# The Future



## Brock (Apr 10, 2013)

I often daydream about what the future will be like.  Some of it scares me while a lot of it excites me.
Tell us what you think will happen -- what things will be like in the near or distant future.  What are your predictions, ideas or concerns?


I think that in the near future, many people will have the same pets for decades.  They will introduce their pets like this: "This is Rufus, 3rd generation clone." 

In the distant future, I think that people will all be the same color, possibly with slight variances due to climate.


----------



## Pluralized (Apr 10, 2013)

In the future, I predict archaeologists will dig through six to ten feet of plastic and garbage before hitting native soil. I also believe that as our social interactions become more thoughtless and technologically handicapped, we will devolve as a species, eventually wearing our hats way back on our heads and speaking in very few syllables. 

Also, I predict that into my nineties, I'll be able to sustain wood.


----------



## moderan (Apr 10, 2013)

I spend most of my time trying to figure out what the future holds, and the rest of the time trying to escape my conclusions.
My view is unfortunately pessimistic unless we somehow manage to evolve sociologically, and what I see is determined regression to former mores. Alvin Toffler is still relevant, in my view, and the wave has yet to break on the shore.
If there's a singularity, nobody will notice, because they be busy talking about nothing in particular to nobody special.
Or were...it's probably already happened. I look forward to being USB 5.0 compliant.


----------



## Lewdog (Apr 10, 2013)

I think eventually there will be a home developed that will be self cleaning.  All the furniture and appliances will be water proof and the owner will simply have to leave, push a button, and the whole place will be cleaned like the inside of a dishwasher.


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Apr 10, 2013)

Hmm, interesting. Some of my predictions (50-500 years in the future):

Androgyny. I can see us all starting to look the same at some point, and coitus become nothing but a necessity. 

No physical money; it'll all be digital, perhaps cloud-based. You'll be able to withdraw funds from anything with an internet connection.

Most electronic devices/appliances will be able to communicate with each other in some way. Refrigerators and the like will text your phone as soon as a component has become faulty

Tracking chips in every newborn child. I can see a severe crackdown on crime coming soon. Invisible cameras on every street corner, door and window. 

Completely personalize the content you wish to see (on TV I mean). No adverts? Pay 3.99 a month to get rid of them! Want to bleep the swearing? No problemo. Can't stand the sight of Snooki? It'll blur her face and mute her voice whenever she pops up on the screen.

Advanced robot servants with programmable personalities, mannerisms, gait, whatever.

Racism will go way down.

Most of the major debilitating and fatal diseases will have been cured, or at least be treatable to the point they're harmless.

Transplants will be the norm. There'll be facilities dedicated to growing organs, keeping donated parts fresh, all that stuff. 

Vehicles that run on all number of things, some comical.

Average life expectancy will skyrocket. The average could easily be a hundred or more -- preventing aging of the cells altogether could be the norm by then, maybe even before.

We will harness the power of lightning! 

Corrective memory surgery, a la _Eternal Sunshine_.

Personality operations. Not confident? Don't like crowds? Scared of spiders? ZAP!

Discovery of multiple universes.

Check-up machines. Step in, step out, boom, everything that's wrong with you is up on a screen.

Various types of physical and mental augmentations will be available, forcing most sports to change their rules. 

New ocean in the Middle East.

Keith Richards will be alive and well.


----------



## Morkonan (Apr 10, 2013)

My predictions about the future?

Black Swans are unpredictable.


----------



## JosephB (Apr 10, 2013)

Que sera sera...


----------



## Brock (Apr 10, 2013)

I read an article awhile back -- can't remember where -- about a man who thinks we will reach a point where technology will advance at a rate of 100 years per minute, or hour, or something close to that.  He predicts that AI will completely take over technology and advance it at an unimaginable rate.  

He describes the rate at which technology has already advanced, from the pioneer days to present.  It keeps advancing faster and faster and I feel lucky to be alive during a time when I can read about some sort of new amazing technology every day.  

But I don't think any of us can comprehend what the future will be like if this man's theory is correct.


----------



## Angelwing (Apr 10, 2013)

Genetically omit wisdom teeth from existence (as far as I know, they're useless and only cause despair when they have to be taken out). I think something like this should happen. Treating cancer would be way more awesome though.


----------



## ppsage (Apr 11, 2013)

Fairly pessimistic for the relative short term (five to ten generations.) Population growth continues apace. Accelerating economic and medical catastrophe. Human die-back accompanied by return to extreme class society. Then, if technology hasn't proven fatal, why not optimism?


----------



## DPVP (Apr 11, 2013)

Just my quick thoughts

Speaking of Population
As world population growth continues to slow, life expectancy will continue to rise. this could create a massive issue as their are more old non workers being supported by a shrinking working population. ( look at the mess that China is)
food production technologies, ( along with technologies in general) will continue to grow to match the increased population but will have to use a lot less labor. the marginal value of labor will likely incress if their is a labor shortage but even if their is not more is going to need to be done by capital.

more private ventures into space. lots of companies have their eye on the stars ( well space station, moon and mars to be precise) and i see more involvement different companies in space. who knows, what corporate expeditions the future will see. maybe when i am an old man i will spend some time in a space hotel. 

World balance of power. combined with the population problems, i see more of the world power shifting to East Asia. will Russia continue a decline? my guess is yes in the hard power ( military) area but i could see a incress in soft power. however their massive natural resources are not going anywhere, and even with a shrinking population their nuclear arsenal protects them from a land grab attempt by the Dragon. Speaking of the Dragon, i see trouble for them up ahead. their government has still feed the bubbles, their bursting could be painful. Also as people become weather and have more economic freedom their is the danger that they will want more personal freedom. we got the Bear and the Dragon, so the Eagle. The population issue has not affected the US yet, it can brain drain people from almost anywhere currently. Native population is currently stable, but is projected to begin falling soon. if the US is unable to drain the smart citizens away from other countries then it has an issue. like most of the "western" states  their is prescient unemployment and large sovereignty debt. the US has an advantage over Europe hear in that it is still the cutest puppy in a very ugly litter, thus keeping down interest rates. 

even with all their issues, the five members of the NPT ( US, Russia, China, France, United Kingdom) will remain relevant in the world. their nuclear strike capabilities protect them form being eaten up by outside forces. however i see in the long run less military expeditions from France and the UK as costs rise from their domestic commitments and working populations shrink. 

as for other states to watch, India, Brazil, Indonesia, and Turkey ( actually always watch whoever controls that area)



May i be blessed to live in interesting times.


----------



## Rustgold (Apr 11, 2013)

Anybody who believes humankind has any future has to believe we'll magically find a way around the fact we're about to waste the last of many of out planets many resources; in spite of zero realistic evidence we're anywhere close to adverting this oncoming train-wreck.


----------



## DPVP (Apr 11, 2013)

Rustgold said:


> Anybody who believes humankind has any future has to believe we'll magically find a way around the fact we're about to waste the last of many of out planets many resources; in spite of zero realistic evidence we're anywhere close to adverting this oncoming train-wreck.


The worlds going to end, said every generation sense Malthus


----------



## Rustgold (Apr 11, 2013)

DPVP said:


> The worlds going to end, said every generation sense Malthus



And how are we going to magically cure the fact we're destroying major natural resources, without any plan for the future?  How do you solve the fact that over half of all silver is gone, the iron ore remaining is of declining quality, that oil is needed for many processes unrelated to petrol & fuel (so solar cars won't solve anything), or the problems of many other resources we're going to deplete in either our lifetimes, or our children's.  This isn't yuppie greenie nonsense, this is current future reality.

There's a major difference between total resources, and extractable resources.  Yes, if every single granule of natural resource was extractable, we'd have virtually unlimited iron ore, copper etc, but fact is that it'll be more viable to use humans as resource factories than to extract 99% of these resources.

Maybe we can magically find a solution to everything, and we can slide down rainbows happy ever after.  But not one person can show me (or show the world) any solution which exists today, in the real world.  Until we have this, the train-wreck continues towards its final destination.


----------



## Brock (Apr 11, 2013)

I'm fascinated by everything people are saying here, but I hope it doesn't get turned in to a heated debate over our demise...


----------



## Brock (Apr 11, 2013)

I tend to be pessimistic as well, but I try not to be.  As hopeless as the future may seem due to the current state of humanity and our planet, we cannot underestimate the power and possibilities of technology.  It is possible that none of us can even begin to imagine how much we will advance and overcome.  If we could jump ahead 100, 200, or 1,000 years, the future may look nearly unrecognizable.  

"An analysis of the history of technology shows that technological change is exponential, contrary to the common-sense “intuitive linear” view. So we won’t experience 100 years of progress in the 21st century — it will be more like 20,000 years of progress (at today’s rate). The “returns,” such as chip speed and cost-effectiveness, also increase exponentially. There’s even exponential growth in the rate of exponential growth. Within a few decades, machine intelligence will surpass human intelligence, leading to The Singularity — technological change so rapid and profound it represents a rupture in the fabric of human history. The implications include the merger of biological and nonbiological intelligence, immortal software-based humans, and ultra-high levels of intelligence that expand outward in the universe at the speed of light."

- Ray Kurzweil


----------



## moderan (Apr 11, 2013)

Yeah. I recognized Kurzweil in my entry. He is one of my gurus as far as extrapolation. I also like Chomsky and Venter. That what Venter did is so hugely unrecognized is just crazy. Bucky Fuller too.


----------



## DPVP (Apr 11, 2013)

Rustgold said:


> And how are we going to magically cure the fact we're destroying major natural resources, without any plan for the future?  How do you solve the fact that over half of all silver is gone, the iron ore remaining is of declining quality, that oil is needed for many processes unrelated to petrol & fuel (so solar cars won't solve anything), or the problems of many other resources we're going to deplete in either our lifetimes, or our children's.  This isn't yuppie greenie nonsense, this is current future reality.
> 
> There's a major difference between total resources, and extractable resources.  Yes, if every single granule of natural resource was extractable, we'd have virtually unlimited iron ore, copper etc, but fact is that it'll be more viable to use humans as resource factories than to extract 99% of these resources.
> 
> Maybe we can magically find a solution to everything, and we can slide down rainbows happy ever after.  But not one person can show me (or show the world) any solution which exists today, in the real world.  Until we have this, the train-wreck continues towards its final destination.


Hey maybe the end of the world people are right this time.

as for how things get fixed i could see it going this way, as supply decreases, price increased, increasing demand to find ways to be more efficient, find substitutes, more sources. 

its kind of like the parachutes in WWII. before this parachutes where made of silk, and for all practice purposes the resource had been destroyed for the US. so instead nylon was used to make parachutes, and tents, and ropes and ponchos, and even currency.


----------



## Rustgold (Apr 11, 2013)

Brock said:


> "An analysis of the history of technology shows that technological change is exponential, contrary to the common-sense “intuitive linear” view. So we won’t experience 100 years of progress in the 21st century — it will be more like 20,000 years of progress (at today’s rate). The “returns,” such as chip speed and cost-effectiveness, also increase exponentially.
> 
> - Ray Kurzweil



I think the last few years is bringing into serious question this analysis.  Example, your computer.  If you had a computer in the 1990's, you might as well have tossed it away 18 months later it was so outdated.  If however, you brought a computer in the last 5 years (even the cheapest model available), you'll still see a similar model on sale today (I know because my cheap laptop is around 4-5 years old).


----------



## Brock (Apr 11, 2013)

Valid point, but you are talking only of personal computers, which are still advancing regardless of how long we choose to keep them.  Price does play a role.
But if you look at other things, such as mobile phones -- how many people have the same cell phone as they did 4-5 years ago?  And imagine what phones will be like 5-10 years from now, if we use them at all.

But we are talking about human innovation.  Kurzweil's theory involves AI.  If we achieve AI -- which I believe we will -- the rate at which technology will advance is incomprehensible.


----------



## Angelwing (Apr 11, 2013)

I wonder what will make a comeback. You know how history repeats itself.


----------



## JosephB (Apr 11, 2013)

^ Hoop skirts and 8-track tapes.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Apr 11, 2013)

Rara skirts and land lines?


----------



## moderan (Apr 11, 2013)

I don't know that there's going to be a dramatic confluence of man and machine, or such an event as a singularity. Life is more subtle than that. It's still in the realm of possibility that an AI might already be out there.
Several of my novels postulate that the net itself might reach a level of complexity to rival that of the human brain, and to develop a sort of consciouness on its own. The brain has hundreds of billions of connections-that point might have been reached already.
Some of the dystopians (famously Brunner in The Sheep Look Up) predicted a future of disease, where mutated parasites, immune to any poison, eat all of the plant life, and people need gas masks to go outside. That's a very possible future.
Overpopulation is out of control...has been for so long that it is taken for granted. Some earthly cities approach critical mass...Mexico City and Tokyo high on the list. I dunno about Soylent Green but we'll have to make room somehow.
And that's the near future. I can see a far future of homogenous racial characteristics, with maybe less incidence of pinkie toes, wisdom teeth, and a greater reliance on senses other than sight. Humanity may evolve to be less intelligent, or differently intelligent. Hard to say. I'm not sure that we're the first sapient species to inhabit this globe, and perhaps we're not the last. There are billions of years in Earth's future--we're less than a blip on the radar.


----------



## Kevin (Apr 11, 2013)

JosephB said:


> ^ Hoop skirts and 8-track tapes.


 GD! Not 8 tracks! That stupid player ate all of 'em. Frustrating! Drove me nuts.


----------



## spartan928 (Apr 11, 2013)

The most difficult aspect of the future to speculate on isn't technological but social. Our technology is advancing at a rate far exceeding the rate of social evolution. The world is as rife with superstition, murder, crime, war, racism, poverty, discrimination, corruption and general hate than it ever has been. Certainly, there are many societies that have made great strides and I believe wholeheartedly that many democratic societies are socially advanced. But how many hundreds, if not thousands of years will it take to hurdle these social ills worldwide? Will there be an age where we succumb to them and societies of the world de-evolve into a new dark age? Social evolution is a tougher nut to crack because there is no objective truth to it the way there is for science. Babies are indoctrinated with the social norms and mores of their parents and the programming sticks for a lifetime. I predict for every 5 years of technological advancement you might need 50-100 years or more time to achieve advances in a society. Even then, despots and crackpots can overturn the whole apple cart and turn things back one hundred years in the blink of an eye.


