What the World needs Now

Post by **Worm of Despite** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 5:54 pm

Great post, Malik. I'd like to think of my views as realistic, rather than pessimistic, though I can understand someone choosing the latter.

I agree that things are improving, but I also think our ultimate goal is a very basic, circular one: acceptance of a simple fact that we have spent millions of years of evolution to stay away from--the fact that we cannot exist forever.

Sure, perhaps technology will one day unlock immortality. But will that technology escape the sun's death--or the heat death of the universe? I'm not so sure if our energy--or any energy--will be able to outlast that.

Again: I don't personally go out of my way to make things sound bleak or harsh. I wish energy and awareness were everlasting, but it seems an inherent fact of existence that life clings in an overwhelming sea of entropy, and that sea will wash over all, eventually. Personally, it gives me a sort of zen-like comfort. Yeah, it's not the happiest ending in the world, and maybe it's all untrue and in my head, but at least I feel that I know the ultimate truth of existence. That's just a basic need for all humans, though, as religions throughout history have shown.

Post by **Zarathustra** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 10:58 pm

I think that any view of the future which doesn't take into account an actual study of what we're currently working on (on numerous fronts) is hopelessly mired in centuries-old prejudice that the future will be like the past. We expect that things will carry on pretty much like they've been going without any surprising development utterly transforming human existence. However, this naive view ignores the fact that human progress is exponential. Futurist Ray Kurzweil speculates that, compared to the 20th century, the 21st century will contain something like 20,000 years of progress. This is due to exponential increase in knowledge and technology. We are so close to mind-blowing technology, most of us have no clue how humans THIS CENTURY may solve most of the problems facing us. Cancer, heart disease, and 95% of all ailments which currently kill humans are only 10-15 years from being cured. Life expectancy may be 5000 years by the end of this century.

I mentioned nanotechnology in my last post, but I didn't realize how close we are until this month's issue of PC Magazine came in today ("The Future of Tech"). I just read that MIT has already used blood-cell sized machines to kill cancer tumors. Nanotechnology is HERE. We have just recently been able to scan the brain on the scale of individual neural connections. This means we now have the technology to reverse-engineer the brain. We should be able to build computers that operate at human-like levels within two decades. Then, computers themselves will take over their own evolution. Human intelligence will be augmented by these computers as humans interface with computers on a cellular level. Our bodies will have their own personal LANs of millions of wirelessly connected nanites circulating in our bloodstream which are repairing our cells, reversing aging, and enhancing our intelligence. We'll see this stuff in our lifetimes. We're already working on it. We've already made tiny antenna out of gold atoms which we've used to wirelessly give commands to individual cell nuclei. This stuff is real.

Check this out: www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1

Post by **drew** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 12:31 am

No offence Malik..but if I am supposed to live for 5000 years as a cyborg...I'd kill myself.

And cancer heart disease and old age..stuff like that is supposed to be here--we're not meant to live forever; this planet doesn't need people to live forever--people have caused enough harm to this planet is the regular life span that they have.

Once we cure all the diseases..more diseases will be created (bird flu pandemics?) and natural disasters will become more prevailent...and hatred will become stronger, causing more violence---nature has a way of controlling the population.

Much as we try and try, we can't beat nature...and if we do, nature beats us back

Post by **Zarathustra** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 1:00 am

No offense taken, Drew. Just one question: so when are you going to kill yourself? I mean, if you're going to use nature as your guide, then we're really not supposed to live beyond child-bearing and child-rearing years anyway (which is why we see so many more instances of cancer and heart disease in the first place . . . because humans are now living long enough for these killers to develop).

This planet doesn't need us to live forever? Since when did this hunk of rock become more important than its inhabitants? We're not here for it; it is here for us. It's not a god. If anything in nature has the potential to reach "godhood," it is the ever-growing conscious entities which emerge within the universe--not the inanimate lumps of matter drifting through space.

