Should the World Be Run by a Giant Computer?
71
The Hub with the Video that Suggests the World Should be Run by a Giant Computer
- My First Hub
I'm willing to pay for dubbing of these two movies and one below into any local language which has not already been done yet! Using dubbing technique involving the re-recording of dialogue of the original...
Should the world we live in be run by a giant computer? Personally, I'd have to say no. But that's just me. Not everybody agrees. For instance, right here on hubpages, there's a hub that features a video dedicated to the proposition that all our economic problems would be solved if we gave up our current form of government and just let a computer decide how to allocate resources. There's even a catchy slogan: "Every problem is a technical problem."
Do you think that's true? Is every problem a technical problem that has a technical solution?
I don't think so. In fact, the biggest problems in life, while they all have a technical dimension, really hinge on preference. War and Peace? Usually about who gets to live in the same spot of land and control its resources. Can a giant computer decide that? How? By flipping a coin? How much should I spend on painting my house? Can a giant computer determine that? How about what color I should paint it?
This is not a problem a computer can solve, without heavy reliance on a random number generator. Or a program that presets the preference according to the values of the programmer. Heads I win. Tails you lose.
All those things that most of us wouldn't let a giant computer decide are also the things that should not be a matter open for the public to vote on. Why? Because they are not a technical problem with a single technical solution. They are a matter of personal preference. There is no right answer. There is only the answer that seems right to each of the participants.
Who should own a piece of land? How is that decided? How much do you want it? How much does someone else? Whether the field of battle is a real war or an economic bid, there is no right answer. There is only how much each side is willing to sacrifice in order to gain control.
What color should I paint my house? Should a giant computer decide that? No. Should everyone on the planet be given a vote on what color my house should be? No. It should be up to me alone.
If I hire my neighbor to paint my house the color I want, how much should I pay him? Should a giant computer decide? No. Should everybody on the planet get a vote, including my neighbor and me? No. I get to decide how much I am willing to pay. My neighbor gets to decide if it's enough for him. If it's not enough for him, he won't paint the house.
When I lend money to a neighbor, who should decide what interest I can
charge? A giant computer? No. Everybody on the planet, including my
neighbor and me? No. I should get to decide what interest I want. My neighbor should decide if he's willing to pay that kind of interest. And nobody else gets a vote!
A Simulated Conversation with a Zeitgeist Supporter
Who should decide?
Do you think the world should be run by a giant computer?
See results without votingWhile the number of people who currently believe that the world should be run by a giant computer is fairly small, the number of people who believe that every problem is a technical problem is much higher. Most discussions of issues like communitarianism versus individualism, or the price of oil, or who should wear a seatbelt, or which breed of dogs people should be allowed to own, or how fast anyone should drive a car down a lonely stretch of road at night, revolve around the notion that there is a "right" answer, if only we could all agree. But the fact is, these are NOT technical problems with technical solutions. It's a matter of preference!
(c) 2009 Aya Katz
![I, Robot [Blu-ray]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51fmi82JuqL._SL75_.jpg) | Amazon Price: $9.97 List Price: $29.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $2.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $4.87 List Price: $14.98 |
 | Amazon Price: $5.50 List Price: $15.00 |
I, Robot
|
14.4V APS Battery for iRobot Roomba 400 4000 Series-NIB
Current Bid: $25.25
|
|
14.4V APS Battery for iRobot Roomba 400 4000 Series-NIB
Current Bid: $29.95
|
|
New 14.4V 2.5ah Battery for iRobot Roomba FloorVac 400 Series 4905 aps
Current Bid: $26.55
|
|
iRobot Roomba 500 series Aero Vac Dust Vacuum Bin! w/ spare New Aerovac Filter!
Current Bid: $35.00
|
Books by Aya Katz
 | Amazon Price: $12.75 |
 | Amazon Price: $11.99 |
CommentsLoading...
Brad4l, thanks for your comment. Glad we agree!
Unfortunately, people today are not making much better decisions than a computer would make in the same circumstance.
People making decisions for other people is the comparision to make in this hub rather than a computer making a decision for you.