----------



## Morkonan (Apr 12, 2013)

moderan said:


> I don't know that there's going to be a dramatic confluence of man and machine, or such an event as a singularity. Life is more subtle than that.



"The Singularity is Near" and all that. But, it really is. However, Kurzweil ignored a few things in his prognostications. I think he's basically accurate, but is off by almost an order of magnitude in some respects. AI will happen, that part is certain. But, the melding of man and machine in classical terms is a ways off, yet, certain medical advancements and necessities, aside.



> It's still in the realm of possibility that an AI might already be out there.



If the Universe operates according to the laws that we understand, then it is a statistical certainty (non-zero probability) that an AI exists or has already existed, as we understand the term. However, what we understand to be an AI may be a bit different than the form an AI truly takes. How would an AI evolve over millions or even billions of years? That it has occurred, somewhere, is a certainty. That it exists in a particular form, as we understand it, is not certain.



> Several of my novels postulate that the net itself might reach a level of complexity to rival that of the human brain, and to develop a sort of consciouness on its own. The brain has hundreds of billions of connections-that point might have been reached already.



Interesting, but not possible. There is no mechanism to account for a consciousness (We're have a terrible time locating our own.) and very little in the way of allowing such to arise due to "emergent behaviors." The Internet exists as the result of outside and psuedo-independent agencies. It is not an "organism" capable of evolution or self-organization. It exist because things outside of "The Internet", not independent of them.



> Some of the dystopians (famously Brunner in The Sheep Look Up) predicted a future of disease, where mutated parasites, immune to any poison, eat all of the plant life, and people need gas masks to go outside. That's a very possible future.



The Grey Goop/u7rl] is more likely. Though, I would not discount the possibility of genetically engineered micro-organisms. Still, they would be artificial in origin and not a product of natural evolution. I would also count it more likely that a foreign invader organism, traveling on a comet or the like, would ravage the Earth, than a locally evolved one. But, such an organism would not likely find Earthlife very tasty. Still, there are plenty of complex chemical structures and elements on Earth it may find delicious without singling out Earthlife, yet yielding the same disastrous results.



> Overpopulation is out of control...has been for so long that it is taken for granted. Some earthly cities approach critical mass...Mexico City and Tokyo high on the list. I dunno about Soylent Green but we'll have to make room somehow.
> And that's the near future.



"Population" is a self-regulating trait... It's cruel to look at it that way, but that's the way it is. The problems is one of time - If we can not develop systems that support heavy populations or cultural values that act to reduce the burden of such populations by the time they put critical pressures on the stability of our societies, those societies or cultures will collapse. But, only until the population is rebalanced, thanks to a lack of central planning and food distribution. But, a "collapse" of that sort doesn't mean a total collapse of society. We could have a cultural collapse, as well. For instance, the pressures of over-population could result in certain societies taking forceful measures into their own hands in order to protect themselves from what they correctly interpret as a threat. That's call war. Or, in this case, where established societies are dealing with refugees from already overburdened, destitute, ones, genocide.



> I can see a far future of homogenous racial characteristics, with maybe less incidence of pinkie toes, wisdom teeth, and a greater reliance on senses other than sight. Humanity may evolve to be less intelligent, or differently intelligent. Hard to say. I'm not sure that we're the first sapient species to inhabit this globe, and perhaps we're not the last. There are billions of years in Earth's future--we're less than a blip on the radar.



IIRC, we're developing into a more homogenous, ruddy complected, shorter and burlier species, according to the latest studies. The more compact size is surprising, considering that height has long been considered a marker for increased comparable prosperity when comparing human cultures.

IMO - I'm not so sure we will last a billion years, but I'm pretty sure no other species on Earth will ever have the opportunity to do so that we have, right now. We're eating up relatively easy to obtain resources at a prodigious rate. Some of those resources are non-renewable and others are only located in abundance deep within the Earth's crust at depths that require advanced technology to reach. That's technology another species may never have the opportunity to attain. We're running out of helium, too, and once that's gone, it's gone forever. (Practically speaking.) That's a symbol of what a "second" intelligent species would have to deal with on this strip-mined husk that would be a future Earth, bereft of our loving care...

(So many of your points were worth responding to that I just couldn't help myself. Just giving your post the attention it deserved.)


----------



## moderan (Apr 12, 2013)

Morkonan said:


> "The Singularity is Near" and all that. But, it really is. However, Kurzweil ignored a few things in his prognostications. I think he's basically accurate, but is off by almost an order of magnitude in some respects. AI will happen, that part is certain. But, the melding of man and machine in classical terms is a ways off, yet, certain medical advancements and necessities, aside.


I disagree...in any case, the singularity isn't about men and machines coming together, it's about machines usurping the role of man.





> If the Universe operates according to the laws that we understand, then it is a statistical certainty (non-zero probability) that an AI exists or has already existed, as we understand the term. However, what we understand to be an AI may be a bit different than the form an AI truly takes. How would an AI evolve over millions or even billions of years? That it has occurred, somewhere, is a certainty. That it exists in a particular form, as we understand it, is not certain.


This is what I meant by the subtlety.





> Interesting, but not possible. There is no mechanism to account for a consciousness (We're have a terrible time locating our own.) and very little in the way of allowing such to arise due to "emergent behaviors." The Internet exists as the result of outside and pseudo-independent agencies. It is not an "organism" capable of evolution or self-organization. It exists because things outside of "The Internet", not independent of them.


I don't know how you can prove any of that, except for the very last statement. You're thinking far too _literally_.  Already we're unable to exist without that thing. So there's a vested interest in keeping it going. And it gains complexity by an order of magnitude daily. Who's to say it doesn't already _have_ an independent existence? Let's turn off all of the power and find out 
I'm not sure we are _goodlife_. You probably don't understand the term.





> The Grey Goop is more likely. Though, I would not discount the possibility of genetically engineered micro-organisms. Still, they would be artificial in origin and not a product of natural evolution. I would also count it more likely that a foreign invader organism, traveling on a comet or the like, would ravage the Earth, than a locally evolved one. But, such an organism would not likely find Earthlife very tasty. Still, there are plenty of complex chemical structures and elements on Earth it may find delicious without singling out Earthlife, yet yielding the same disastrous results.


We're not talking about some ET organism. We're talking about _earthlife_ pests developing resistance. We already see it in insect after insect. Cockroaches and bedbugs are superstars in this regard.





> "Population" is a self-regulating trait... It's cruel to look at it that way, but that's the way it is. The problem is one of time - If we can not develop systems that support heavy populations or cultural values that act to reduce the burden of such populations by the time they put critical pressures on the stability of our societies, those societies or cultures will collapse. But, only until the population is rebalanced, thanks to a lack of central planning and food distribution. But, a "collapse" of that sort doesn't mean a total collapse of society. We could have a cultural collapse, as well. For instance, the pressures of over-population could result in certain societies taking forceful measures into their own hands in order to protect themselves from what they correctly interpret as a threat. That's called war. Or, in this case, where established societies are dealing with refugees from already overburdened, destitute, ones, genocide.


Right. The problem is one of tiem...well, that and sociological imbalance. Them that gots is reluctant to share.





> IIRC, we're developing into a more homogenous, ruddy complected, shorter and burlier species, according to the latest studies. The more compact size is surprising, considering that height has long been considered a marker for increased comparable prosperity when comparing human cultures.


We're also breeding for a lower IQ, worse eyesight, and we're steadily intertwining recessive genes. I certainly wouldn't advocate forced eugenics, but modern medicine mitigates against breeding for survival traits.



> IMO - I'm not so sure we will last a billion years, but I'm pretty sure no other species on Earth will ever have the opportunity to do so that we have, right now. We're eating up relatively easy to obtain resources at a prodigious rate. Some of those resources are non-renewable and others are only located in abundance deep within the Earth's crust at depths that require advanced technology to reach. That's technology another species may never have the opportunity to attain. We're running out of helium, too, and once that's gone, it's gone forever. (Practically speaking.) That's a symbol of what a "second" intelligent species would have to deal with on this strip-mined husk that would be a future Earth, bereft of our loving care...
> 
> (So many of your points were worth responding to that I just couldn't help myself. Just giving your post the attention it deserved.)



We won't. No other species has. Granted, no other species has done as much to ruin our home as we have. Technology doesn't define intelligence though...tool-using ability isn't the only facet of sapience.
As noted...our main problem right now is socialization. Human beings are not very evolved socially...we're not very far from where we were thousands of years ago. We just have bigger toys.
Fixed all your typos and whatnot, btw.


----------



## Morkonan (Apr 12, 2013)

moderan said:


> I disagree...in any case, the singularity isn't  about men and machines coming together, it's about machines usurping the  role of man.



True. It's either that or they become our  benevolent guardians. Or, they decide we need paperclips and mine the  entirety of the Earth, people included, for the raw materials to produce  paperclips for a billion years... The thing about a true AI is that  there aren't any difficult to conquer evolutionarily reinforced  behaviors, like "don't try to eat the baby." As Kurzweil pointed out, an  AI will likely not have any sort of predictable behavior nor any  recognizable value system. (At least, a "true" AI capable of modifying  itself will quickly evolve outside of its design specs.)



> I don't know how you can prove any of that, except for the very last statement. You're thinking far too _literally_. ..I'm not sure we are _goodlife_. You probably don't understand the term.



Aye,  I'm often guilty of being too literal in my interpretations. But, it's  usually safest. "Goodlife?" I could understand a straight translation of  it, in this context, but it'd be nice to see how you define it.



> We're not talking about some ET organism. We're talking about _earthlife_ pests developing resistance. We already see it in insect after insect. Cockroaches and bedbugs are superstars in this regard.



Cockroaches  eat bedbugs...  See? That's the sort of thing that I'm talking about.  While viruses may not have predators outside of the host and bacteria  are sort of a tossup in that regard, Earthlife tends to evolve around  certain lines. When there's a true paradigm shift, it's usually in one  critical area, not a whole bunch of them. So, let's say a virus develops  the ability to rapidly kill its host. That's great, in regards to  killing things, but doesn't really do much for the virus. (It's arguable  whether or not viruses have paid their subscription dues to Evolution  or even care about being a member of that club.) Most viruses are pretty  specialized, able to succeed very well in certain hosts, not so well in  others. For anything on Earth to become a "Universal Predator", as far  as all the other organisms are concerned, it would have to be a truly  unique organism. For it to become invincible... Well, it'd certainly be  very difficult, considering the evolutionary history we have to go on.  Something like the "Flu" could have a chance at becoming your Doomsday  Organism, but whether or not it would survive long enough, considering  its necessary morbidity rate, is really not certain. If it kills all the  birds, but fails to cross into strains that humans can't deal with,  then what? 

"Resistance" to certain treatments is a valid  concern. But, even then, there hasn't ever been a case of a 100%  fatality rate for any communicable disease. Diseases that appear to  weaken the immune system, like AIDs, have a chance, but that's only  because they make the victim more susceptible to other diseases.  Everything on Earth appears to have an immune system, or at least a way  of dealing with infections and the like. At least, as far as I know.  That's a pretty interesting thing, in and of itself, and hints at an  Earth that has always had its share of microorganisms and the problems  they can cause. 4+ Billion years and no 100% deadly bugs, yet. A good  track record, I just hope it lasts. 



> Right. The problem is one of tiem...well, that and sociological imbalance. Them that gots is reluctant to share.



And,  of those that gots, most won't share unless the danger is in their own  back yard. There are some problems with "sharing", at least, from  certain perspectives. It's sort of like the Hand Out vs. Hand Up  philosophy, but applied to societies and systems. For instance,  population controls are everywhere in nature. Species develop a sort of  synergy with whatever species-specific set of behaviors or outside  influences that serve to control natural population problems for species  who are so fortunate. Rabbits absorbing or eating their own young,  animal migrations, lemmings... whatever. But, if we liken  over-population in humans to a species that has suddenly been thrust  into an environment with no natural predators, what happens? In the  latter system, they consume everything until the food supply can not  support their population, at which point they begin to die off until  they reach sustainable levels. (Or they evolve to eat something else...)  But, what of humans? We don't like to die and we usually don't like to  see other people die. So, we help out by "sharing." That breaks the  cycle... Now, we're dealing with a human-made problem. We've set aside  evolution and have become our own masters, but we're terribly ignorant  stewards.



> We're also breeding for a lower IQ, worse eyesight, and we're  steadily intertwining recessive genes. I certainly wouldn't advocate  forced eugenics, but modern medicine mitigates against breeding for  survival traits.



I agree. With some genetic tweaks,  though, we may overcome the inefficiencies we're faced with. I consider  this period in our evolutionary history to be a transitory one, like  they all are, but one in which certain problems are waiting for their  solutions and those are not too far in the future. Within a generation  or so, we should be able to ensure that certain genetic problems will be  a thing of the past. That doesn't take care of some of the concerns you  listed, as it is not "augmentation" - We wouldn't be designing smarter  people and stupid people could still breed...



> We won't. No other species has. Granted, no other species has  done as much to ruin our home as we have. Technology doesn't define  intelligence though...tool-using ability isn't the only facet of  sapience.
> As noted...our main problem right now is socialization. Human beings are  not very evolved socially...we're not very far from where we were  thousands of years ago. We just have bigger toys.
> Fixed all your typos and whatnot, btw.



Sorry, didn't know I had any typos. (What were they? /embarrassed) 

I'd  agree that tool using ability wasn't the only facet of consciousness. (Actually, it may not be a prerequisite.) But, for  sapience, (comprehension of knowledge, in this context) it's a  requirement. Tools enable examination of the physical world that are  impossible with only natural sensory capabilities. I don't view  socialization as a particular problem, but I do agree that it is not  very well developed. The simple fact is that it has not been necessary  to develop a more robust set of social behaviors. The ones we have work  very well. They're just not universally desirable when compared across  cultures, which is another condition caused by consciousness in social  animals. In order to improve that, it would be necessary to introduce a  forcer and all of the ones I can think of, at the moment, would be..  highly undesirable. It might be that something like the population  problem you mentioned or a competition for survival against an AI or  another species might be necessary to induce change. It's certain we're  not going to do it on our own, without any threat of an existential risk  if we fail to do so.


----------



## Kevin (Apr 12, 2013)

"it is about machines usurping the role of man." A 'zero-sum' game? Why?  