Increasing human lifespans will not cause more harm to the earth. It is often maturity which brings on an appreciation for the future, an appreciation for the "big picture." It's easy to be indifferent about things like global warming if you think you're not going live long enough to experience it. However, if you're going to live a couple centuries, suddenly your perspective becomes a lot more long term. I think that just the opposite of what you imply will be the case: increased lifespans will give people MORE of an incentive to safeguard the future, a personal incentive. It may in fact be the short term mindset of short-lived humans which allowed them to produce the damage you mentioned, in the first place.

Once we cure all the diseases..more diseases will be created (bird flu pandemics?) and natural disasters will become more prevailent...and hatred will become stronger, causing more violence---nature has a way of controlling the population.

Damn, you are pessimistic. If our ability to cure disease increases exponentially, I think we can outpace "nature." I don't see any correlation between hatred and lifespan. People tend to mellow and mature with age. Besides, perhaps hatred is itself a genetic defect which can be "cured." If it's destructive and detrimental to our survival, then we don't need it. We can edit it out of our genes.

Nature has a way of controlling the population? I haven't seen any diminishment of our population. Just the opposite, in fact.

Much as we try and try, we can't beat nature...and if we do, nature beats us back

We are part of nature. It's not a battle between us and It. The development of intelligence and technology are natural stages of evolution. It is a contingent fact that humans are mortal, not a necessity.

if I am supposed to live for 5000 years as a cyborg...I'd kill myself.

Well, what can I say? Some people love life more than others. I don't really see the downside of perpetual youth, perpetual vitality, increased physical strength, increased intelligence, and countless other improvements I can't even imagine. We're not talking about making you into an Angus-style cyborg. All your cells are already nanomachines. Life itself is nanotechnology that works.

Post by **Loredoctor** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 1:42 am

Malik23 wrote:We are part of nature. It's not a battle between us and It. The development of intelligence and technology are natural stages of evolution. It is a contingent fact that humans are mortal, not a necessity.

Post by **Marv** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 2:02 am

I think a cowboy said it best when he said...."Sometimes you eat the bar, and sometimes, well....he eats you".

Post by **Tjol** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 2:06 am

I concur with regards to pessimism. There's nothing wrong with looking at a moment and finding that moment disagreeable. But expecting the worst is an entirely different thing. I'm a reformed pessimist, which means that as much as I can see the potential for things to go wrong, I can also see the way in which it might just work. And, by doing the latter, I can occasionally see the something that needs to be done in order to realise the better possibilities and avoid the more disagreeable ones. (I hope this is on topic?) I could never see how to make it work if I was certian that it never would.

Post by **The Laughing Man** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 2:22 am

I would only wish to point out that all these predictions and postulations involve a vision of the future extrapolated from the social consciousness of our present population, and any such true advances in the complete evolution of body, mind and spirit must first entail a dramatic shift in the focus and perspective of man's approach to his potential futures.....

considering a capitalistic, budget driven profit margin progression to a better world is the first thing that needs change.....self interests must be replaced with greater self awareness and interest in everyone equally, that our pace and progress is not dependent upon budgets and funding, but legitimate needs, wants and wills of the people, and the available resources and qualified personnel required to accomplish it...money must go, and the mind that supports it must too.....

otherwise all we have is the corrupt views of a few accomplished and influential individuals and the groups they engender to support their personal and self indulgent visions of Emperors and Egotists......

Post by **Elfgirl** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 2:34 am

What the world needs now...is a 'reset' button.

Post by **Zarathustra** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 2:53 am

Esmer wrote: I would only wish to point out that all these predictions and postulations involve a vision of the future extrapolated from the social consciousness of our present population, and any such true advances in the complete evolution of mind and spirit must entail a dramatic shift in the focus and perspective of man's approach to his potential futures.....

considering a capitalistic, budget driven profit margin progression to a better world is the first thing that needs change.....self interests must be replaced with greater self awareness and interest in everyone equally, that our pace and progress is not dependent upon budgets and funding, but legitimate needs, wants and desires of the people, and the available resources and qualified personnel required to accomplish it...money must go, and the mind that supports it must too.....

otherwise all we have is the corrupt views of a few accomplished and influential individuals and the groups they engender to support their personal and self indulgent visions of Emperors and Egotists......