In California for example, people in the state government have made decisions for the people of California that have resulted in a $26 Billion debt. These politicians have parlayed a surplus into a debt in a few short years.
A computer couldn't have made a worse decision.
Opinion Duck, thanks for your comment. I agree! Letting other people decide for you is just as bad as letting a computer do it.
I like the ads for the Roomba on this page. If the world is to be run by a Giant Computer, it shouldn't be a Roomba.
Does "Zeitgeist" really suggest that the world should be run by a giant computer? I've never seen it, to be sure, but I have had the impression that itis a favorite of the 9/11 truthers. I would more expect them to say that the world already is run by a giant computer.
Nets, thanks for dropping by. Glad you like the ads. I chose them just for the fun of it. Roomba showed up when I input "I, Robot". So, I take it you have a Roomba and it's not quite self-aware?
Nets, if you sit through the entire video that is embedded in the hubpage I linked, then you get to the part with the computer. Whether it's supposed to be one giant one or lots of little ones linked together, I'm not sure. But they say that human workers are obsolete. Their only function is to be consumers and occasionally to service the computer. Also, humans get to suggest new scientific ideas, which will be peer reviewed by the computer. It's a long movie, and at first it seems to make a lot of sense when it discusses problems in the world -- until you get to the solution!
The Roomba is not very aware about how to vacuum the floor. Also Lazarus doesn't get along with it.
From your description it sounds to me that they are in fact saying that the world is run by a giant computer, not necessarily that it should be.
But I can't bring myself to sit through the clip.
Nets, I sympathize. It's really hard to sit through, and if you stop in the middle, it's hard to get to the place where you left off.
In laissez-faire we liquefy affairs,
Dissatisfied to follow doctrinaires.
The invisible hand of Adam Smith is preferable to the visible hand of tyranny or tyrannous enforcement by computers. Ludwig von Mises in this excerpt from HUMAN ACTION asserts there can be no scientific theory, grounded on mathematic models, for economic activities in the pursuit of happiness.
F.L. Light, thanks for the couplet and the link to the Von Mises excerpt. There is no mathematical model for the pursuit of happiness. I tend to agree.
computers only do what they are programed to do .Nothing more or less.
It is pointless! logic cannot overcome criminal behavior.The criminals would try to reprogram the computer to have it do what they wanted
Someonewhoknows, thanks for your comment. I agree, computers only do what they are programmed to do -- and not what you think you progammed them to do, either. Garbage in, garbage out.
If some of you are having trouble sitting through the Zeitgeist video, here is a link to what appears to be the text version:
Those who would try to control what you do are first to call for limitations on your freedoms ,like freedom of speech,freedom to travel,they don't seem to concerned about the freedom of the press because they already control most of that anyway.It's almost funny how we seem to becoming like the old solviet union used to and maybe still are in a more covert way watching everyone,and keeping tabs on certain people so they can control them in some way.
Someonewhoknows, yes, that does seem to be the case. And there are such "nice people" who support these policies.
Networked computers can help with such things as resource distribution, traffic management, hospital bed allocation, and so on. I've not heard anyone suggest they should decide who your friends should be or whom you should marry. Yet even in these areas, many people are already benefiting from the online databases. It's true that computers will only do what they are programmed to do, yet, once programmed, they will do things that their programmer could not do, including, for example, designing computer chips which are far too complex to be humanly designed. More and more, we will delegate the 'grunt work' of calculation, prediction and error elimination to computers. That doesn't mean they will run the world. Though it does mean the world won't run without them.
As to what colour you should paint your house - largely your choice, but there can be exceptions, e.g. in a conservation area. This comes back to the absolute freedom discussion. I can listen to any music I like, but not at 110 dBA at two in the morning.
Paraglider, thanks for your comment. The question is not whether computers are useful or whether individuals can and do sometimes delegate decisions to them. The question is whether people should be FORCED to delegate their decisions to computers (or to the people who program them.) All the significant disagreements in the political arena are about choice.
Some people believe that all problems are technical. When they believe this, it then follows that experts in each field -- or their computer embodiments -- should make all decisions. It's a mistake, no matter what the field is. People can defer to experts -- but the choice should be the individual's, not anyone else's.