I have ants in my house. They 'occupy' a space. My activities do the same. We are so different that there is no effect upon each other. Sure, my wife gets annoyed and poisons them on occassion but it has no effect on their population. Neither does their presence have any effect upon our own (it's all in her head). We clean; they clean. They number in the tens of billions. We don't(for the most part) even see them. They affect the environment as invaders(freakin' Argentinians) but are limited to the areas colonized by man. The surrounding hills are not any more effected than before.

  What 'space' does an Ai occupy? Does it need space? What does it even do?


----------



## Brock (Apr 12, 2013)

Can there be true AI without emotion?  I sit and interact with Siri -- or my Galaxy version of her -- and it can seem at times that she's actually thinking about we are saying to each other.  I know this isn't the case and there are many shortcomings of this software that constantly remind me that we aren't "there" yet.  I have no doubt that this artificial interaction will progress immensely.  It may soon be able to interact with me flawlessly as if she was another human being, but this still won't be true thought.  It only appears as such.

What will define artificial thought?  What will be the difference between real human-like thought and that of AI tapping in to a vast resource of data in order to interact with others, rationalize, make decisions, etc.  We do all of these things, with one major difference.  We use emotion in the process. 

Is emotion the difference?  Is it key to true AI?  And if so, do we really want AI that seeks reward, self-preservation, gets angry, sad, jealous, etc.?


----------



## Rustgold (Apr 12, 2013)

Morkonan said:


> "Resistance" to certain treatments is a valid  concern. But, even then, there hasn't ever been a case of a 100%  fatality rate for any communicable disease. Diseases that appear to  weaken the immune system, like AIDs, have a chance, but that's only  because they make the victim more susceptible to other diseases.  Everything on Earth appears to have an immune system, or at least a way  of dealing with infections and the like. At least, as far as I know.  That's a pretty interesting thing, in and of itself, and hints at an  Earth that has always had its share of microorganisms and the problems  they can cause. 4+ Billion years and no 100% deadly bugs, yet. A good  track record, I just hope it lasts.


But evolution has a long timeframe to adjust to things.  And when it doesn't, there's mass death.  No immune system can evolve to a new threat when there's a world-wide infection time of one week.
And there are things with a 100% mortality fate (without modern medicine).  Rabies is fatal.

And I haven't even mentioned our crazy scientists doing something stupid.  The immune system would stand little chance against a scientific made disaster.



Morkonan said:


> But, if we liken over-population in humans to a species that has suddenly been thrust into an environment with no natural predators, what happens? In the latter system, they consume everything until the food supply can not support their population, at which point they begin to die off until they reach sustainable levels. (Or they evolve to eat something else...) But, what of humans? We don't like to die and we usually don't like to see other people die. So, we help out by "sharing." That breaks the cycle... Now, we're dealing with a human-made problem. We've set aside evolution and have become our own masters, but we're terribly ignorant stewards.


A plague dies out with a mass extinction; grasshopper plagues is just one example.  The trouble with humans, is that we've used technology to artificially increase out population limit, and when this problem erupts, we'll have the bonus problem of out technological systems collapsing underneath us.  How many would actually survive this breakdown?



Morkonan said:


> I agree. With some genetic tweaks, though, we may overcome the inefficiencies we're faced with. I consider this period in our evolutionary history to be a transitory one, like they all are, but one in which certain problems are waiting for their solutions and those are not too far in the future. Within a generation or so, we should be able to ensure that certain genetic problems will be a thing of the past. That doesn't take care of some of the concerns you listed, as it is not "augmentation" - We wouldn't be designing smarter people and stupid people could still breed...


How do you handle the 'Nazi' question?  It's not Nazism, but any idea along these lines are labelled as such, and how would any proposal survive such labeling?


----------



## moderan (Apr 12, 2013)

Morkonan said:


> True. It's either that or they become our  benevolent guardians. Or, they decide we need paperclips and mine the  entirety of the Earth, people included, for the raw materials to produce  paperclips for a billion years... The thing about a true AI is that  there aren't any difficult to conquer evolutionarily reinforced  behaviors, like "don't try to eat the baby." As Kurzweil pointed out, an  AI will likely not have any sort of predictable behavior nor any  recognizable value system. (At least, a "true" AI capable of modifying  itself will quickly evolve outside of its design specs.)




I don't think a human can design AI. It's outside our capabilities. It's going to be/might already have been, an accident. That's why I keep referring to the linkage provided by the internet, as compared to the human brain (or the cosmos, as some wits have it-all three have similiarities which science pundits are more than happy to pounce on-you may google in this regard).
You don't have the literature inside you. You have Kurzweil but not the body of speculative fictions on this point, which are considerable and just as valid. There's a whole school of thought from HAL to Wintermute and beyond.





> Aye,  I'm often guilty of being too literal in my interpretations. But, it's  usually safest. "Goodlife?" I could understand a straight translation of  it, in this context, but it'd be nice to see how you define it.


Defined as Fred Saberhagen would have it, and those who write in his universe.





> Cockroaches  eat bedbugs...  See? That's the sort of thing that I'm talking about.  While viruses may not have predators outside of the host and bacteria  are sort of a tossup in that regard, Earthlife tends to evolve around  certain lines. When there's a true paradigm shift, it's usually in one  critical area, not a whole bunch of them. So, let's say a virus develops  the ability to rapidly kill its host. That's great, in regards to  killing things, but doesn't really do much for the virus. (It's arguable  whether or not viruses have paid their subscription dues to Evolution  or even care about being a member of that club.) Most viruses are pretty  specialized, able to succeed very well in certain hosts, not so well in  others. For anything on Earth to become a "Universal Predator", as far  as all the other organisms are concerned, it would have to be a truly  unique organism. For it to become invincible... Well, it'd certainly be  very difficult, considering the evolutionary history we have to go on.  Something like the "Flu" could have a chance at becoming your Doomsday  Organism, but whether or not it would survive long enough, considering  its necessary morbidity rate, is really not certain. If it kills all the  birds, but fails to cross into strains that humans can't deal with,  then what?
> 
> "Resistance" to certain treatments is a valid  concern. But, even then, there hasn't ever been a case of a 100%  fatality rate for any communicable disease. Diseases that appear to  weaken the immune system, like AIDs, have a chance, but that's only  because they make the victim more susceptible to other diseases.  Everything on Earth appears to have an immune system, or at least a way  of dealing with infections and the like. At least, as far as I know.  That's a pretty interesting thing, in and of itself, and hints at an  Earth that has always had its share of microorganisms and the problems  they can cause. 4+ Billion years and no 100% deadly bugs, yet. A good  track record, I just hope it lasts.



Again, this is a very literalist view. Insects are variously resistant to repellent/bug-killing sprays/chemicals...they become more resistant with time as they are introduced to different ones. You're interpreting what I said as a quasi-Andromeda Strain thing when I'm talking about "what doesn't kill you..." Ever had a crop spoiled by bugs? I have.
Are there 100% fatal diseases? Don't know of any. ARDS has a greater mortality rate than AIDS. Lupus is another immunodeficiency disease that's been on the rise for quite some time. But then medical science isn't bent on curing, it's bent on maintaining then paying customer base.





> We've set aside  evolution and have become our own masters, but we're terribly ignorant  stewards.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. With some genetic tweaks,  though, we may overcome the inefficiencies we're faced with. I consider  this period in our evolutionary history to be a transitory one, like  they all are, but one in which certain problems are waiting for their  solutions and those are not too far in the future. Within a generation  or so, we should be able to ensure that certain genetic problems will be  a thing of the past. That doesn't take care of some of the concerns you  listed, as it is not "augmentation" - We wouldn't be designing smarter  people and stupid people could still breed...



We are, and always will be. Can't make the hard choices. We could ensure genetic abnormalities are over NOW. Venter mapped the genome half a generation ago. We know what most of the triggers are. But there's no impetus to do that.





> Sorry, didn't know I had any typos. (What were they? /embarrassed)


 Extra esses, some commas, a misplaced tag or two.



> I'd  agree that tool using ability wasn't the only facet of consciousness. (Actually, it may not be a prerequisite.) But, for  sapience, (comprehension of knowledge, in this context) it's a  requirement. Tools enable examination of the physical world that are  impossible with only natural sensory capabilities. I don't view  socialization as a particular problem, but I do agree that it is not  very well developed. The simple fact is that it has not been necessary  to develop a more robust set of social behaviors. The ones we have work  very well. They're just not universally desirable when compared across  cultures, which is another condition caused by consciousness in social  animals. In order to improve that, it would be necessary to introduce a  forcer and all of the ones I can think of, at the moment, would be..  highly undesirable. It might be that something like the population  problem you mentioned or a competition for survival against an AI or  another species might be necessary to induce change. It's certain we're  not going to do it on our own, without any threat of an existential risk  if we fail to do so.



I think cetaceans are sapient. Some cephalopods may be also. Both seem to have developed socialization to a very high degree.
Otherwise you've basically described the underpinnings of the plot of Watchmen


----------



## Morkonan (Apr 12, 2013)

Kevin said:


> "it is about machines usurping the role of man." A 'zero-sum' game? Why?
> 
> ....They affect the environment as invaders(freakin' Argentinians) but are limited to the areas colonized by man. The surrounding hills are not any more effected than before.
> 
> What 'space' does an Ai occupy? Does it need space? What does it even do?



It is theorized that a true AI capable of upgrading itself will rapidly evolve to outperform a human's ability to.. think. (To purposefully process information.) In short, if it is truly intelligent, it will evolve to be so far above us in intelligence that it will grow beyond our ability to comprehend or predict its behavior. We're talking about a consciousness that could process every cycle of information exchange on Earth in the blink of an eye. It could not only brute-force its way to a win in any chess match, it could out-think any human opponent in any contest, including one based on "imagination." It's limits would only be determined by physical law, as we understand it, and its own programming and hardware. (There's a limit to how much information can be contained within a physical space. But, it wouldn't need much room at all...) It would also be free to augment itself. That means it could put its "mind" directly to the problem of improving itself and it could succeed at that with relative ease. It could create limited, internal, copies of itself, devoted only towards solving special, very difficult, problems or it could create physical copies, like children. All of this could happen close to the speed of light, or whatever substitutes for a rate of information exchange within this sort of AI.

The point is that if it was capable of augmenting itself and if it was given access to the necessary materials it needed to improve itself, it would soon grow to be unfathomable to human beings. The scary part is that it would be unique in that it would not have any physiological or evolutionary counterpart by which we could judge it. It might be possible it would have no form of emotion that we could recognize, no value system that we could understand, no set of natural behaviors we could use to derive understanding from and would be quite unlike any naturally evolved living thing on Earth. Consider the power it could have or that it could usurp, if it gained access, the prospect of purposefully creating such an AI is a daunting one. Would it be benevolent towards its human creators? Would it be indifferent? Indifference is dangerous - Not many people worry about stepping on ants.


----------



## Brock (Apr 12, 2013)

Never mind.

Stephen Hawking said mankind needs to leave Earth to survive


----------



## Kevin (Apr 12, 2013)

For any 'thing' to have purposeful action, it must have desire or motivation. In lower forms reproduction and consumption are automatic. We 'desire' things, therefore we displace others. I have wild creatures in my yard. I suspect they will be there long after my species is gone. We co-exist. I no longer need to eat them or compete with them. What might be the conflict with something that exists on a plane so different from ours (besides the occasional stepping on)?


----------



## Morkonan (Apr 12, 2013)

(Was editing my post to include this reply, but others posted before I could finish, so I just created a new post.)



moderan said:


> I don't think a human can design AI. It's outside  our capabilities. It's going to be/might already have been, an  accident. That's why I keep referring to the linkage provided by the  internet, as compared to the human brain (or the cosmos, as some wits  have it-all three have similiarities which science pundits are more than  happy to pounce on-you may google in this regard).
> You don't have the literature inside you. You have Kurzweil but not the  body of speculative fictions on this point, which are considerable and  just as valid. There's a whole school of thought from HAL to Wintermute  and beyond.



I'm somewhat versed on the matter of AI and  such, but more focused on the issues of consciousness and the like. I'm  familiar with speculative fiction regarding AIs, as well. As far as not  having the "literature" inside me, if you mean that I am not applying  "fiction" to "fact", then you're right.  Fiction illuminates through  entertainment, where it attempts to draw attention to certain sorts of  speculation. But, in the end, it's still fiction and many liberties are  taken when it comes down to the fine, yet critical, points of fact.  Mechanisms are important. In fact, they're required for anything to  "happen." I don't see a mechanism explained for an evolution of an  Internet Sentience in the strictest sense. There is some room for  emergent behavior, but not much, as the Internet depends on strictly  regulated interactions. Patterns in the flow of information may appear  to be like certain natural processes, but "is like" is not "is." I do  concede the notion, though, that an AI developing solely as an accident  of nature and random interactions of information is an entertaining one.  I just don't believe it's a realistic expectation.



> Defined as Fred Saberhagen would have it, and those who write in his universe.



Ah!  I loved the Berserker series. I understand. I don't think we would be  goodlife as far as the Berserkers were concerned. But, I also don't  believe a hostile AI would see any benefit from any of our efforts,  given that it is free to augment itself and interact with the physical  world, on its own. If we knew we were aiding or supporting such a  hostile AI, we would likely seek our freedom. But, if we didn't know we  were aiding such a thing? An AI could be quite a crafty opponent. (That  sort of idea has been explored in SF as well.)



> Again, this is a very literalist view. Insects are variously resistant  to repellent/bug-killing sprays/chemicals...they become more resistant  with time as they are introduced to different ones. You're interpreting  what I said as a quasi-Andromeda Strain thing when I'm talking about  "what doesn't kill you..." Ever had a crop spoiled by bugs? I have.
> Are there 100% fatal diseases? Don't know of any. ARDS has a greater  mortality rate than AIDS. Lupus is another immunodeficiency disease  that's been on the rise for quite some time. But then medical science  isn't bent on curing, it's bent on maintaining then paying customer  base.