Actually, I agree with you completely. I think that capitalism is just another stage of human evolution, a stage which is largely dependent upon our mode of production, as Marx might have said. The ways in which we produce our existence, our physical being in this world, determine our economic structures. The reason that a primarily agricultural mode of production engendered a more local, barter-based economy is due entirely to how agriculture was done for much of its history (a family/communal practice which united families and communities in networks of mutual support).

With industrialization and division of labor, our mode of production engendered a more mechanized, divisive social organization and a more hierarchal financial system (corporations, etc.). And while I think this is the best system now, I realize it will be replaced as our mode of production is imbued with artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, and genetic manipulation. We will get to a point where our manufacturing of goods and our production of energy will become so efficient that the cost will become negligible. Things like the Enterprise replicator will be possible once we have computers that can manufacture objects (even food) on an atomic level from raw elements floating around in the atmosphere or lying in the ground. Once we can "effortlessly" produce any good for virtually no cost, our economic system will be fundamentally changed.

Note: I'm not saying this is anything like "free" energy discussed in another thread. The laws of thermodynamics will still apply--it's just that human input of energy and effort will become minimal as our control over matter increases. Once we have nanites manufacturing all our goods and our food--nanites which can construct more nanites by themselves and thus "reproduce"-- human input of effort will not be required. We won't even have to monitor this process once AI becomes sophisticated enough.

This will free humans to develop their creativity and spirituality. This will free humans from fighting over stuff. Becoming masters of our physical reality (via nanites), masters of intelligence (via AI), and masters over our own physical forms (via genetics) will truly make us "godlike." These three fields of human endeavor are the keys unlocking endless possibilities. This isn't a mythical Holy Grail: we've already discovered the 3 keys last century. Now all we have to do is work out the details.

What the world needs now is for people to educate themselves about the actual direction our race is taking, the reality which 10s of 1000s of scientists are currently constructing. What the world needs now is for people to have hope, and hang on. It won't be long. Really.

Post by **Avatar** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 6:04 am

Some excellent posts folks. I'm a reformed pessimist myself, but I don't see any of this as real pessimism...except maybe drew.

The difference between what Malik is talking about, and what Foul (whose zen-like comfort I share

) is talking about, is merely a matter of scale.

In the short-term, like say the next few hundred years, Malik is right. Global co-operation has already seen unprecedented growth in the last century, and I do think a world government is inevitable, although the growing pains will be harsh.

And hell, I'd take 5,000 years as a cyborg, no problem. Not because of love of life, but because I want to see what happens next.

However, I'm not sure about the contingency of mortality. If we have population problems, imagine what it will be like when immortality is an option. And who will have this immortality? Everybody? I doubt it. The cry of the future will be that the rich get richer, and the poor die.

Eventually, it will create a particularly viscious form of oppression, and uprising, chaos etc. will result.

And in the end, the universe will die. I like the idea that it doesn't all have to have a point, other than the point we give it.

Radical social change is a real possibility, even a probability in fact. but your assumption is just that...an assumption. That humans will no longer need to fight over stuff...well...as somebody once wrote, if we've come so far as create as gods create, we should be learning to act with the justice, mercy and compassion that we attribute to gods.

Eventually, things will even out, and yes, large numbers of people may have to die. But in the end, prolong it as we will and can, there will be an end.

These are indeed interesting times. Perhaps some of the most interesting in human history. I can't wait to see how it all turns out. But predict as we like, that's the only way we'll know.

--A

Post by **Zarathustra** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 2:37 pm

Avatar, it is true that the universe will end in the great Heat Death when all useful forms of energy "run downhill" to forms we can no longer use. Entropy seems to be final. However, I like Asimov's short story, "The Last Question." The question is basically: how do we stop entropy? During the course of millions of years of future human evolution, humans become exceedingly advanced, no longer need their physical forms, and merge into a unified consciousness (augmented by a galactic computer of transcendental intelligence). Eventually, these super-beings (our descendents) learn how to remake the universe and start it all over again. The point is that there are too many possibilities to say that it's hopeless. I'm certainly not ready to give up yet. Give me a million years, and yeah maybe.