As for your example of playing loud music, the answer is simple: the louder you want to play it, the more private acreage you will need to own, so as not to hurt the rights of others. There are NO rights without property rights. Not even the right to breathe.
Yes, but even if you can afford to buy up fifty acres of valuable land with the sole intention of sitting in the middle of it listening to loud music, should you be allowed to? Or should society have a say in how land should be used?
Paraglider, allowing people to negotiate with other people about how much they are willing to pay for land is a way in which these decisions can be made without anybody forcing his preferences on anyone else.
The other way -- society allowing or not allowing me to listen to loud music -- is a way that forces the personal preferences of one person on another.
Whether the person or entity forcing his values on another is a monarch, a plebeian mob, an elite team of scientists supposedly applying the scientific method, or a computer that has been programmed by the scientific elite -- the result is the same: the preferences of some trump the preferences of others.
Hello Aya, Very thought provoking hub.
Have you read Asimov's stories on psycho-history? I think it is an interesting notion and it relates much to what you bring up here. The idea of psycho-history is that while we cannot predict the behavior of any individual, we can predict the behavior of groups of people.
If we are able to statistically model key attributes that affect the behavior of societies, then we will be able to predict upcoming calamities or other large changes that may adversely affect humanity. Once we understand this, we can presumably do a better job in steering society away from those more undesirable options, towards directions that would bring better outcomes.
If you could see the future ... what would you do? If 'force' were necessary to bring about a better outcome for humanity, would you be justified in using such force?
"entity forcing his values on another"
Sadly though, I think that many of us are already being manipulated one way or another in making our decisions a certain way by higher powers. Is manipulation force? In many ways, manipulation is a better 'force' than physical force.
I have been reading this book called Influence by Robert Cialdini lately. It is fascinating and a bit sad. It highlights how susceptible we all are to manipulation and how we can be easily swayed to make certain decisions, perform certain actions, or even believe in certain things by simply pulling certain levers - like little puppets.
Even though no physical 'force' is applied, the mental 'force' is the much stronger one. In this way, we already are, all of us, 'forced' to behave in certain ways as dictated by those who know how to pull our strings.
Maybe the world is already being run by a big computer or at least by some large corporations.
Shibashake, thanks for your very thoughtful comment.
I'm familiar with Asimov's writing, which unfortunately is not the same as saying that I've read through all of it. I have four volumes of Asimov's Foundation series, but it was way too dry for me to get through.
It's true that we can make better predictions about groups of people than about individuals. My hub about the evolution of selfishness touches on that.
The whole idea of using a computer to predict and prevent an undesirable outcome hinges on the definition of "an undesirable outcome." Undesirable to whom? By what standard?
It's true that many of us don't even take into consideration most of the options that are open to us in any given situation. By getting someone to ignore an available option, you can certainly make headway in manipulating his behavior.
The more an individual strays from the norm, though, the less he is likely to be open to the usual manipulative strategies.
Aya - { the preferences of some trump the preferences of others.} Yes, that's ok. If someone wants to drive on the wrong side of the road, in town, at 50 mph, and others want him to desist before he kills their children, are you going to defend his 'right' to continue? Your advocacy of absolute freedom seems rather an extremist position, alongside those of us who advocate 'reasonable restraint'. We should not be cariacatured as control freaks just for wanting a degree of consensus to rein in antisocial individualism.
BTW, in the Foundataion series, a character called The Mule becomes dominant for a while mainly because he was a genetic aberration and so, wholly unpredicted and unpredictable.
Paraglider, I'll agree not to caricature you if you agree not to caricature me. Seriously, I have very little problem with the arbitrary agreement that is made differently in different parts of the world, to drive on one side rather than the other side of the road. Of course, if I own the road, then I get to drive any way I like. (In fact, I do own a smallish stretch of road on my property.)
The important thing, when it comes to traffic laws, or any other laws, for that matter, is to avoid harming others. I never advocated the freedom to arbitrarily take the life, liberty or property of another. I believe that's what you were advocating when you suggested that "society" should get to decide who may own fifty acres.