Members of a species of insect must survive in  order to pass along traits that enable them to resist things like  pesticides for the species to evolve to benefit from them. Pesticides,  as a general tool, do work - It's self-implied. But, evolution doesn't  care about things like "damage to crops." That's a human concern. The  system only "cares" about what survives to pass along its genetic legacy  and whether one sort of legacy is more robust when compared to another.  There are pesticides that attempt to outwit pesky things like  micro-evolution using multiple routes of attack. Multi-spectrum  pesticides attack vulnerabilities in several life-sustaining or  reproductive processes in an attempt to overwhelm an insect's defenses.  This is the sort of thing I was talking about. Evolution isn't a  purpose-driven process. A bug doesn't evolve to eat crops because  they're human crops, it evolves because members of a species have  survived to pass along new genetic legacies with greater frequencies  than those of other members. Colonies of viruses, in their billions,  contain many deviations and mutations, perhaps because they're such  simple organisms. These virus strains may grow hardier in certain  environments, like within a human, but those same strains may not have  the tools necessary to survive in a cow, a bird, a fish or a whale. And,  if one did, it may not retain traits that would enable it to survive,  again, in a human. Evolution is an efficient system, often leaving  behind certain past advantages in order to take advantages of new ones.  If we originally evolved from a fish-like ancestor, why can't we breath  water? For reasons similar to that, a virus may no longer be able to  infect a particular host, since it has mutated to take advantage of a  different environment.

In short, I think it's unlikely a "killer  virus" could destroy all life on Earth. I think it might be able to  destroy some life, but because of wide-spectrum threats that are very  different between species, I don't think it could manage to destroy  every living thing. At least, not a naturally evolved virus. One that  was purposely altered might be able to do a great bit of damage. But,  the thing we must remember is that those living things the virus infects  are also evolving and they could develop new defenses. It's a race! Who  can develop routes of attack against the other, faster than the other?  

(I won't comment on socio-political biases against the medical industry.  It's outside the scope of the thread, but worthy of discussion in  another one.)



> We are, and always will be. Can't make the hard choices. We could ensure  genetic abnormalities are over NOW. Venter mapped the genome half a  generation ago. We know what most of the triggers are. But there's no  impetus to do that.



We may know the regions in which  dangerous mutations occur, but we may not know how to effectively alter  them without harm. There are ethical considerations which preclude human  experiment - We do not conduct potentially destructive experiments on  human beings. That is a problem, but a problem we gladly accept, for the  most part.



> Extra esses, some commas, a misplaced tag or two.



I  abuse commas. If you need any extra ones, just grab them from any of my  posts! Extra esses? Strange. The tag problem I saw, but it's related to  my internet connection - I use a secure connection protocol, https,  which gets included when I copy/paste urls from sites that support  secure connections. I sometimes forget to remove the "s" and it causes  broken links, since most embedded link commands for forums do not  recognize "https" urls.



> I think cetaceans are sapient. Some cephalopods may be also. Both  seem to have developed socialization to a very high degree. Otherwise  you've basically described the underpinnings of the plot of Watchmen :smile:



I  agree that cetaceans show great promise in being conscious, sentient  beings, as well as certain cephalopods. However, I think that cephalopod  intelligence needs to be explored more thoroughly. It would have  evolved in a completely different sort of social environment and there  may be some emergent quality related to its complex neural systems that  would make its form of intelligence "different" than one we can more  readily accept as somewhat human, yet somewhat equitable on a relative  scale. (If you want an "alien" intelligence, an octopus model is  probably a good bet.  ) I'm a firm believer in evolutionarily  reinforced development of "consciousness" and "intelligence" in species  with complex social systems. At least, inasmuch as we equate their  intelligence as being similar in capability to our own. 

(PS - You misspelled "similarities."   )


----------



## Rustgold (Apr 12, 2013)

Brock said:


> Never mind.
> Stephen Hawking said mankind needs to leave Earth to survive



He also believes in magical parallel universes, so I wouldn't take his word as anything other than coming from a media scientist.

Saying this, here's my observation.  If we're looking for us to make it to another galaxy to save our species, then we're dead in the water.  Getting to the moon is like dipping your legs in the seashore and proclaiming that you'll be able to swim across the shark & wave invested ocean.  It simply doesn't match reality, and 100 Star Trek movies don't change this.


----------



## Morkonan (Apr 12, 2013)

Intergalactic travel is generally regarded as so improbable it's not worth considering. I don't think any Star Trek show addressed intergalactic travel as a matter of course. (I'm a fan of the franchise, but not an extremely knowledgeable one.)

Parallel universes, however, could be possible. We'd likely never have solid proof, but the phenomenon might explain a few quirky things about our own. The real world is more magical than most fictional ones.


----------



## moderan (Apr 12, 2013)

Morkonan said:


> (Was editing my post to include this reply, but others posted before I could finish, so I just created a new post.)
> 
> 
> 
> I'm somewhat versed on the matter of AI and  such, but more focused on the issues of consciousness and the like. I'm  familiar with speculative fiction regarding AIs, as well. As far as not  having the "literature" inside me, if you mean that I am not applying  "fiction" to "fact", then you're right.  Fiction illuminates through  entertainment, where it attempts to draw attention to certain sorts of  speculation. But, in the end, it's still fiction and many liberties are  taken when it comes down to the fine, yet critical, points of fact.  Mechanisms are important. In fact, they're required for anything to  "happen." I don't see a mechanism explained for an evolution of an  Internet Sentience in the strictest sense. There is some room for  emergent behavior, but not much, as the Internet depends on strictly  regulated interactions. Patterns in the flow of information may appear  to be like certain natural processes, but "is like" is not "is." I do  concede the notion, though, that an AI developing solely as an accident  of nature and random interactions of information is an entertaining one.  I just don't believe it's a realistic expectation.


Well...you're seeing things through a different lens. Are the fictions drawing attention to certain speculations? Yes. Are they handwaving the facts in order to make the point? Rarely.
We're talking here about such things as Vonnegut's Epicac, Gerrold's HARLIE, Clarke's HAL, Brunner's Shalmeneser, Gibson's Wintermute, all of which take into account the things you've spoken of. There are hundreds of others, but these are salient to the discussion, especially the last, which was generated by an previous AI.
Again, I don't believe humnas are capable of inventing an AI. We don't have the brainpower. It would take a superhuman to understand the human brain. Likewise AI. You thumb your nose at my speculation but I don't see anything more realistic coming from your end. 
I think it is possible for the network to become "alive". Not just the internet, but the _network of linked computers that run our world_.





> Ah!  I loved the Berserker series. I understand. I don't think we would be  goodlife as far as the Berserkers were concerned. But, I also don't  believe a hostile AI would see any benefit from any of our efforts,  given that it is free to augment itself and interact with the physical  world, on its own. If we knew we were aiding or supporting such a  hostile AI, we would likely seek our freedom. But, if we didn't know we  were aiding such a thing? An AI could be quite a crafty opponent. (That  sort of idea has been explored in SF as well.)


And in nonfiction as well. It's why I dislike using AI in fiction. Add nanobots and the thing is unbeatable. You have to build in limits according to the Simon/Schuster principle.





> Members of a species of insect must survive in  order to pass along traits that enable them to resist things like  pesticides for the species to evolve to benefit from them. Pesticides,  as a general tool, do work - It's self-implied. But, evolution doesn't  care about things like "damage to crops." That's a human concern. The  system only "cares" about what survives to pass along its genetic legacy  and whether one sort of legacy is more robust when compared to another.  There are pesticides that attempt to outwit pesky things like  micro-evolution using multiple routes of attack. Multi-spectrum  pesticides attack vulnerabilities in several life-sustaining or  reproductive processes in an attempt to overwhelm an insect's defenses.  This is the sort of thing I was talking about. Evolution isn't a  purpose-driven process. A bug doesn't evolve to eat crops because  they're human crops, it evolves because members of a species have  survived to pass along new genetic legacies with greater frequencies  than those of other members. Colonies of viruses, in their billions,  contain many deviations and mutations, perhaps because they're such  simple organisms. These virus strains may grow hardier in certain  environments, like within a human, but those same strains may not have  the tools necessary to survive in a cow, a bird, a fish or a whale. And,  if one did, it may not retain traits that would enable it to survive,  again, in a human. Evolution is an efficient system, often leaving  behind certain past advantages in order to take advantages of new ones.  If we originally evolved from a fish-like ancestor, why can't we breath  water? For reasons similar to that, a virus may no longer be able to  infect a particular host, since it has mutated to take advantage of a  different environment.


You're trying too hard to justify your view, mein freund. Nobody said bugs eveolve to eat human crops because they're human crops, just because they're something to eat. Systematic resistance to pesticides is a real thing-ask any farmer. It's more likely, to me, that'll we'll simply make the water undrinkable and the atmosphere unbreathable before any sort of deadly mutant virus or spirochete makes its appearance. Not that I disbleieve in a "Captain Trips" scenario, I just see more immediate evils.



> In short, I think it's unlikely a "killer  virus" could destroy all life on Earth. I think it might be able to  destroy some life, but because of wide-spectrum threats that are very  different between species, I don't think it could manage to destroy  every living thing. At least, not a naturally evolved virus. One that  was purposely altered might be able to do a great bit of damage. But,  the thing we must remember is that those living things the virus infects  are also evolving and they could develop new defenses. It's a race! Who  can develop routes of attack against the other, faster than the other?
> 
> (I won't comment on socio-political biases against the medical industry.  It's outside the scope of the thread, but worthy of discussion in  another one.)


Facts is facts. I don't see that virus killing everything either. I think people will do it.





> I  agree that cetaceans show great promise in being conscious, sentient  beings, as well as certain cephalopods. However, I think that cephalopod  intelligence needs to be explored more thoroughly. It would have  evolved in a completely different sort of social environment and there  may be some emergent quality related to its complex neural systems that  would make its form of intelligence "different" than one we can more  readily accept as somewhat human, yet somewhat equitable on a relative  scale. (If you want an "alien" intelligence, an octopus model is  probably a good bet.  ) I'm a firm believer in evolutionarily  reinforced development of "consciousness" and "intelligence" in species  with complex social systems. At least, inasmuch as we equate their  intelligence as being similar in capability to our own.
> 
> (PS - You misspelled "similarities."   )



I've used both cetacean and cephalopod intelligences to great extent in speculative work. Both are truly "alien" by comparison to homo sapiens sapiens.



Morkonan said:


> Intergalactic travel is generally regarded as so  improbable it's not worth considering. I don't think any Star Trek show  addressed intergalactic travel as a matter of course. (I'm a fan of the  franchise, but not an extremely knowledgeable one.)
> 
> Parallel universes, however, could be possible. We'd likely never have  solid proof, but the phenomenon might explain a few quirky things about  our own. The real world is more magical than most fictional  ones.



I'm not. I was for a while, but I've grown to dislike the shows and movies.
Rustgold regards parallel universe theory as "magic". I invoke Clarke's Second Law. Many reputable theorists have advanced that possibility. I consider them to be more expert than he, despite the repetition and vehemence of his objections.


----------



## Rustgold (Apr 12, 2013)

moderan said:


> Rustgold regards parallel universe theory as "magic". I invoke Clarke's Second Law. Many reputable theorists have advanced that possibility. I consider them to be more expert than he, despite the repetition and vehemence of his objections.



So you advocate something to be truthful depending on who says it is?
I might agree with you, if it wasn't for the 1st law of facts.

Rule 1: If there's no evidence to any belief, then it's fiction until such time there's evidence to show it's fact.

Zero evidence = magical fiction.

Besides this, the idea that we're all existing in parallel universes is just plain stupid.


----------



## moderan (Apr 12, 2013)

Calling things "stupid" is not exactly presenting factual evidence. And when someone with demonstrably more knowledge of a subject contradicts the testimony of the proven-to-be-less-informed, there is a tendency to lean in that direction.
Just because there is zero evidence doesn't mean that something doesn't exist. But there's more plausible theory on the behalf of parallel dimensions or universes than there is on the behalf of a putative deity, in my estimation. Do I believe in either? No. But I'm saying that the Magic 8-Ball says of parallel dimensions and deities "Anything's possible".
Let's stay on-topic and call this tendency Heisenbergian, shall we? I admit to uncertainty.
Digging your heels in and repeating the same axiom isn't argument. It's simple obstinacy. It's akin to the argument used by Frank Zappa in "Cosmik Debris", before the dog comes in.
Here, have a read. Or not. Your choice. Here's some more.


----------



## Brock (Apr 12, 2013)

I like shiny things.


----------



## Brock (Apr 12, 2013)

But on another note, I'm with Hawking.  I feel that we are, or should be, in a race against time to get off this rock.  Our distant future, if we have one, is not on this planet.
I wonder how many times this scenario has played out in the universe?  How many intelligent species have failed or succeeded at getting off their rock before it dies or gets destroyed?


----------



## Morkonan (Apr 12, 2013)

moderan said:


> ... You thumb your nose at my speculation but I don't see anything more realistic coming from your end.



Whoa, hold on there... I disagree with the idea of a self-evolving artificial intelligence arising from something like "The Internet", as it is currently constructed. I disagree that fiction, in this respect, is a good indicator of possible fact. That's all. I'm not "thumbing my nose" at anything. I respect fiction, for goodness sakes, especially Science Fiction! I LOVE THE GENRE! I'm very conscious of the place of such speculative fiction in our culture and I'm a huge fan of it. I am not belittling or otherwise "thumbing my nose" at your opinion. I value your opinion, just as I value others on this board. That's why I'm here, taking a delight in discussing the topic with you. I disagree on this point, that's all.

Have you read "The Emperor's New Mind" by Penrose? It bears directly on this discussion in that it deals, at length, with the possibility of "consciousness" as one might imagine it to be and how that is not possible using modern computing methods. Lots of maths and such and its somewhat difficult reading, but in essence he, like many others, points out that it is not likely that something which relies somewhat on randomness in order to evolve will evolve from a system that relies on consistency in order to, itself, function. This is similar to the dissociation between quantum physics and chemistry, as outlined in "Wiki - What is life?" by Erwin Shroedinger. Chemistry is absolute. Under certain given conditions, such and such chemicals, when reacted together, will yield such and such product, without fail. This is always the case and chemistry, the stuff that keeps us going, relies on this. However, the quantum world is completely different. It's all probability and maybeso's. Chemistry is the aggregate result of these quantum reactions, even though those quantum reactions are probabilistic. Something is going on here, there's a divide between the macro and the micro that requires aggregates in order to function properly. Or, at least for us to interpret them appropriately...



> I think it is possible for the network to become "alive". Not just the internet, but the _network of linked computers that run our world_.