We do not have "population problems." We have poverty problems. One of the densest populations on earth--Manhattan--isn't known for having population problems because people there are wealthy. It's poverty we need to solve, not population. The earth could easily support 100 billion or a trillion. Easy. Especially if we don't need to grow food anymore. The entire population of the planet could fit inside Texas right now. Long before we run out of room, we'll be colonizing the stars. We shouldn't let claustrophobia keep us from living. The universe is a big place.

I think that at first, life-preserving technology will be expensive and only available to the rich. However, we're talking about exponential advancement. Look at what's happening with comptuers. Faster/better AND cheaper. Sure, we see escalating costs with things like drug development, but that's because medical technology hasn't had its "breakthrough point" at which increasing usefulness is correlated with increasing efficiency of production. But that breakthrough point will happen as our development of medical technology mirrors--and incorporates--our development of computers. Much of the cost of pharmaceutical R&D comes from the sheer human effort of figuring things out. But with advanced AI and complete knowledge of the human body down to its last molecule, our future medicine will make clinical trials look like astrology. Once we have our own personal wireless network of cellular nanites, we'll download genetic modifications off the Internet. It will be that easy. Godlike power includes godlike freedom from cost.

After all, what is cost? It comes down to human labor, human value. Even resources are only as valuable as humans make them. Oil doesn't jump out of the ground, refine itself, and jump into your gastank. Humans turn oil into motion. It is that human effort which turns it into a resource, a thing of value. Once you eliminate human labor from the production of goods (incluing health goods), the cost of things approach zero. After all, how much do you pay for the air you breath?

We will make nature intelligent. We will fill the planet with intelligent, microscopic robots that do everything from clean the environment to monitor the weather. Poverty is a small issue compared to what we will be doing. The only "gaps" between humans will be the ones we choose.

Post by **drew** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:24 pm

This planet doesn't need us to live forever? Since when did this hunk of rock become more important than its inhabitants?

Thre's a lot of stuff to respond to, so I'll strart with this one.

We're not the only inhabitatns on the Earth...and we need all the otheres for our own existance...but they don't need us.
It's like we're co-inhabitants...all life/humans share the world..unfortunatly the humans don't seem to want to play fair; they want to take over the Earth, and screw whatever other inhabitants come in their way.

And if we keep treating this hunk of rock, like, -well a hunk of rock, then we don't deserve to live on it.

You don't see any downside to humans living, for say an average of two hundred years?

You don't see a downside in the earth having at least twice as many people living on it?

It can barely support how many of us there are now...IU see a life span of triple the norm now as very negative.

What would it do to the economy?
-Would pepople still retire in their sixites? I don't think many businesses will want to pay out pensions for a hundred and fourty years per person.
-Would people just work longer?
Well there's not enough work out there right now, how's some college grad supposed to compete for a job against someone with a hundred and twenty years experience in him?

Would we stop having bbies?
certanily with a triple life expectancy, having children would be discouraged...and how are governments upposed to do that? Force people not to have children...one of the most natural things that we do (unlike living well into our hundreds)

Plus I'm thinking about what kind of power unbalnce this would do.

There are places in the world where the life expectancy is only about forty or fifty..right now the industrialized world is kicking their butts with seventy or eighty as the average mortality age..what would happen to those countries if americans started living five of six times longer then they did?
It would certanly widen the already large divinde between urbanised countries and third world countries.

.

Post by **Loredoctor** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 2:59 am

drew wrote:Would we stop having bbies?
certanily with a triple life expectancy, having children would be discouraged...and how are governments upposed to do that? Force people not to have children...one of the most natural things that we do (unlike living well into our hundreds)

I once wrote a short story where individuals who were given (effective) immortality had to be sterilised. I honestly think if you want kids you shouldn't become immortal, or if you have immortality you cant have kids. Parents who have more than one or two children should not be given immortality.