Owning or not owning land is a matter of life and death to many people throughout the globe. Think what it would mean to the Bushmen in Africa if they were able to claim title to their lands!
I am in total agreement with you. Thank you for writing this thought provoking piece. I enjoyed reading it. Well done!
"Undesirable to whom? By what standard?"
In the Foundation series, the standards were preserving knowledge (all knowledge), preserving life, and ironically, preserving a quality of life that affords more individual freedoms to all.
As mentioned by Paraglider, when society was taken over by Mule (which was unpredicted), it led to an oppressive regime that brought with it many undesirable outcomes including deaths, loss of knowledge, and very few individual freedoms.
"The more an individual strays from the norm, though, the less he is likely to be open to the usual manipulative strategies"
I would say that "trying to be different", is also a predictable event that could be modelled and captured.
Although we are not close to this yet, it is interesting to consider a 'computer' if you will, that is not only able to predict best future outcomes, but is also able to manipulate humans into following particular paths towards those outcomes.
I suppose that is little different than God ;)
I kinda think it already is>>>
dori
James A. Watkins, thanks for your comment! I'm glad we're in agreement on this.
Shibashake, straying from the norm is not the same as trying to be different. People who try to be different -- but aren't -- are predictable. People who may not even know they are different -- but are -- are much harder to read.
Fortunerep, you may be right, but I hope not!
Aya, That is a very good point and I agree with you :) That is why it is not possible to accurately predict the behavior of particular individuals, just large groups.
I am curious though, if you could predict the future, wouldn't you try to use your powers to try and steer humanity towards a positive end?
You can't use a computer to analyze economics, because economics is really about human action. People make decisions and act on those decisions. I have yet to see a computer which can accurately predict what someone is going to choose. Now I'm sure there are those who would like to see computers make the decisions because they, personally, would somehow benefit from such a scheme, but in general people would suffer as much as they would under any other sort of tyranny.
Shibashake, you ask: "I am curious though, if you could predict the future, wouldn't you try to use your powers to try and steer humanity towards a positive end?" Well, yeah! I'm as human as anyone else, and if I had the power and foresight, I'd try to steer humanity in a positive direction -- according to my idea of what positive is! So, I suppose it's lucky for those whose values are diametrically opposed to mine that I don't have the power or the foresight! But , hey, thanks for asking!
Ledefensetech, I agree. People who support a computer-run world are the ones who think that they will get to control the computer.
Aya has hit the head right on the head. We all have different values and thoughts about what is important. That's why one-size-fits-all philosophies don't work. The only type of society which functions well is one that allows both you and I, everyone really, to pursue their values so long as those values don't interfere with the liberty of anyone else. Society really functions according to natural law, we ignore the implications of that at our peril.
All I would say in defense of the computer run world is that computers don't get greedy and, unless programmed to, will not cater to the whims of the elite. They lack the human flaws that make most world leaders slimy, corrupt snakes.
However, their lack of humanity is also their greatest shortcoming. How could a computer be trusted to place compassion or justice above efficiency. While humans do have the unfortunate tendency to ignore all three of the aforementioned items, there are still the select few who hold steadfastly to a fine, and very human, moral code. The only problem now is getting those select few into office.
Ledefensetech, yes! There are natural laws about how things work, and they cannot be violated, because they are self-enforcing, We can choose what we do, but we can't avoid the natural consequences.
Ed.G., I know what you mean about computers not getting greedy but also not having compassion, but if you take a step back, you'll see that this approach stereotypes both computers and humans.
A computer that is not self-aware simply does what it is told to do in its programming. Any greed or compassion that is attributed to it really comes from whoever programmed it. On the other hand, if the computer has attained self-awareness (something we see only in fiction, so far) then it is capable of both greed and compassion.
Here's another point people tend to miss: greed and compassion go hand in hand. Someone incapable of greed is also incapable of compassion. Compassion is putting yourself in somebody else's shoes and feeling their greed, instead of your own.
