Post: #76

My instinct tells me the first steps in Post-Work would just expand what we have now.

You have many Americans on unemployment, disability, or welfare.

As the economic pie grows bigger instead of those people getting $20-30k a year, it will grow where let's say half the population is on assistance and they make more like the equivalent of $60-70k a year.

This is the only way I see it going with socialism growing.

The reason it will be sustainable is because when energy and labor become insanely cheap I don't see society having any other choice. It is that or tell people to starve on the streets.

Therefore the same few % of society that is TRULY valuable to society, still will be as always as engineers, researchers, scientists, and artists.

The mask will be ripped off showing that 90%+ of society really is just monkey see monkey do and is another mouth to feed.

I consider myself one of these 90%+ until I contribute something very valuable to society.

I also would have no shame being in that group, but I think all humans would strive on some level to contribute real value because their ultimately repeatable and low level jobs aren't there to give them a false sense of accomplishment.

Post: #77

(06-12-2014 05:15 PM)Travesty444 Wrote:  My instinct tells me the first steps in Post-Work would just expand what we have now.

You have many Americans on unemployment, disability, or welfare.

As the economic pie grows bigger instead of those people getting $20-30k a year, it will grow where let's say half the population is on assistance and they make more like the equivalent of $60-70k a year.

This is the only way I see it going with socialism growing.

The reason it will be sustainable is because when energy and labor become insanely cheap I don't see society having any other choice. It is that or tell people to starve on the streets.

Therefore the same few % of society that is TRULY valuable to society, still will be as always as engineers, researchers, scientists, and artists.

The mask will be ripped off showing that 90%+ of society really is just monkey see monkey do and is another mouth to feed.

I consider myself one of these 90%+ until I contribute something very valuable to society.

I also would have no shame being in that group, but I think all humans would strive on some level to contribute real value because their ultimately repeatable and low level jobs aren't there to give them a false sense of accomplishment.

in the age where computers/ robots have a level of intelligence exponentially that which the human brain is capable of, computers will be far better engineers and researchers than humans. As for artists, if you look at the music industry, artists have already started to become devalued by technology.

I also agree that society will have no choice, which is why it will need to become a state owned model. The economics text books we study are hopelessly outdated even for right now. Labor won't just be cheap, once robots are really making robots, it'll be free, ditto for energy whether it's oil or solar/ nuclear/ renewables.

Post: #78

^

I agree in a very distant future humans will
probably be enhanced either genetically or with nanotech so computer and human will merge.

What I am talking about is what we may see in our lifetime. The first steps.

Post: #79

didn't that Ray Kurzweil timeline have computers exceeding human intelligence by 2020 or something?

Post: #80

I think the article I stole from Roosh in this thread may have it.

If I am not mistaken, a graph shows 2029.

I think right now the world's fastest computer can process as much as an insect's brain.

Post: #81

okay so by the 2030s we'll have computers more intelligent than humans. In other conversations with people i've said in 25 years doctors won't be humans, so that fits the timeline.

As far as the staying young/ alive forever part, are we also keeping alive the 75-90% of humans who aren't the producers in the present understanding? Or another philosophical question, Kurzweil talks about extension of human life by putting our thoughts or our brains into machines; why do our thoughts or brains need to stay "alive" if the machines are exponentially smarter than us? Why would a sentient computer want our primitive brain controlling or leeching off it's advanced body? If you go down this rabbit hole it starts to get a little Terminator-ish, but why would a super intelligent, self aware computer allow us primates to control it?

Post: #82

If death is good why don't you throw yourself under a bus???

I don't know any sound person who which to die.
Some pretend they want or don't mind because guess what you cannot change this fact.

There's this phrase which sometimes pops in my mind: "if only I would never die and could forever pursue the perfection of things".

Life is way to short. Every person should live at least 250years. Time to read more books travel, etc.
A con would probably be wealth distribution.
Also having the same age than my son would probably be strange.

Post: #83

(06-12-2014 07:43 PM)Pepini Wrote:  A con would probably be wealth distribution.
Also having the same age than my son would probably be strange.

For wealth distribution, worst case the rich get richer, but also the average man will have a higher standard of living than he ever has as technology progresses and there is less "busy work". I think that is not a huge problem to have for the ability to live 100s of years.