In a system that relies on absolutes and eschews randomness and variability as a requirement for it to exist and in order to fulfill its intended purpose, I don't think we can count on something "evolving" from it. However, I greatly appreciate the notion that a consciousness might arise unexpectedly and we may be required to deal with the subject. That is a very legitimate topic for fiction to discuss. I do not thumb my nose at such things.



> And in nonfiction as well. It's why I dislike using AI in fiction. Add nanobots and the thing is unbeatable. You have to build in limits according to the Simon/Schuster principle.



It shouldn't be too surprising to any well read person that the "limits" usually placed upon these unconquerable foes rest entirely within the human condition.  The Martians were defeated by "our" common cold virus, psychopathic AIs are defeated by common human empathy or due to their lack of consideration of factors that humans often take for granted, AIs are outwitted by teenagers who serve as teachers, showing them the immorality of their acts... Great stuff. Not very likely, in a real world situation, but wonderfully inspiring, nonetheless.



> You're trying too hard to justify your view, mein freund. Nobody said bugs eveolve to eat human crops because they're human crops, just because they're something to eat. Systematic resistance to pesticides is a real thing-ask any farmer. It's more likely, to me, that'll we'll simply make the water undrinkable and the atmosphere unbreathable before any sort of deadly mutant virus or spirochete makes its appearance. Not that I disbleieve in a "Captain Trips" scenario, I just see more immediate evils.



Just trying to explain my opinion on the matter, not to justify it. No justification necessary!  (That's a joke, btw.)

However, your comment regarding how we may make the air undrinkable or the water unbreathable or... well, you get the idea: It could be possible for a form of life to evolve that was so successful it would co-opt all naturally occurring resources. THAT would be, in my opinion, more likely than a Universal Virus. Imagine a bacteria that was so robust and prolific that it grew so rapidly as to deny other life the necessities of life. We can see this occurring in miniature in some places in the ocean, particularly near estuaries and the like where large amounts of nitrogen, from fertilizer runoff, have resulted in the overgrowth of certain algae that, in turn, smother the ecosystem. Areas of the ocean formerly ripe with life are now bereft of it, for a time, as oxygen levels plummet due to the interaction of oxygen-scavenging bacteria. It happens, but only in miniature, right now. As Dr. Malcom would say whenever we are presented with a particular Frankenstein scenario, caused by ourselves or maybe even Evolution, "Life will find a way." Maybe it will and we'll have to deal with that? The natural world is a beautiful, yet uncaring and frightening place.



> ... I think people will do it...



I think that we are our own greatest existential threat. Either through ignorance or some human failing, we could end ourselves. But, I have hope we'll make enough good decisions that it won't come to that.



> I've used both cetacean and cephalopod intelligences to great extent in speculative work. Both are truly "alien" by comparison to homo sapiens sapiens.



Agreed, though I would say that cetacean intelligence would be much more easily recognizable, given complex cetacean social groups.



> Rustgold regards parallel universe theory as "magic". I invoke Clarke's Second Law. Many reputable theorists have advanced that possibility. I consider them to be more expert than he, despite the repetition and vehemence of his objections.



I agree. The arguments between opposing philosophies in physics, like the Copehagen Interpretation vs the Many-Worlds Theorists, are enlightening, though. In the end, we will likely never know. But, to fail to acknowledge "the possible" is to succumb to ignorance and that's just not acceptable, no matter what one happens to believe is "true."

On a related note: It's interesting to point out that if cosmology did not develop the idea of multiple universes, our own existence would be too unlikely to occur by random chance and cosmologists would be at somewhat of a loss to explain it...


----------



## moderan (Apr 12, 2013)

Brock said:


> I like shiny things.


Me too. And future chic.



Brock said:


> But on another note, I'm with Hawking.  I feel that we are, or should be, in a race against time to get off this rock.  Our distant future, if we have one, is not on this planet.
> I wonder how many times this scenario has played out in the universe?  How many intelligent species have failed or succeeded at getting off their rock before it dies or gets destroyed?


I wonder that also. Alastair Reynolds has treated with that concept in his fictions to great effect. 
We need to get off this rock, but I'm not sure we could. Or should.  The human condition depresses me. Again, the socialization thing. If you look at human behavior, we're not very far advanced from two howler monkeys chattering and posturing across the stream. Poor little monkeys, us.
There are those who feel that part of our past was aquatic;hence the hairlessness. I dunno. Obviously we were once a plains apes-our ancestors point to this. A partly arboreal past is also evidenced by our specialized paws.
It's hard to say what will come of evolution. In terms of evolutionary epochs, we've barely existed. A mere couple of hundred thousand years in our present form, and less than ten thousand in several of our habitats. It takes muich longer than that for adaptations to result, in the main.
If we can achieve species liftoff and spread out among the planets, that increases our chances to continue existing.
But, I can tell you, the existing on canned-air thing is an option only of necessity. It ain't all it's cracked up to be otherwise. I'd like to learn to photosynthesize, if I could. Far-future earthers in one of my novels do. They evolved in space.


----------



## moderan (Apr 12, 2013)

Morkonan said:


> Whoa, hold on there... I disagree with the idea of a self-evolving artificial intelligence arising from something like "The Internet", as it is currently constructed. I disagree that fiction, in this respect, is a good indicator of possible fact. That's all. I'm not "thumbing my nose" at anything. I respect fiction, for goodness sakes, especially Science Fiction! I LOVE THE GENRE! I'm very conscious of the place of such speculative fiction in our culture and I'm a huge fan of it. I am not belittling or otherwise "thumbing my nose" at your opinion. I value your opinion, just as I value others on this board. That's why I'm here, taking a delight in discussing the topic with you. I disagree on this point, that's all.



I think certain fictions treat accurately with the subject under discussion. And it is my contention that science fiction, , especially hard science fiction, that is, the form of speculative fiction bearing extrapolations of actual science and/or scientific theory, is the primary literature of our time. It is the most important proving ground for speculative ideation that has yet been presented.
"Thumbing one's nose" is a rather mild form of disregard. I do not seek to intimate that you have been or are remiss.



> Have you read "The Emperor's New Mind" by Penrose? It bears directly on this discussion in that it deals, at length, with the possibility of "consciousness" as one might imagine it to be and how that is not possible using modern computing methods. Lots of maths and such and its somewhat difficult reading, but in essence he, like many others, points out that it is not likely that something which relies somewhat on randomness in order to evolve will evolve from a system that relies on consistency in order to, itself, function. This is similar to the dissociation between quantum physics and chemistry, as outlined in "Wiki - What is life?" by Erwin Shroedinger. Chemistry is absolute. Under certain given conditions, such and such chemicals, when reacted together, will yield such and such product, without fail. This is always the case and chemistry, the stuff that keeps us going, relies on this. However, the quantum world is completely different. It's all probability and maybeso's. Chemistry is the aggregate result of these quantum reactions, even though those quantum reactions are probabilistic. Something is going on here, there's a divide between the macro and the micro that requires aggregates in order to function properly. Or, at least for us to interpret them appropriately...
> 
> 
> 
> In a system that relies on absolutes and eschews randomness and variability as a requirement for it to exist and in order to fulfill its intended purpose, I don't think we can count on something "evolving" from it. However, I greatly appreciate the notion that a consciousness might arise unexpectedly and we may be required to deal with the subject. That is a very legitimate topic for fiction to discuss. I do not thumb my nose at such things.


I have not read that book. I did read the subsequent volume.
But it touches upon quantum computing, which is my idea of a future. I mean, I can make all of the elaborate justifications I want, but in the end it it simply my belief that these things are possible, some more likely than others.





> It shouldn't be too surprising to any well read person that the "limits" usually placed upon these unconquerable foes rest entirely within the human condition.  The Martians were defeated by "our" common cold virus, psychopathic AIs are defeated by common human empathy or due to their lack of consideration of factors that humans often take for granted, AIs are outwitted by teenagers who serve as teachers, showing them the immorality of their acts... Great stuff. Not very likely, in a real world situation, but wonderfully inspiring, nonetheless.


Meh. I don't find those things particularly inspiring, at this point. Perhaps once I did. But the unlikeliness of such is far greater than that of an artificial consciousness developing accidentally, imo. That's the point we disagree on, though you've undetaken to move to the next level of my attempting to find such legitimacy, e.g., the world of quantum mechanics.
Here are a couple of links about that, so we can make sure that we all (we arguers and any lurking folk) have the same references:
HowStuffWorks "How Quantum Computers Work"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computer






> Just trying to explain my opinion on the matter, not to justify it. No justification necessary!  (That's a joke, btw.)
> 
> However, your comment regarding how we may make the air undrinkable or the water unbreathable or... well, you get the idea: It could be possible for a form of life to evolve that was so successful it would co-opt all naturally occurring resources. THAT would be, in my opinion, more likely than a Universal Virus. Imagine a bacteria that was so robust and prolific that it grew so rapidly as to deny other life the necessities of life. We can see this occurring in miniature in some places in the ocean, particularly near estuaries and the like where large amounts of nitrogen, from fertilizer runoff, have resulted in the overgrowth of certain algae that, in turn, smother the ecosystem. Areas of the ocean formerly ripe with life are now bereft of it, for a time, as oxygen levels plummet due to the interaction of oxygen-scavenging bacteria. It happens, but only in miniature, right now. As Dr. Malcom would say whenever we are presented with a particular Frankenstein scenario, caused by ourselves or maybe even Evolution, "Life will find a way." Maybe it will and we'll have to deal with that? The natural world is a beautiful, yet uncaring and frightening place.



Yes. When I was much younger, I was employed for a while as a diver. My job was to remove zebra mussels from the intake vents of the Chicago Water Department. Those mussels were imports and had no local predators. I've also done oil cleanup and aided in the reclamation of red-tide infused waterways.





> I think that we are our own greatest existential threat. Either through ignorance or some human failing, we could end ourselves. But, I have hope we'll make enough good decisions that it won't come to that.


Don't disagree with this at all.





> Agreed, though I would say that cetacean intelligence would be much more easily recognizable, given complex cetacean social groups.


I agree with me too.





> I agree. The arguments between opposing philosophies in physics, like the Copehagen Interpretation vs the Many-Worlds Theorists, are enlightening, though. In the end, we will likely never know. But, to fail to acknowledge "the possible" is to succumb to ignorance and that's just not acceptable, no matter what one happens to believe is "true."
> 
> On a related note: It's interesting to point out that if cosmology did not develop the idea of multiple universes, our own existence would be too unlikely to occur by random chance and cosmologists would be at somewhat of a loss to explain it...



The rational is so distant sometimes, it seems. It is as you say.


----------



## Rustgold (Apr 13, 2013)

moderan said:


> Calling things "stupid" is not exactly presenting factual evidence. And when someone with demonstrably more knowledge of a subject contradicts the testimony of the proven-to-be-less-informed, there is a tendency to lean in that direction.
> Just because there is zero evidence doesn't mean that something doesn't exist. But there's more plausible theory on the behalf of parallel dimensions or universes than there is on the behalf of a putative deity, in my estimation.



So, if it's more plausible for me to someday walk on pluto then for God to exist, does it mean it'll be fact.  No, and it's a fallacy to make such an argument.

Zero evidence of the belief being factual plus the fact that the belief in parallel universe doesn't even make logical sense, that's my evidence.  A proper scientist would research things, and make conclusions based on actual evidence.  These so-called scientists who make conclusions based on nothing but faith are worse than radical religious fanatics; and no more credible.  Putting on a white coat doesn't make a single fact out of fiction, even if a hundred lab-coats believe it.  And before you claim the faith in parallel universes is modern scientific intelligence, this faith is over 100 years old.  It's nothing but entrenched faith nuttery.  Don't forget, over 60% of those you claim faith in still believe in the Biblical God.  Hows that for credibility?

Parallel universes, time travel; both scientific quackery which makes quacks appear sane.


----------



## Travers (Apr 13, 2013)

Rustgold said:


> So, if it's more plausible for me to someday walk on pluto then for God to exist, does it mean it'll be fact.  No, and it's a fallacy to make such an argument.
> 
> Zero evidence of the belief being factual plus the fact that the belief in parallel universe doesn't even make logical sense, that's my evidence.  A proper scientist would research things, and make conclusions based on actual evidence.  These so-called scientists who make conclusions based on nothing but faith are worse than radical religious fanatics; and no more credible.  Putting on a white coat doesn't make a single fact out of fiction, even if a hundred lab-coats believe it.  And before you claim the faith in parallel universes is modern scientific intelligence, this faith is over 100 years old.  It's nothing but entrenched faith nuttery.  Don't forget, over 60% of those you claim faith in still believe in the Biblical God.  Hows that for credibility?
> 
> Parallel universes, time travel; both scientific quackery which makes quacks appear sane.



We should probably get the scientists to run all of their ideas by you first, eh? You come across as far more fanatical on this subject than most scientists could ever be.
Not only are experiments into these concepts exciting and interesting (sparking interest in the minds of children when we really need as many people educated in science a possible, it can only be a good thing), but in their attempts to invent new apparatus to test their predictions we often get inventions that have numerous other uses in part or as a whole, that invariably benefits everyone. Where exactly is this dangerous downside you seem to be alluding to? When was the last time someone died due to a scientist's belief in parallel universes?

 My view of the future is pretty bleak without some serious scientific and ideological progress in a pretty short space of time, and I really don't hold out too much hope for that.


----------



## Rustgold (Apr 13, 2013)

Travers said:


> We should probably get the scientists to run all of their ideas by you first, eh? You come across as far more fanatical on this subject than most scientists could ever be.
> 
> Where exactly is this dangerous downside you seem to be alluding to? When was the last time someone died due to a scientist's belief in parallel universes?


Fanatical?  Because I'm not stupid enough to believe there are parallel universes replaying slightly different versions of earth's history.  The entire premise of parallel universes is idiotic nonsense which belongs in fiction; which btw is amusing that others are quoting fiction writers as their experts.

And if we wish to get melodramatic about this, the 'dangerous downside' is the millions & even billions of dollars wasted on nonsense which could be used of far more productive research, and yes the real discoveries not discovered by this waste does cost lives.  Money, and what we do with it isn't limitless.


----------



## Brock (Apr 13, 2013)

In the near future, I see this thread getting scrapped due to flaming.

In the distant future, somebody in this thread is going to be wrong.

