms of energy.
Quote:
Technological evolution on the other hand is driven by quest of one particular species to make themself as comfortable and "in charge of environment", as they possibly can.
If technological evolution is driven by our desires to be comfortable and in control, then why exactly will this driving force disappear in a low energy world? The true driving forces of evolution – chaos in the environment and increasing order of existing technologies – will exist in greater amounts post PO. An energy starved environment (chaos) coupled with increasingly sophisticated toolsets for developing solutions (order) are the abundant resources at our disposal post PO.
Quote:
This quest [to be comfortable] is mainly driven by unsustainable sources of energy in short sighted haphazard fashion.
It is very likely (and IMO close to certain) that those primary sources of energy will run out before any hypotethical technological singularity is achieved.
This is the crux of the argument. Here you argue that innovation is fuelled by unsustainable sources of energy, while I argue that innovation is driven by increasing order in technology and chaos in the environment (like all evolution).
It’s true that innovation requires energy, but must it be in the form currently used? Of course not, innovation has occurred long before fossil fuels were ever discovered, and will continue long after they are depleted. As the fuel source (currently fossil fuels) for progress runs out but the driving force (chaos and order) for technological evolution increases exponentially, new fuel sources and new ways to function on available resources will be found and adopted.
Quote:
It is very likely (and IMO close to certain) that those primary sources of energy will run out before any hypotethical technological singularity is achieved.
Once this had happened many of our technological achievements and large parts of actual knowledge will be lost.
Why will we lose our achievements and knowledge as fossil fuels run out? Is this because you think peak oil will send us back to the Stone Age? Is it not possible to maintain any high-technology with infrastructure powered via alternative energies? Is maintaining our knowledge and achievements impossible without Mcmansion /SUV nation? _________________ "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.
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3Next
Page 2 of 3
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