I am sure if everyone stayed and looked 18-26 humanity would come up with ways to distinguish themselves as older or younger, either by dress, style, speech, mannerisms, slang, etc...

I think the benefits of being able to keep up physically with your children and have the boundless energy of youth would be worth any initial strangeness.

I wonder if you were a 300 year old and met an 80 year old if it would seem like the 80 year old would be childish in your eyes. I am guessing more just unwise.

One of the greatest things about these possibilities is I see patience, wisdom, and judgement skills as being very valued in society over YOLO youth. This would breed a better society.

Post: #84

(06-08-2014 02:59 PM)Switch Wrote:  "It's not about the size of the dog in the fight it's about the size of the fight in the dog. "
- Michael Vick

Post: #85

There is a great deal of confusion in this thread on both sides of the argument, to the extent there is an argument.

First: all talk of "super-intelligent" or "sentient" computers is a gross category error. There are none, and none are coming down the pike.

A computer is just a tool made by humans; no less, no more. It is not different in kind from a hammer; it simply has different uses.

You can make up language about "uploading our consciousness" to a computer, but that is all it is -- language, doing nothing. One constructs a sentence and imagines it has some meaning -- but it has none. It is just nonsense -- not even wrong, just empty verbiage.

All Kurzweilian talk about "singularity" is just varieties of this nonsense. It is goofy stuff, harmless enough if it's not taken too seriously, but pernicious and confusing if it is allowed to be.

When speaking about the future, a great rule of thumb is to err on the side of modesty. Realize that all predictions are necessarily no more than vacuous extrapolations from the very vague knowledge that one commands.

Here is what we do know:

Human beings continue to create new mathematics, and computing power continues to increase. Because of the cumulative and necessarily progressive nature of mathematical and scientific knowledge, technological progress will continue as well.

It is clear now that this progress will at some point incorporate germline interventions that will alter the human being's genetic code. The exact nature and pace of these interventions is unknown and unknowable, but it is clear that they will happen at some point. It is likely that the early changes will be mostly physical enhancements that extend our lifespan and health; it is also likely that eventually increases in intelligence will follow. Further, it is clear that the accumulation of such changes over time will lead to the existence of a different and new human being that will be different in kind from the current version of the species -- the old human being, ie us.

That is all. We cannot speculate on the nature and the soul of the new human being, because, to repeat, it will be something different in kind from us. To speculate on the feelings or interests of a being different in kind is to engage in utterly idle and useless extrapolation. Again, that can be amusing if one is merely shooting the shit about sci-fi; but realize that it has absolutely nothing to do with the actual shape that the future may or may not take.

Post: #86

(06-12-2014 10:08 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  There is a great deal of confusion in this thread on both sides of the argument, to the extent there is an argument.

First: all talk of "super-intelligent" or "sentient" computers is a gross category error. There are none, and none are coming down the pike.

A computer is just a tool made by humans; no less, no more. It is not different in kind from a hammer; it simply has different uses.

You can make up language about "uploading our consciousness" to a computer, but that is all it is -- language, doing nothing. One constructs a sentence and imagines it has some meaning -- but it has none. It is just nonsense -- not even wrong, just empty verbiage.

All Kurzweilian talk about "singularity" is just varieties of this nonsense. It is goofy stuff, harmless enough if it's not taken too seriously, but pernicious and confusing if it is allowed to be.

When speaking about the future, a great rule of thumb is to err on the side of modesty. Realize that all predictions are necessarily no more than vacuous extrapolations from the very vague knowledge that one commands.

Here is what we do know:

Human beings continue to create new mathematics, and computing power continues to increase. Because of the cumulative and necessarily progressive nature of mathematical and scientific knowledge, technological progress will continue as well.

It is clear now that this progress will at some point incorporate germline interventions that will alter the human being's genetic code. The exact nature and pace of these interventions is unknown and unknowable, but it is clear that they will happen at some point. It is likely that the early changes will be mostly physical enhancements that extend our lifespan and health; it is also likely that eventually increases in intelligence will follow. Further, it is clear that the accumulation of such changes over time will lead to the existence of a different and new human being that will be different in kind from the current version of the species -- the old human being, ie us.