As a general rule, governments are more reactive than proactive simply because there is always something to react to and very little time for true planning. Neither Governments nor computers nor Old Testament prophets can foretell the future accurately. All any of these can do is project and predict based on available data. What computers are very much better at than governments or prophets is fast data processing. It makes perfect sense to have computers fed with all available data 'advise' government of trends and options. It may even make sense in some cases and in more mechanistic fields to delegate executive authority to them. This trend will happen more and more. I don't think its anything to worry about. Humans will always have the ultimate responsibility and the on/off switch.
Paraglider, there is nothing to prevent private individuals from running their own projections concerning the future on their own computers. This isn't a hub in which we deride the use of computers. This is a hub about the evils of government control. I wish more of us had an on/off switch with which to control our representatives in government.
It would be nice to have a veto over any and all laws that infringe on each person's freedoms.
Government are reactive rather than proactive because there's no incentive for them to be otherwise. They are not penalized in any way, they can still collect taxes and skim off the top, they can still remain in power. A free market company, however, cannot get away with such things. An entrepreneur must be proactive, for if they do not innovate and do things better, a competitor will. That's the strength of a free market system, no coercion, just free people making decisions according to their own value systems. What could be more fair?
That's why computers cannot be used to accurately predict human action. Computers don't have a reference point and their programming is only as good as the people who program it. I have yet to see a group of programmers who can accurately predict the choices of one person, much less an enitre world of people.
AI is an interesting topic Aya, I've always wondered what the outcome of a computer's decisions would be if you programmed it at it's core not with Asimov's Three Laws but the Law of Libertarianism: You're free to do as you wish so long as you do not infringe on the rights of others to do as they wish. I'd imagine computers would be better at living according to such a law than people, seeing as computers are beholden to their programs and people beholden to either reason or emotion. It will be interesting to see what the first AI's think.
Ledefensetech, AI is indeed an interesting topic. However, I think that the rules that govern organic entities and the rules that would govern the behavior of self-motivated inorganic entities are the same. Everybody wants something. When there is a conflict between the desires of one and the desires of another, these conflicts are resolved according to the rules of game theory. This does not necessarily mean that every problem has a unique solution, though.
What it does mean is that we can't expect computers, self-aware or not, to help us skirt around issues concerning the balance of power between and among individuals.
To change the subject a tad, one thing I notice about people who talk here about programming computers to predict events or control the world or whatever are, by and large, not programmers.
If someone were to try to put up a hub that was actually constructive and do some of this programming, it would not likely command their interest.
Nets, yes! If the Zeitgeist movement, for instance, were willing to publish the source code of the program that is supposed to run the world, that would make for much more interesting debate.
Many of us, of course, would struggle with the programming language, and then other less sophisticated hubs would have to be written to explain it to us.
Aya, I'm not sure you've considered the implications of machine intelligence. Although it would be programmed by a species who's makeup has been determined by natural selection, there's no reason to believe that machine intelligence will be subject to the same processes. We may in fact, have to change our definition of consciousness in the face of artificial intelligence.
I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that we 've evolved due to survival pressures on the species. I'm not sure machine intelligence will have the same outlook because the survival mechanism will not be present. There may indeed be a natural selection component involved, see http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2006-04/john , but there will not be a survival component involved like there is with human evolution.
In regards to the above article, I'd like to see the computer scientists turn the idea machine's lens inward and attempt to refine and better the design of the machine. I think in that way we may achieve true artificial intelligence.
Ledefensetech, thanks for the extra information. I looked at the link. Genetic algorithms are a way to develop computer intelligence in an almost organic progression, so that the whole idea that the computer might be limited by logical directives on moral issues seems to be by-passed. An artificial intelligence that develops organically will accomplish tasks in accordance with what works on a trial and error basis. Also, there can be a survival component based on which model gets its plug pulled and which does not. So it matters very much which humans are in charge of its early development.
Genetic algorithms, while they do use natural selection, don't have the same competition factor that organic natural selection uses. What, for example, would be a predator or prey component of a machine intelligence? That's the main difference between organic and inorganic natural selection.