Post by **Fist and Faith** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 3:05 am

Wow! I gotta read this thread! What are you folks talking about? When did we get the ability to give immortality?!? Ah well, I have to go to sleep now, so it'll have to wait.

Post by **Tjol** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 5:32 am

Esmer wrote: I would only wish to point out that all these predictions and postulations involve a vision of the future extrapolated from the social consciousness of our present population, and any such true advances in the complete evolution of body, mind and spirit must first entail a dramatic shift in the focus and perspective of man's approach to his potential futures.....

considering a capitalistic, budget driven profit margin progression to a better world is the first thing that needs change.....self interests must be replaced with greater self awareness and interest in everyone equally, that our pace and progress is not dependent upon budgets and funding, but legitimate needs, wants and wills of the people, and the available resources and qualified personnel required to accomplish it...money must go, and the mind that supports it must too.....

otherwise all we have is the corrupt views of a few accomplished and influential individuals and the groups they engender to support their personal and self indulgent visions of Emperors and Egotists......

Mankind has always been budget driven, be it under monarchies, republics, or anarchy. The difference with capitalism combined with democracy is that more people have access to more resources. But communism was profit driven, socialism is profit driven, it's all about selecting who can have access to the goodies. With socialism and communism, the leaders and the government workers get exclusive access. With capitalism, the holders of wealth are not co-identified with government or divinity, so their ill deeds are more easily reproached than in situations where the state and the wealthy are the same entity.

edit: to be clearer, the reason why capitalism seems dirty, is that it's ill doers become visible. The reason we can pretend communism so clean, is because it's ill doers can hide behind being one and the same as the benevolent leadership of your country. /edit

My belief is that the solution is not in rewriting the rules, but rather making the rules more manageable... governments that represent a quantity of people whom they can actrually maintain a representation of... without becoming aloof and unconcerned with their duty as a representative. Governments weilding the power of countless individuals are only necessary in those situations where such power is necessary... self defense, interstate infrastructure, deciding interstate disputes. Whenever possible though, there should be as few people as possible weilding power over other people.. a government that weilds 100 people can not do nearly as much ill upon it's individuals as a government weilding hundreds of millions. That's the future fix as I imagine it.... smaller governments who are able to ally in times of hardship, but otherwise are able to rule within the boundaries of responsible leadership.

Post by **The Laughing Man** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 5:49 am

so basically you are saying the same thing I am: Socialism is perfect, it's people that ruin it, usually for capitalistic/selfish reasons, no?

you'll have to forgive me , lately I've been much to lazy and lethargic to debate these ultra-complex views, heh...

Post by **Avatar** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 11:40 am

Great posts. Not one of my favourite Asimov stories Malik, but one I'm familiar with.

Although I agree with you that human genius is something that we cannot predict, and I'm by no means saying that things are hopeless, all I'm saying is that the assumption that things will get better and better is just that...an assumption.

Oh, and I agree with Drew about the way we treat the ball of rock, and it's contents, too.

And an excellent idea LoreMaster. I'd be all in favour of limiting it that way.

While we may hope that the rich would share that type of technology with the poor, it remains just a hope...

--A

Post by **Zarathustra** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 1:33 pm

drew wrote: We're not the only inhabitatns on the Earth...and we need all the otheres for our own existance...but they don't need us.
It's like we're co-inhabitants...all life/humans share the world..unfortunatly the humans don't seem to want to play fair; they want to take over the Earth, and screw whatever other inhabitants come in their way.