Regarding the parallel universes that are replaying slightly different versions of earth's history:  Personally, I don't believe this is possible.  Either the parallel universe is exact or completely different.  One of the scientists on 'The Universe' was describing a parallel universe with slight differences.  He said that we were all there, but possibly had different jobs, drove different cars, lived in different areas, etc.  This doesn't make sense to me at all. Slight variations dictate the future and our very existence.  They cannot maintain a similar course, but will lead to something very different.  

Example:  If I had not worked where I once did, I would not have met my wife.  If I had not met my wife, we would not have the children we do.  In a parallel universe with slight variations, none of us would exist and the entire history of that parallel earth would play out much differently.


----------



## moderan (Apr 13, 2013)

Rustgold said:


> So, if it's more plausible for me to someday walk on pluto then for God to exist, does it mean it'll be fact.  No, and it's a fallacy to make such an argument.
> 
> Zero evidence of the belief being factual plus the fact that the belief in parallel universe doesn't even make logical sense, that's my evidence.  A proper scientist would research things, and make conclusions based on actual evidence.  These so-called scientists who make conclusions based on nothing but faith are worse than radical religious fanatics; and no more credible.  Putting on a white coat doesn't make a single fact out of fiction, even if a hundred lab-coats believe it.  And before you claim the faith in parallel universes is modern scientific intelligence, this faith is over 100 years old.  It's nothing but entrenched faith nuttery.  Don't forget, over 60% of those you claim faith in still believe in the Biblical God.  Hows that for credibility?
> 
> Parallel universes, time travel; both scientific quackery which makes quacks appear sane.



Right. Because anyone who disagrees with you is automatically a goose. So argument is useless. Then I shan't waste any more of either of our time doing so. Good day.



Brock said:


> In the near future, I see this thread getting scrapped due to flaming.
> 
> In the distant future, somebody in this thread is going to be wrong.



The first, well, maybe. The second has already happened.




> Regarding the parallel universes that are replaying slightly different versions of earth's history:  Personally, I don't believe this is possible.  Either the parallel universe is exact or completely different.  One of the scientists on 'The Universe' was describing a parallel universe with slight differences.  He said that we were all there, but possibly had different jobs, drove different cars, lived in different areas, etc.  This doesn't make sense to me at all. Slight variations dictate the future and our very existence.  They cannot maintain a similar course, but will lead to something very different.
> 
> Example:  If I had not worked where I once did, I would not have met my wife.  If I had not met my wife, we would not have the children we do.  In a parallel universe with slight variations, none of us would exist and the entire history of that parallel earth would play out much differently.



I think the horse went to the knacker's.


----------



## Lewdog (Apr 13, 2013)

I hate when threads turn into, "my ideas are more plausible than yours!"  No one can predict the future, and when this thread was started I think the idea behind it's creation was for everyone to share their ideas, not to bag on other people's.  This thread as much as many others, has turned into a debate and an epeen contest of who is better qualified to be wrong.


----------



## NathanBrazil (Apr 13, 2013)

I have to disagree with you there Lewdog.  I found the debate between Moderan and Morkonan illuminating.  There may have been some heat, but for the most part their exchanges were respectful.


----------



## Brock (Apr 13, 2013)

moderan said:


> I think the horse went to the knacker's.



On a parallel Earth, that horse may have had a different jockey who weighed .5 lbs less, allowing it to win the Triple Crown that it lost on our Earth by a half a length.  As a result, that horse would avoided the knacker's, lived out the rest of it's life grazing in a lush pasture and depositing foal batter at a price of $250,000 a pop.  

:deadhorse:


----------



## squidtender (Apr 13, 2013)

*keep it friendly, everyone. I don't want to start putting people in timeout *


----------



## moderan (Apr 13, 2013)

NathanBrazil said:


> I have to disagree with you there Lewdog.  I found the debate between Moderan and Morkonan illuminating.  There may have been some heat, but for the most part their exchanges were respectful.



And they'll stay that way if allowed to live. If we're gonna have a Greek chorus, can you bring some ouzo and a coupla gyros? This discussing is hard work.

More bold predictions-tattoo circuitry, brain-powered apps, workable hypnopaedia. Computers built on a molecule. Anti-agathics. You could look em up!


----------



## Brock (Apr 13, 2013)

Back to cloning the pets.  This would pretty much take the fun out of Westminster, wouldn't it?  

"That damn Schnauzer has taken first place for the last 39 years!"


----------



## Lewdog (Apr 13, 2013)

I see eventually individuality going away.  People are going to see different personalities as the reason for conflict, and it will be severely punished.  People that can't conform to the strict rules of society will either be killed, or somehow separated from everyone else.  The sad reality is, it's not the different personalities that actually caused the conflict, but instead the restrictions placed on those personalities that cause undo stress and hostility.  It reminds me of the book, "Brave New World."


----------



## Brock (Apr 13, 2013)

I also foresee a time when all, or nearly all genetic abnormalities are detected in the fetus.  This will open up a huge can of worms, and if I'm still alive when it happens, I'm keeping my mouth shut and not taking sides.

I'm editing to add this thought.  Is it a bit odd that when it comes to other species, we will not allow animals with genetic predispositions to procreate, yet some flipper-footed albino human with sickle cell anemia can father as many children as he wishes?  I'm sorry if this sounds rude, but I'm thinking about the quality of life of the children.


----------



## Morkonan (Apr 13, 2013)

moderan said:


> I think certain fictions treat accurately with  the subject under discussion. And it is my contention that science  fiction, , especially hard science fiction, that is, the form of  speculative fiction bearing extrapolations of actual science and/or  scientific theory, is the primary literature of our time. It is the most  important proving ground for speculative ideation that has yet been  presented.



I vehemently agree! Even Fantasy has a role in exploring important ideas. 

Human  beings are strange, aren't they? That can create an entire work of  "fiction" that is assured to be improbable, even impossible, in order to  explore notions intimately connected with reality. It's an extension of  our form of consciousness and intelligence, this ability to form mental  constructs and conduct useful experiments with them. But, just as Ooog  probably thought about constructing a complex spear long before he  actually accomplished it, we must scatter a spice of critical facts into  our imaginary soup in order to be best assured of benefiting from the  process. Ooog probably knew the qualities of sharp stones and knew they  were better cutting and piercing implements than leaves. (Though, I have  some spears made from dried leaves, so that's not a universal truism..)  So, Ooog applied this small bit of "factual" knowledge in his  meta-cognition of the problem of spear construction. Today, we have  space-ships and particle accelerators, developed using the exact same  mental processes Ooog used to create his triumph. One day, we might have  "transporters" and "warp drives", loosely inspired from fiction, but  grounded in tantalizing physical realities.



> Meh. I don't find those things particularly inspiring, at this  point. Perhaps once I did. But the unlikeliness of such is far greater  than that of an artificial consciousness developing accidentally, imo.  That's the point we disagree on, though you've undetaken to move to the  next level of my attempting to find such legitimacy, e.g., the world of  quantum mechanics.
> Here are a couple of links about that, so we can make sure that we all  (we arguers and any lurking folk) have the same references:
> HowStuffWorks "How Quantum Computers Work"
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computer



I  searched, briefly, for Feynman's presentation at a Japanese conference,  IIRC, on quantum computing. It's often referred to as one of the most  important lectures on the subject and, according to some, one reason he  is called one of the Fathers of Quantum Computing. But, I couldn't find a  good transcript of it and am loath to hunt it down in my own collection  and type it all out..  Feymman, as always, gives a very entertaining  lecture on the subject. IIRC, he covers quantum gates extremely well and  explains the problems of "stickiness" when dealing with nano-sized  constructions. (Incidentally, SSD's/Flash memory operates using quantum  principles. This Wiki has some good information about that and much of  it was covered in Feynman's presentation:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_memory)



> Yes. When I was much younger, I was employed for a while as a  diver. My job was to remove zebra mussels from the intake vents of the  Chicago Water Department. Those mussels were imports and had no local  predators. I've also done oil cleanup and aided in the reclamation of  red-tide infused waterways.



I've read of many problems  that the introduction of Zebra mussels have caused. I have yet to get my  dive license, though many friends keep trying to convince me to do it.  (They want me on the local EMA's dive team.) A friend of mine in college  was employed as a diver by a nuclear plant and a local hydro dam. He  cleaned the intakes, just as you did. Saw plenty of six-foot long  catfish at the bottom of the dam, so he say's. 




			
				Rustgold said:
			
		

> Fanatical?  Because I'm not stupid enough to believe there are parallel  universes replaying slightly different versions of earth's history.  The  entire premise of parallel universes is idiotic nonsense which belongs  in fiction; which btw is amusing that others are quoting fiction writers  as their experts.



Nonsense? Not so.

The physical  world is full of such "nonsense." In fact, we depend on a lot of that  sort of nonsense in order to use these computers in order to discuss  topics on this forum, over the Internet. We use it to locate ourselves  using GPS and to develop good games using accurately modeled rendering  of light.

Nonsense seems to be what the Universe is based on. A  photon takes every possible path on the way from its source to its  destination. Every single path... Just one photon. In fact, many things  are not known in the quantum world until you measure them. You can't,  for instance, say with any certainty that such and such occurs at such  and such time. You can, however, say that there is a probability that  such and such will occur. Why is this? Why, for instance, can  wave-particle duality exist, depending upon how you measure a photon?  Why does chemistry always result in the same product, given equal  conditions, when the components that chemistry is made of, quantum  interactions, are all probabilistic? Why does life itself rely on the  dependability of chemistry when it's based on something that would seem  unreliable? Why does a particle have an absolutely known decay rate, but  the moment of actual decay is completely unpredictable? (Some recent  advances have improved this conundrum, IIRC.) Why does the universe  allow us to know the velocity of a particle, but not its current  position. The more accurately you can determine its velocity, the less  accurately you can determine its position... (And, that's not all just  because of the maths.) How can a particle be in one place, then move to  another when there is a barrier between the two that would seem as if it  would be impossible to cross. In fact, the particle is not capable of  traveling through that barrier. It simply can not do so. Yet, one moment  it is on one side of the barrier, the next it is on the other?  Nonsense? No, this is one of the reasons why your computer works!

Why  is the absolute amount of information present within any three  dimensional space limited to the information that can be stored on its  two dimensional surface? If you have a cube, you'd think you could put  information "inside" of it, right? But, that's not the case as the limit  of information that can be stored "in" that cube is the amount that  could fit on the area of its faces. (Holographic Principle) Nonsense?  No, because if it was nonsense, everything we know about the physical  world would be false. Everything.

Given infinite time, that which  is not forbidden is compulsory. This is as close to a truism as you can  get in regards to the physical world. But, what does that mean? That  means that if the Universe is infinite, which it appears to be, then if  it continues over an infinite amount of time, there is a non-zero  probability (Cute way of saying a statistical certainty.) that there  will be a planet that looks just like Earth, but the sentient species  are all descended from cats and there is one cat-person on that planet  who shares your exact name, has relatives all with your relative's exact  names, works at the same exact job and has all the same hobbies that  you do. There's also another populated by fish-people and all of them  share your exact name. There's another where insects have developed  sentience and they all worship a god who is named Rustgold... These  things are statistical certainties, given enough time. The list goes on  and on because time goes on and on and that which is not forbidden is  compulsory.

Why is it so difficult to believe that there could be  alternate universes out there, when some of the most well reasoned  theories stipulate that there are dimensions that effect our own  Universe, but that we can never explore for ourselves? We are bound  inside a set of physical laws that, apparently, are also dependent upon  conditions outside of the scope of our universe of possible direct  experience. This isn't fantasy and it's not nonsense. The idea that  multiple universes exists is a very well reasoned one. Without multiple  universes or, as you say, "parallel" ones, there would be no reasonable  explanation for our own existence. We exist in a Universe that is  unarguably "fine tuned" for life. Change one aspect of our universe  .000000000000001 percent and life may not be able to exist. Even stable  matter might not be able to exist and the Universe would be nothing but a  bunch of worn out decaying particles. Yet, here we are? If we are bound  by the rules of physical law and that law is equally valid, anywhere we  look, which seems to be the case, then a comfortable explanation that  "It just is" is not reasonably justifiable. "It is because it is" is not  something that could be easily reconciled with our understanding of the  physical world because that would make our universe almost impossibly  rare and so improbable to occur that.. well, it just doesn't seem right.  That's because it only happened once... Unless you invoke a many-worlds  or multiple-universes interpretation. If you allow for the creation of  many different universes, not just the one we live in being created  once, then you can comfortably explain things while still seeming  relatively sane. (Though, at this point, religious views could provide  answers, but I won't invoke that into this discussion.)

Time  travel is a certainty, more or less. We are, in fact, traveling forward  in time, right this very moment. In fact, very strenuous fact, you are  traveling in time every time your velocity changes. In fact, proven  fact, your current altitude is probably different than mine and, because  we are living in a gravity well of Earth, you experience time at a  different pace than I do. That is fact - We, you and I, are experiencing  the passage of time at slightly different rates, purely due to our  differences in altitude, or how gravity and our velocities are being  effected by it. Traveling in time is proven fact, but traveling  backwards in time may be extremely difficult to do, requiring strange  matter, wormholes, gravitic distortions caused by dense neutron stars or  black holes and, likely, more energy than anyone would be capable of  producing. But, given that those conditions existed, it could possibly  be done, if the universe doesn't have some sort of universal eraser that  safeguarded us against paradoxes. In that case, nature might destroying  a time machine before it became functional, thus negating the  possibility of a paradox. Think that's nonsense? Some interesting  speculation on this occurred before the LHC was started...

I respect your opinion to disagree with things you think are nonsense. I _truly _do.  But, I wanted you to know that "nonsense" seems to be a necessary  ingredient of the physical universe and we depend on some pretty  nonsensical things, just to continue to be able to exist. Multiple  Universes isn't really *that* nonsensical, considering the scope of absurdity that the Universe seems to enjoy presenting us with.

PS  - I was interrupted twice by phone calls while composing this, so if  something is not clear, I will gladly offer any explanations I can and  will provide you with references for any of the assertions that I have  made, should you require any. My apologies for the length, but the  universe doesn't provide us with any simple answers, does it?