A developing machine intelligence would not have to worry about survival in a predator/prey environemnt, the sole concern of a machine intelligence is the optimal use of scarce resources. Thus the optimum solution would be reached and competition of other "species" of inorganic intelligence.
At least until someone comes up with "AI Robot Wars" or something, then we might see a future like the Terminator come to pass. :lol:
Ledefensetech, before we even start on AI wars between different artificial entities, keep in mind that only an AI entity that pleases its creator will survive. The rest are scrapped. So there is a strong element of natural selection right there, and people will tend to create AI beings in their own image -- and valuing what they value.
Good point. I hadn't considered that. I suppose I was looking at what I would do when creating a machine intelligence. I would most certainly program it, at its core, with the 1st law of liberty. Others might not be so far seeing.
Ledefensetech, it's hard to say what our attempts at creating AI would look like, before we actually get the necessary programming experience under our belt. At the moment I am still struggling to learn RapidQ, a language that we're using for Bow's keyboard.
What I know about programming, I could write on the head of a pin and still have enought room for the Declaration of Independence, I'm more of a systems/hardware guy. Still I suppose we'll have to see. It ought to be an interesting ride to say the least.
I've added a little video clip that simulates a conversation with a supporter of the movement who is not a spokesman.
"Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything is 42." Deep thought.
Chef Jeff, thanks for your comment. "And thanks for all the fish!"
Yes, thanks! LOL!!! Great books, and I still read them to fathom this crazy world of ours!
Wow letting a computer decide how to allocate our resources sounds pretty scary indeed. Like some science fiction movie gone wrong. I did see the movie iRobot and maybe that is why having the world be run by a giant computer makes me nervous.
Research Analayst, yes, the idea of letting a computer have control over resource allocation is very scary!
Chef Jeff, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is indeed an influential work!
Who should own a piece of land? The giant computer will allocate equal land size to each one of us. With time I’ll sell my piece of land to you so that you will have double the size and I’ll be landless. With time I’ll finish all the money you paid me. What do we do next? Do we tell the giant computer to re-allocate the land again so that we can each get equal sizes? If the giant computer did it again then certainly you will never bother to work hard again and in the final analysis we shall all become very poor.
You will hear politicians talk of equitable (read equal) allocation of resources but what they want to do is to create confusion which will result in loopholes to enable them steal more resources for themselves. In the beginning there were more resources than people but what happened that some people ended with more than the others? Even if you’re to look at the forest next to you, you will see some trees are taller than the others. Why?
If you have less than the average man - go for giant computers. If you have more than the average man - do not go for giant computers.
Ngureco, thanks for your comment. I agree!
Hello Aya Katz:
As a died-in-the-wool science fiction fan, I find this "hub" to be interesting.
We all know that yesterday's science fiction is today's reality.
If fate decides in man's favor and allows him to continue to evolve for another couple hundred years, I'm sure that man will genetically and mechanically, engineer new species of human life that will indeed include all the potential ascribed to computers.
I can visualize the future human "creature" as being a combination of both the organic and inorganic.
In fact, computer programming will have progressed to the point that "they" (computers) will be "curious" and be able to think ahead, plan and follow thru on their "thoughts." They will be able to react to stimulus willfully.
Man will, necessarily, have to program himself in such a manner that the "pure" machanical computer cannot "override" control by the "human."
I think that one day in the future of man, "he" will become totally dependent upon the power and ability inherent in the "computer."
My honest opinion though, is that, unfortunately, contemporary man will not attain the evolutionary success of aligators and sharks. He is destined to become an historical statistic. Another unadaptable, extinct facet of the processes of "Natural Selection."
Qwark
Qwark, nice to hear from another science fiction fan! I'm a little more optimistic than you of mankind's chances of survival, though I understand your concerns.
I love computers as well as many other modern creature comforts and gadgets, but I think that they are luxuries, and that we must always be prepared to survive without them.
Aya Katz:
Computers are vital to human survival. If we continue to exist for another "generation," Computer science will advance like a geometric progression. Human population will almost double in that time. The problems that will create will not be able to be solved with human thought and action. We will become dependent upon the "computer" I appreciate your optimism and that you are a fellow science fiction fan..:-)
Keep writing.