There's nothing holy about other lifeforms, or Nature wouldn't have killed off 90% of them throughout history on its way to producing us. Nature is much more harsh than we humans are. The fact that we need other lifeforms on earth is--again--contingent. I don't like having to depend upon a plant. I don't like having to depend upon the earth. I want to transcend my dependency. The earth is just our womb. Other lifeforms are the placenta. It matters little that they die for us to be born, to acheive our interstellar maturity. I'm not usually so teleological, but if there is any purpose in this meaningless universe, I think it might be the birth of intelligent creatures. What greater event are you expecting out of this planet than the evolution of intelligent, sentient beings? Screw the plants. Screw the animals. WE are the fulfillment of evolution. We are the universe waking up to itself. We are God being born. Everything else was just a "path to us."

You don't see any downside to humans living, for say an average of two hundred years?

You don't see a downside in the earth having at least twice as many people living on it?

It can barely support how many of us there are now...IU see a life span of triple the norm now as very negative.

Hey, the more the merrier! Do you really think the earth is "barely supporting" us? Haven't you noticed how humans live longer, healthier lives than ever before? Would you really like to go back to the times when our population was a fraction of its current number, back to when people spent all their days scrambling for barely enough to eat? Back when people regularly suffered from malnutrition?

The opposite of your assumptions have been the case: the more people we pack on the planet, the better fed and supplied they have become. Our ability to produce food and other forms of energy has increased astronomically faster than our population. You are worrying for nothing. Human intelligence and ingenuity is accelerating faster than mere physical entities can ever increase. The more people we have on the planet, the more people we have working on the problems facing us. Humans are not liabilities . . . they are our greatest resource.

What would it do to the economy?
-Would pepople still retire in their sixites? I don't think many businesses will want to pay out pensions for a hundred and fourty years per person.
-Would people just work longer?
Well there's not enough work out there right now, how's some college grad supposed to compete for a job against someone with a hundred and twenty years experience in him?

Given enough time and wisdom, you can earn enough money, save enough money, to live off your investments. That's how smart people retire. They don't wait around for the government to take care of them. They recognize the time value of money. There is no reason why we can't all reach a point where our investments produce enough money to live on indefintely. ESPECIALLY if the cost of production of goods approaches negligibility. As I've said: I'm suggesting a future where money isn't needed.

You may have noticed that at the same time humans are living longer than ever before, they are richer than ever before. Your assumptions just don't follow reality.

There are places in the world where the life expectancy is only about forty or fifty..right now the industrialized world is kicking their butts with seventy or eighty as the average mortality age..what would happen to those countries if americans started living five of six times longer then they did?
It would certanly widen the already large divinde between urbanised countries and third world countries.

So I shouldn't want to live longer because it might hurt someone's feelings?

Drew, you and I are so different that I can't even imagine people like you exist. I can't believe there are people out there who I have to convince that unlimited life, wealth, health isn't a bad thing. This is a measure of how spoiled we humans have become in our Golden Age. If you told someone 500 years ago that one day there would be humans who are fearful of long, healthy, prosperous lives, they'd think you were just making fun of them. With your pessimism, with your lack of appreciation for all we have, you are disgracing billions of humans who have suffered to put you where you are now. Be happy. Life is good. And we're making it better.

Post by **Tjol** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 5:26 am

Esmer wrote:so basically you are saying the same thing I am: Socialism is perfect, it's people that ruin it, usually for capitalistic/selfish reasons, no?

you'll have to forgive me , lately I've been much to lazy and lethargic to debate these ultra-complex views, heh...

Brevity is always a good thing. I always use too many words, chasing after a thorough expression of what I'm trying to say... but if I would be content if I could say it clearly with a few words... but I'm still working on being clear when using several.

Smaller societies seem to tend towards a mix of socialism and capitalism. They have the freedom of capitalism, but the self interest to look after each other. But there is no enforced socialism perse, people give because they see the future investment of it, rather than because the chief commands it.

I would call it all capitalism, but with an immediacy of consequence... but I think it all depends on what you think capitalism and socialism are. I see socialism as forcing people to act... but you may be describing a condition where people in general have consideration for each other, which can come from capitalist origins... in the way you are describing the capitalist end of inversely proportionate social systems.

Kevin's Watch

Kevin's Watch

What the World needs Now