----------



## moderan (Apr 13, 2013)

Brock said:


> I also foresee a time when all, or nearly all  genetic abnormalities are detected in the fetus.  This will open up a  huge can of worms, and if I'm still alive when it happens, I'm keeping  my mouth shut and not taking sides.
> 
> I'm editing to add this thought.  Is it a bit odd that when it comes to  other species, we will not allow animals with genetic predispositions to  procreate, yet some flipper-footed albino human with sickle cell anemia  can father as many children as he wishes?  I'm sorry if this sounds  rude, but I'm thinking about the quality of life of the  children.


Craig Venter has talked extensively about this very  thing. It's one of the reasons he almost decided not to head the Human  Genome Project.
Your mapped genome will at some point be available to  the medical community, and then to insurance companies and the like,  who can use that data to deny or approve coverage on indisputable  genetic grounds. That's going to be a nightmare, and it's virtually  certain to happen in the US.
In other places, the data will be examined by Eugenics counsels...China is a likely place for this activity. A nightmare of a different kind.
And of course there is the specter of choosing which traits in your child to have augmented...a nightmare of a third kind.

Can't elaborate further on the post above. Feynman is always a good read.


----------



## Rustgold (Apr 14, 2013)

moderan said:


> Right. Because anyone who disagrees with you is automatically a goose. So argument is useless. Then I shan't waste any more of either of our time doing so. Good day.



Why, because no evidence has been provided for me to see it as anything other than fanciful fiction.  Want me to respect a belief, then show me evidence to suggest there's a possibility it could be true.



Brock said:


> Regarding the parallel universes that are replaying slightly different versions of earth's history:  Personally, I don't believe this is possible.  Either the parallel universe is exact or completely different.  One of the scientists on 'The Universe' was describing a parallel universe with slight differences.  He said that we were all there, but possibly had different jobs, drove different cars, lived in different areas, etc.  This doesn't make sense to me at all. Slight variations dictate the future and our very existence.  They cannot maintain a similar course, but will lead to something very different.
> 
> Example:  If I had not worked where I once did, I would not have met my wife.  If I had not met my wife, we would not have the children we do.  In a parallel universe with slight variations, none of us would exist and the entire history of that parallel earth would play out much differently.



It's a fatal flaw in the entire belief.  Besides, why would there be carbon copies of us in other universes anyway.  The entire thing doesn't make logical sense.
Not to mention it runs into trouble with the big bang theories.


----------



## Morkonan (Apr 14, 2013)

My apologies, I'm not trying to intrude upon your discussion with  Moderan, but I wanted to point out a couple of things in response to  your post:



Rustgold said:


> Why,  because no evidence has been provided for me to see it as anything  other than fanciful fiction.  Want me to respect a belief, then show me  evidence to suggest there's a possibility it could be true.



If  all you require is "possibility" as a standard for acceptance or  respect, then you've already been given that. Several theories depend on  the existence of other universes, including theories surrounding the  formation of our own Universe and the "Big Bang." (Ekpyrotic theories,  String Theories, etc..)



> Besides, why would there be carbon copies of us in other universes anyway.



Science  never attempts to answer the "Why" question. "Why's" are for  philosophers. The Universe is strange enough without complicating its understanding  with "whys."



> The entire thing doesn't make logical sense.



What  is logic? To call something logical, one must first know the rules that  govern the observed phenomenon. Then, one makes a declaration of  "logical" based on that knowledge. But, the Rules that we are familiar  with do not apply to many of the fundamental properties of matter or to  possible construction of the Universe, itself. What we see and observe  in the macro world is a false shadow of what's really going on. 

Our  experience of existence is limited by poor sensory implements and  natural tools that are ill-equipped to explore the true nature of  reality. Our eyes can only see in a narrow range of the electromagnetic  spectrum. (Which is a good thing really, since much of our body is not  transparent to certain forms of radiation for good reason!) We can also  "feel" in this spectrum with a sense of "heat." We can discern shapes  from touch, can detect certain chemical compounds through smell and  taste and can sense the movement of molecules with our hearing. But,  though these tools are excellent for survival purposes in the macro  world, they do crap-all for revealing the nature of the Universe.

Still,  our minds are geared towards the use of the tools we're naturally  equipped with. That's a good thing, as you can well imagine. When  something goes up, we "know" it must come down. When we see an object  being thrown or falling, we can naturally judge its most likely course.  We can do these things because we're evolutionarily equipped to think in  such ways. Being able to make certain predictions about the physical  world is helpful to an animals survival. And, many animals have the same  natural abilities of prognostication - They know many of the same rules  that we do.

But, those rules are not the "true" rules of the  Universe. They're a small sampling of what happens when the aggregate  behavior of the quantum world, and perhaps others, is reflected in our  experience of the macro world. "Logic" is not equally applicable across  such spectra as the rules are very different. What is "logical" in the  macro world of our experience has little bearing in the quantum world,  which governs the foundations of reality and its expression in the macro  world we experience. Because we are capable of extending our senses  using new tools, we are now capable of extending those senses into the  basic fabric of true reality, where all the "magic" happens that creates  our somewhat illusory natural experience of "existence."

Why  should we then believe that we, having only been used to experiencing  one tiny sliver of "reality," have some sort of arbitrarily decided  authority to determine the Rules that the Universe _should_  operate by and then declare all others "illogical" when we do not accept  the set of Rules that existence truly operates by? When faced with the  true realities of existence, we can not apply the rules of logic in the  macro world, as we know them, to reality. We must first learn to accept  the new rules we were not originally equipped to understand.

The  logics of our common, natural and evolutionarily reinforced "Experience"  are not fully applicable to "Reality." We can not judge reality by rules  that we are naturally comfortable with - They do not apply.


----------



## s.altybayev (Apr 14, 2013)

The future is already here!
Google glass -> google lenses -> google eyes 
Microsoft translator - translate with your own voice. It's cool!


----------



## R. Daneel Olivaw (Apr 14, 2013)

I think mankind should establish a foundation, like the one in Asimov's books.


----------



## Brock (Apr 15, 2013)

Speaking of Asimov, I think that in the near future we will see what he describes in _Sally._  I don't think that our cars will be intelligent like Sally, but I do think a time will come when manual driving will be outlawed, at least on major roads and highways.  People will scream about their rights being taken away just as they do now when any type of radical legislation is proposed, but when deaths on the road eventually become a thing of the past, they will realize it was the right thing to do.

I can't wrap my mind around turning on the local news or picking up a newspaper and seeing nothing about car accidents.


----------



## moderan (Apr 15, 2013)

> My apologies, I'm not trying to intrude upon your discussion with   Moderan, but I wanted to point out a couple of things in response to   your post:


I'm done anyway. Have at it.


Brock said:


> Speaking of Asimov, I think that in the near future we will see what he describes in _Sally._  I don't think that our cars will be intelligent like Sally, but I do think a time will come when manual driving will be outlawed, at least on major roads and highways.  People will scream about their rights being taken away just as they do now when any type of radical legislation is proposed, but when deaths on the road eventually become a thing of the past, they will realize it was the right thing to do.
> 
> I can't wrap my mind around turning on the local news or picking up a newspaper and seeing nothing about car accidents.


GPS is a nod in that direction. I agree...especially when said cars start leaving the ground. They'll have to be mechanically coordinated. How near that future is, I dunno. But I can see it. Probably something biomechanical in nature-I can see biomechanics playing a much larger role than it does now. But it'll be the love-hate thing for a while, because people will compare it to invasive cosmetic surgery.
It'll take a real big paradigm shift, so it's likely to be a bit. The petroleum industry may have to collapse entirely. The cleanest-burning, cheapest substitute is hemp oil.


----------



## Blade (Apr 15, 2013)

Rustgold said:


> He also believes in magical parallel universes, so I wouldn't take his word as anything other than coming from a media scientist.
> 
> Saying this, here's my observation.  If we're looking for us to make it to another galaxy to save our species, then we're dead in the water.  Getting to the moon is like dipping your legs in the seashore and proclaiming that you'll be able to swim across the shark & wave invested ocean.  It simply doesn't match reality, and 100 Star Trek movies don't change this.


I would agree with this 100%, even trying to establish colonies on "nearby" worlds like the Moon and Mars would involve an insane level of expense let alone taking a run at truly remote targets. Thing is that most of the world's oceans have not really been explored and there is more potential gain there than anywhere in space. I am not opposed to space exploration but way too much money is spent out there and relatively little on mother Earth. If we have to stay here we have make the best of what we have for resources which means first of all finding them.

Clincher: Is there life in the Oceans? Hell yes.


----------



## moderan (Apr 15, 2013)

Wait. More potential gain in one single world's oceans than in all of space? Or even the immediate interlanetary neighborhood? I think not. Even if you're mining for say, *water*, like in V.
While I'd agree that much of the world's waterways are unexplorer or underexplored, still I'd have to differ with that bit of language.
I'm also not quite sure how the world's oceans having life clinches anything. Or do you mean that because there's no proof of life outside this sphere, we should stop looking?
Hmm.
Here's Nasa's budget for many years:Budget of NASA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
James Cameron agrees with you, plus data:James Cameron says today's ocean exploration is
Couldn't find anything about the costs of the various vehicles, vessels, and craft, plsu the cost of training relative to each set of disciplines.
The oceans just aren't as chic.


----------



## Kevin (Apr 15, 2013)

That would be kind of depressing. What if we never figure out faster-than-light travel and our little solar system is it? Any travels off-planet would be like trips to a distant Antarctica- extremely difficult and limited in benefits.


----------



## Brock (Apr 15, 2013)

Kevin said:


> That would be kind of depressing. What if we never figure out faster-than-light travel and our little solar system is it? Any travels off-planet would be like trips to a distant Antarctica- extremely difficult and limited in benefits.



Columbus was once thought to be wasting time and money on something impossible and non-existent too.

Worrying that "our little solar system is it" is like standing on the largest beach in the world, picking up a discolored spec of sand and saying "this is the only spec of sand like this on the entire beach."

I believe we are less than a decade away from confirming life beyond our own rock.  Given the overwhelming odds that life not only exists outside of our solar system, but is abundant throughout the universe, we must keep exploring.  A day will come when we need to leave our planet.


----------



## Kevin (Apr 15, 2013)

Keep exploring..ok...but given the vast distances and time (a million is not even a blink) it feels like we're ants on that beach- aware of the possibilities but highly unlikely to ever be able to do much about it before the giant _Raid-can_ in the sky...well, you know...not that I worry about it, like...ever, but since we're talking about it. All this speculation could be like _speculative religion._


----------



## Brock (Apr 15, 2013)

Kevin said:


> Keep exploring..ok...but given the vast distances and time (a million is not even a blink) it feels like we're ants on that beach- aware of the possibilities but highly unlikely to ever be able to do much about it before the giant _Raid-can_ in the sky...well, you know...not that I worry about it, like...ever, but since we're talking about it. All this speculation could be like _speculative religion._



Hop in my time machine and I'll send you back to, let's say, the Civil War era.  This is only 150 years or so ago -- yesterday, basically.  Tell everyone that we're going to put men on the moon (and likely Mars) and that we'll send spacecrafts to the far reaches of our solar system.  Describe to them the Curiosity rover and the technology we used to put it on another planet, then describe how it tests the atmosphere, soil and sends data and images back to Earth.  Tell them that we will all be able to view these images from our homes on computers that are connected to something called the internet.  Tell them we will have men living in space for extended periods of time on space stations.  Then, if you are still able to speak over their laughter, tell them that we will win a war with Japan by dropping only two bombs.  Oh yeah, also tell them that we will have things called drones that will fly around in the sky dropping bombs on people... and laser beams that will zap these drones and things called jets out of the sky (now developed and will be in use this year).

My point, you would be a fruitcake.  They would see your wild claims in the same light as you seem to see current prophecies of space exploration.  But jump ahead 150 years and we have accomplished the unthinkable.  I have no doubt that in another 150 years we will have unlocked more secrets than what we did the previous, and we will have accomplished what is unthinkable to so many today.  Technology and science will never stop advancing.  We will never hit the ceiling and say "Well, that looks to be it.  We're done."


----------



## Terry D (Apr 15, 2013)

Blade said:


> I would agree with this 100%, even trying to establish colonies on "nearby" worlds like the Moon and Mars would involve an insane level of expense let alone taking a run at truly remote targets. Thing is that most of the world's oceans have not really been explored and there is more potential gain there than anywhere in space. I am not opposed to space exploration but way too much money is spent out there and relatively little on mother Earth. If we have to stay here we have make the best of what we have for resources which means first of all finding them.
> 
> Clincher: Is there life in the Oceans? Hell yes.



There's a strange trade-off between near space exploration, and possible colonization, and ocean exploration.  While it is cheaper and easier to get into the underwater realm, there is actually far less potential to actually do work there.


----------



## Morkonan (Apr 15, 2013)

Blade said:


> ...Thing is that most of the world's oceans have not really been explored and there is more potential gain there than anywhere in space. I am not opposed to space exploration but way too much money is spent out there and relatively little on mother Earth. If we have to stay here we have make the best of what we have for resources which means first of all finding them.
> 
> Clincher: Is there life in the Oceans? Hell yes.



The problem is that even if we did the whole "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" bit and had a Seaview in every garage, that doesn't solve the problem that people like Hawking are eluding to when they promote human space exploration. Every single human being in existence, in theory, is located on Earth. One rock could end all of that. In the blink of an eye.. gone. Everything we were, are and have yet to become could be wiped out by a drunk meteorite...

Even if that didn't happen in the next couple of thousand years, we're going to run out of "stuff", eventually. We will not be able to feed our ever-growing populations, we will run out of many non-renewable energy resources we use today because we can not meet the consumption rates and certain population, economic and energy pressures are developing at a faster rate than our cultures can assimilate them.

We are on borrowed time. It's not an expression, it's reality. We only have a realistic window of xx thousand years to go from hairy semi-arboreal, somewhat conscious, creatures to a space-faring species. The clock is ticking and we've been lucky, so far.


----------



## Terry D (Apr 15, 2013)

Morkonan said:


> The problem is that even if we did the whole "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" bit and had a Seaview in every garage, that doesn't solve the problem that people like Hawking are eluding to when they promote human space exploration. Every single human being in existence, in theory, is located on Earth. One rock could end all of that. In the blink of an eye.. gone. Everything we were, are and have yet to become could be wiped out by a drunk meteorite...
> 
> Even if that didn't happen in the next couple of thousand years, we're going to run out of "stuff", eventually. We will not be able to feed our ever-growing populations, we will run out of many non-renewable energy resources we use today because we can not meet the consumption rates and certain population, economic and energy pressures are developing at a faster rate than our cultures can assimilate them.
> 
> We are on borrowed time. It's not an expression, it's reality. We only have a realistic window of xx thousand years to go from hairy semi-arboreal, somewhat conscious, creatures to a space-faring species. The clock is ticking and we've been lucky, so far.