Qwark
Qwark, I sincerely hope that we do not keep doubling our population. It may be true that our technology advances geometrically with our exponential growth. We have to stop this though, because living in an artificial environment, rather than than the one that spawned us, is very expensive, and would greatly curtail individual freedom. I love freedom more than I love technology. For this reason, I support ZPG.
Hi Aya:
Natural evolution is much too slow.
For the processes of natural selection to effect complex (macro)species such as us. it would take upward of 200k years.
"Micro" evolution happens very fast because bacteria and virus can mutate very quickly to adjust to their environment.
Those of us who can visualize a "humanity" in terms of what might be "IF," understand that an integral facet of " conscious" man's continuing evolution, is a "necessity" to create an "artificial environment" which he can control , thus controlling (speeding up) his own evolution.
There is no way to, humanely, stop and control human population growth.
Unfortunately, Einstein had it right when he commented on what the 4th world war would be fought with: "...sticks and stones."
You and I, as science fiction fans, can imagine the potential man possesses and what he could accomplish "IF" he wasn't facing his potential decimation and could concentrate on "human progress."
Keep thinking and writing my friend.
Qwark
Qwark, why do you want to speed up our evolution?
Keep in mind that evolution means change to make one fit to live in a particular environment. It does not mean the perfection of any particular species and it does not mean getting better and better.
As the environment changes, a species will change, too, to accomodate those changes.
I live with a chimpanzee twelve hours a day. It is not the case that he is less evolved and I am more evolved. He is evolved to deal with certain environmental pressures better than I am, and I am evolved to deal with other environmental pressures better than he is.
Do you really want the entire human species to become autistic computer geeks? Because that's the direction in which we are currently headed.
Hi Aya:
As the, "fusion furnace," the sun runs out of fuel in about a billion years, the "brightness of the sun will transform the earth into a gobal desert.
Dropping carbon dioxide levels would starve plants of the ability to conduct photosynthesis and that will lead to the inevitable death of all living things.
"If" man survives the next 100 years as he exists today and if human population can be "humanely" reduced and controlled, the human animal will, necessarily, metamorphose itself into forms that would be unrecognizable. That "happening" could only be attributed to the vagarious processes of natural "evolution."
The anomaly "consciousness" created within the psyche of "man," a characteristic: curiosity, that drives him to seek and understand.....everything! That "drive" is genetically programmed. It cannot be controlled, and shouldn't be if he desires to become a successful species. There is enough time (about 1 billion years) for him to experience that which is needed to attain that goal but he will experience horrendous tragedy before that goal is realized.
Time is of the essence if man desires to leave this planet, before it is destroyed, to search the "universe" for habitable places.
The "theoretical physicist," Stephen Hawking (paraphrase) said that man's only chance for survival as a species is to leave this planet. As a logician, pragmatist and realist, I MUST agree.
Nice chatting with you Aya.
Qwark
Qwark, I wasn't really thinking of trying to outlive the sun. Do you also have a solution to the annihilation that we all must face when the big bang reverses itself and time will start to run backwards?
Hi Aya:
Quick response!..:-)
Hahaha....no I dont think you or I or our progeny are gonna outlive the sun. We may not make the next 100 years..:-(
As you well know, our universe is expanding. If the gravitational effects of dark energy weakens, as galaxies continue to race outward, there may not be the "rubberband" effect which would collapse and compress all mass back into whatever it was that caused the "big bang." Instead, our universe may continue to expand and all within it would be dissipated into empty space.
We are an infant species Aya. There are so many mysteries to be solved. We have just stepped upon the first rung of the ladder of "knowledge."
Keep questioning.
Qwark
Hi Aya:
Have you read my "hub:" "It Will Swallow the Earth?" It relates to what we've been chatting about.
qwark
Qwark, no I haven't I will take a look!
brad4l 2 years ago
I think you are correct that computers should not be making decisions like who gets a tract of land or decide the outcome of war. I love computers and think there are millions of uses for them, but think they should stay as more of a support tool to help people make better decisions.