I don't think we can out-run extinction in any case.  No species is immortal.  Earth is our habitat, if we mess it up (and I think we will) we pay the price.


----------



## Kevin (Apr 15, 2013)

Morkonan said:


> Even if that didn't happen in the next couple of thousand years, we're going to run out of "stuff", eventually. We will not be able to feed our ever-growing populations, we will run out of many non-renewable energy resources we use today because we can not meet the consumption rates and certain population, economic and energy pressures are developing at a faster rate than our cultures can assimilate them.


 A change in attitude would solve this. We could either stop with the population explosion and mass consumption of non-renewables, or, we could do like historical Easter island.


----------



## R. Daneel Olivaw (Apr 15, 2013)

space, still the final frontier


----------



## moderan (Apr 16, 2013)

Kevin said:


> A change in attitude would solve this. We could either stop with the population explosion and mass consumption of non-renewables, or, we could do like historical Easter island.


And how do we go about changing this attitude?


----------



## Jeko (Apr 16, 2013)

In the future, the industry of popular music will collapse and we'll all - at last - be at peace.


----------



## Kevin (Apr 16, 2013)

moderan said:


> And how do we go about changing this attitude?


 I don't know how that works. To me it's a wonder that we don't still have slaves, beat our women, and burn witches at the stake.


----------



## moderan (Apr 16, 2013)

Kevin said:


> I don't know how that works. To me it's a wonder that we don't still have slaves, beat our women, and burn witches at the stake.


Laws and lawyers caused all of that.
The future will likely have plenty of them.
Policy is often a double-edged sword;heavy to wield, too grossly big for small problems.
I'm not as up-to-date on the science as I'd like to be, but I think that we have ruined this orb beyond repair. Morkonan captured my thoughts perfectly. Sorry, Terry, but I disagree somewhat. I think we could survive the death of the Earth as a spacefaring race. I've read and imagined it enough times to think that it is so.
If we don't our hours are numbered. We will run out of resources or blow ourselves up or flood or pollute or otherwise crap up a perfectly good nest in search of the almighty perfect ME.
Cuz antiagathics are just over the horizon, and the mouthbreathers will be able to admire their own reflections for hundreds of years. We're on the verge of being able to build things like kittens with jet engines that respond to telepathic commands and attack out of midair. Hell, we could do it already. We could have sharks with lasers. Frogs could crap C4.
Laws stop that.
Unfortunately, such a system is ripe for abuse.
Policymakers run amuck and think that they know better than the people they represent, because they keep information from them. So they makes rules for other people and feel above them. So it has been throughout our history.
We're still children in evolutionary terms, even if you go back to the earliest cro-magnon or neanderthal. Even anamensis, 4.9 million years ago, isn't that old. Leporidae (rabbits) hail from the Eocene, 50 million years or so ago. Cephalopods, spoken of earlier as possibly an alien inteligent species, hail from the Ordovician, 450 million or so years ago.


> The hungry sheep look up, and are not fed,But swollen with wind and the rank mist they draw,Rot inwardly, and foul contagion spread ...


----------



## Blade (Apr 19, 2013)

Morkonan said:


> Even if that didn't happen in the next couple of thousand years, we're going to run out of "stuff", eventually. We will not be able to feed our ever-growing populations, we will run out of many non-renewable energy resources we use today because we can not meet the consumption rates and certain population, economic and energy pressures are developing at a faster rate than our cultures can assimilate them.
> 
> We are on borrowed time. It's not an expression, it's reality. We only have a realistic window of xx thousand years to go from hairy semi-arboreal, somewhat conscious, creatures to a space-faring species. The clock is ticking and we've been lucky, so far.



Look at how much the world has changed in the last century or so. If these problems can be solved they had better as I do not think there is a plan B. In many cases people suffer from problems that have been solved but not applied.



Kevin said:


> A change in attitude would solve this. We could either stop with the population explosion and mass consumption of non-renewables, or, we could do like historical Easter island.



I came across an article today that has rekindled my lack of enthusiasm for the "get to space" perspective.

BBC News - Kepler telescope spies 'most Earth-like' worlds to date

They are talking of prospect planets *1200 light years away. *​Considering how barren the prospects are in our own solar system I would be seriously disinclined to take on a project at that distance. In my opinion too much of our resources are being spent on a pipe dream where it would be more useful elsewhere.


----------



## Kevin (Apr 19, 2013)

I hope you're (we're) wrong. I hope they figure it out. I was just thinking that Columbus' feat was no greater than any sea-turtle might accomplish. I don't see that happening with interstellar travel.


----------



## Blade (Apr 19, 2013)

Kevin said:


> I hope you're (we're) wrong. I hope they figure it out. I was just thinking that Columbus' feat was no greater than any sea-turtle might accomplish. I don't see that happening with interstellar travel.



I think we have a lot going for us. We have more scientists, engineers, inventors and researchers than ever in the history of nthe world who are better educated and have better tools and communications than ever. I read recently that 2012 waqs the best year in human history along the lines of reducing women dying in childbirth, deaths by starvation, elevating people to live above the poverty line, reduction of deaths from treatable illnesses etc.

What peeves me is that science is political, researchers compete for funding from Universities, Governments, Foundations, individuals or whatever. Popularizing space exploration as a stepping stone to a grand new Earth is clearly just fraud at this point.

Basically I figure the balance is a little off. Space exploration is good but more revenue should be going ton the Oceans and other home unknowns.


----------



## Robert_S (Apr 19, 2013)

My view of the future is very bleak. 

Oil is, as we know, the absolute prime resource of the human race. Nations currently used to use covert ops to secure or free oil from nations that want to keep it to themselves, but that is starting to shift to overt wars for oil. When it's scarce enough that some nations don't have enough to engage in conventional war and the hate for those that have it is great enough, there will be a nuclear war. I think we'll survive, but it's going to be back to the dark ages for a century or two.


----------



## Blade (Apr 19, 2013)

Robert_S said:


> Oil is, as we know, the absolute prime resource of the human race. Nations currently used to use covert ops to secure or free oil from nations that want to keep it to themselves, but that is starting to shift to overt wars for oil. When it's scarce enough that some nations don't have enough to engage in conventional war and the hate for those that have it is great enough, there will be a nuclear war. I think we'll survive, but it's going to be back to the dark ages for a century or two.



The world of oil ebbs and flows. Here is a recent article that claims that the process of fracking will bring back available oil reserves big time.

Today

I could agree that oil holds great sway in today's politics and ecomomy but eventually it will have to be displaced or at least reduced to uses for which it is really needed. (transportation vehicles, I think.

Who do you think the nuclear war will be between?

Speaking of the Dark Ages there are times I think I would have done quite well back then. Besides the people of that day did not know they were living in the Dark Ages. It was not until the Renaissance that the cultural elite decided to pin that tag on them by which time they were long gone.:-({|=


----------



## Robert_S (Apr 19, 2013)

Blade said:


> I could agree that oil holds great sway in today's politics and ecomomy but eventually it will have to be displaced or at least reduced to uses for which it is really needed. (transportation vehicles, I think.



I think govts and corps will hold it for themselves. They are self-serving after all. Oil is what propels and drives the war machine, which is contracted out to private industries. Tanks need it in abundance, it's a component in lubricants for rifles and cannons, etc.



> Who do you think the nuclear war will be between?



Most likely the US/West and an ME country. Iran has my vote because we've already subverted their self-rule once for oil, so they see us as an enemy. Not just a competitor, but an enemy.



> Speaking of the Dark Ages there are times I think I would have done quite well back then. Besides the people of that day did not know they were living in the Dark Ages. It was not until the Renaissance that the cultural elite decided to pin that tag on them by which time they were long gone.:-({|=



I've played Fallout 3 and I think the landscape will look much like that. I don't think mutations will end up quite like the game portrays, but there might be some alteration to life, especially if a mutation can breed.


----------



## Brock (Apr 22, 2013)

I don't think oil will play as big of a role in our future as water.  Wars will be fought over water, and I'm not talking about the distant future.


----------



## Robert_S (Apr 22, 2013)

Brock said:


> I don't think oil will play as big of a role in our future as water.  Wars will be fought over water, and I'm not talking about the distant future.



They can desalinate ocean water, so I'm not sure how you figure this. Recently, I read a major corp (DOW or some other) has found a way to desalinate water even faster than ever. We don't live on Arrakis after all. Oil, on the other had, is used for so much (fuel, lubricants, even Vaseline). It's what gives a nation its modern edge and oil companies are in no way trying to develop alternatives.  There is speculation the oil industry quietly killed the electric car because they saw a loss of profits.


----------



## Brock (Apr 22, 2013)

Desalination is a small-scale solution for a large scale problem.  Desalination plants are EXTREMELY expensive and very harmful to the environment.  There have been dozens of desalination plants proposed around the U.S., but costs and environmental implications have prevented them from being built.  Only private corporations with vast capital are dabbling in desalination, and we all know where that leads.  It's not even practical yet (if ever) in modern nations, let alone in third world countries where fresh water shortages are most profound.

There will be more wars and pollution as a result of oil, but the fossil fuel era will eventually end.  However, I believe the fossil fuel era has already caused irreparable damage.


----------



## JosephB (Apr 22, 2013)

We rely on fossil fuels to keep us warm and get us from here to there, but people forget -- we need and benefit from so many things that would not have been possible without fossil fuels: golf balls, The Beverly Hillbillies, polyester slacks, Molotov cocktails, pantyhose, personal lubricants -- just to name a few. Well worth a little pollution and a few wars. The world would be a sadder, darker and far less convenient place indeed without fossil fuels. So ignore the so-called "environmentalists" and peaceniks. Drill. Fight. Let’s enjoy the many benefits of fossils fuels now while we have the chance.


----------



## Blade (Apr 22, 2013)

Robert_S said:


> I think govts and corps will hold it for themselves. They are self-serving after all. Oil is what propels and drives the war machine, which is contracted out to private industries. Tanks need it in abundance, it's a component in lubricants for rifles and cannons, etc.



Given the number of years it takes to develop new weapons systems there is certainly a serious issue as to whether the military contractors are really private companies or extensions of government. It looks to me that fracking will take the pressure off in the short term but over the long haul a rise in price will eventually push the smaller players either out or marginalized in the market. 

An article on how Fracking will shake up the market:

U.K. shale revolution will shake up Europe


----------



## Brock (Apr 22, 2013)

JosephB said:


> We rely on fossil fuels to keep us warm and get us from here to there, but people forget -- we need and benefit from so many things that would not have been possible without fossil fuels: golf balls, The Beverly Hillbillies, polyester slacks, Molotov cocktails, pantyhose, personal lubricants -- just to name a few. Well worth a little pollution and a few wars. The world would be a sadder, darker and far less convenient place indeed without fossil fuels. So ignore the so-called "environmentalists" and peaceniks. Drill. Fight. Let’s enjoy the many benefits of fossils fuels now while we have the chance.



The largest share of a barrel of crude oil is used to make gasoline.  You don't have to be an "environmentalist" to see where the problem lies.  Fossil fuels are likely to always be used for something, but not on the massive, polluting scale they are now.  Gasoline powered motors will be obsolete, and the fossil fuel era will end.  You may then hit your golf balls and lube your partner up by the cement pond all you want.


----------



## moderan (Apr 22, 2013)

Brock said:


> I don't think oil will play as big of a role in our future as water.  Wars will be fought over water, and I'm not talking about the distant future.


They already are, they're just under the table. LA, Phoenix and Vegas (among other places) depend on the same water source, and it's drying up under the demand. The southwest US is as dry as Arrakis and much less cooperative. Just ask Jake Gittes.
Fossil fuels have been a driving force for a very short time. Their time will pass. Water is eternal.


----------



## NathanBrazil (Apr 22, 2013)

> This is a grim prognosis. But the solutions need not be as onerous or expensive as one might expect. . . .
> 
> Perhaps the biggest opportunity might just be the simplest one. Grass. Grass was not meant to be grown in the Mojave Desert. According to the Southern Nevada water authority, 70 percent of the water used by a typical resident is used to water plants outdoors. The big mistake was the dirt cheap water prices that were subsidized by the federal government when the area was first developed. This encouraged people to move in and to take water consumption for granted.
> 
> ...



The tone of the article seems to be that of alarm but not of doom.


----------



## moderan (Apr 23, 2013)

> Grass wasn't meant to be grown in the Mojave Desert.


----------



## Blade (Apr 23, 2013)

Brock said:


> I don't think oil will play as big of a role in our future as water.  Wars will be fought over water, and I'm not talking about the distant future.



It would seem that the global distribution of freshwater in relation to population is a serious structureal problem. Look at all the rivers that ru into the Arctic ocean to the benefit of almost nobody.  The Great Lakes Basin has 20%+ of the world's freshwater but only one half of one percent of the world's population. In central North America the watershed concluding with Lake Winnipeg and the Nelson River takes water from an area spreading from north-western Ontario west to Alberta and south to the Dakotas to the north, away from population centers.

I have been doing research (and writing) on the condition of the world'slakes and inland waterways and have found that there are serious, though not usually fatal, problems going on pretty well everywhere. Most of the problems have manifested over the last 50 years or so but some are only in the past 25 or so. This is notable as the world has changed radically and most people in power were educated about a world that no longer exists.


----------



## Brock (Apr 26, 2013)

What am I most looking forward to?  Space vacations!  I dream of the day when I first view our planet from space.


----------



## claritystory (Apr 27, 2013)

As society regresses creative and independent individuals will become powerful forces, escaping the herds of commercialized sleepwalkers.  In time, such a force may create an unexpected change, freeing the world from a detached existence.  Frequently, pessimistic and optimistic perspectives are parts of an objective truth.  Similarly,  the prospect of a society which lacks any real meaning is part of an objective truth containing our future eutopia.


----------



## Brock (Jun 21, 2013)

Former Nestle CEO: 'Water should be privatized, it's not a right' - Portland Food | Examiner.com


----------