That is all. We cannot speculate on the nature and the soul of the new human being, because, to repeat, it will be something different in kind from us. To speculate on the feelings or interests of a being different in kind is to engage in utterly idle and useless extrapolation. Again, that can be amusing if one is merely shooting the shit about sci-fi; but realize that it has absolutely nothing to do with the actual shape that the future may or may not take.

"A computer is just a tool made by humans; no less, no more. It is not different in kind from a hammer; it simply has different uses."

A computer is just something that does computations, and by definition, includes humans.

This whole thing isn't about making machines into people but realizing that people are already machines. Chances are that most of us are not special.

That's what game is all about.

Post: #87

(06-12-2014 10:08 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  There is a great deal of confusion in this thread on both sides of the argument, to the extent there is an argument.

First: all talk of "super-intelligent" or "sentient" computers is a gross category error. There are none, and none are coming down the pike.

A computer is just a tool made by humans; no less, no more. It is not different in kind from a hammer; it simply has different uses.

You can make up language about "uploading our consciousness" to a computer, but that is all it is -- language, doing nothing. One constructs a sentence and imagines it has some meaning -- but it has none. It is just nonsense -- not even wrong, just empty verbiage.

All Kurzweilian talk about "singularity" is just varieties of this nonsense. It is goofy stuff, harmless enough if it's not taken too seriously, but pernicious and confusing if it is allowed to be.

When speaking about the future, a great rule of thumb is to err on the side of modesty. Realize that all predictions are necessarily no more than vacuous extrapolations from the very vague knowledge that one commands.

Here is what we do know:

Human beings continue to create new mathematics, and computing power continues to increase. Because of the cumulative and necessarily progressive nature of mathematical and scientific knowledge, technological progress will continue as well.

It is clear now that this progress will at some point incorporate germline interventions that will alter the human being's genetic code. The exact nature and pace of these interventions is unknown and unknowable, but it is clear that they will happen at some point. It is likely that the early changes will be mostly physical enhancements that extend our lifespan and health; it is also likely that eventually increases in intelligence will follow. Further, it is clear that the accumulation of such changes over time will lead to the existence of a different and new human being that will be different in kind from the current version of the species -- the old human being, ie us.

That is all. We cannot speculate on the nature and the soul of the new human being, because, to repeat, it will be something different in kind from us. To speculate on the feelings or interests of a being different in kind is to engage in utterly idle and useless extrapolation. Again, that can be amusing if one is merely shooting the shit about sci-fi; but realize that it has absolutely nothing to do with the actual shape that the future may or may not take.

Not being anything resembling a computer programmer i only know or learn what I read, but take something like that Jeopardy computer; it's basically a research machine, at least in the context of Jeopardy. Isn't the next logical step something that can think on it's own rather than basically recite information (if i'm properly understanding what it is)? If we created computers as a tool, doesn't it make for a better tool if it can theoretically solve problems or create better engineering or whatever as a part of it's faster processing capability?

Post: #88

Surprised Huffington Post would cover Aubrey de Grey.

Of course the article is titled - Having Sex... Forever

Can't get people to read what has a very good shot at being the issue which will, by far, change the way people live their entire lives.

The only quote that matters from Aubrey:

Quote:Still, most people don't seem to like thinking about living forever. "There are a lot of things that people don't like to think about," de Grey says. "People don't like to think about getting old and getting sick either. They pretend it's not going to happen, until it does."

But will people only accept it when the actual therapy is on the market? "I think it will happen before that," he says. "I think it will come at the moment when there is really decisive, unequivocal proof of concept in the laboratory. If we are able to take mice that are already in middle age and we rejuvenate them well enough that they will double their age, people will know that it's only a matter of time. After that, my job will be done, all the ethical debate will go away and there will be no shortage of money. Then I'll retreat to glorious obscurity and never do another interview."

Rest of the article here.

You can actually see Aubrey's transformation of his public persona game. His YouTube videos from back in 2007 he was much more antsy and almost angry at audiences this wasn't getting more attention. He has shifted in more of a IDAF attitude, pretty much saying "hey I don't care if you believe this or not I am making it happen, get over it". His interviews have concise witty answers he has practiced and displayed a bit of amused mastery by turning things around on the interviewer or audience in a jovial manner in a borderline arrogant way to put them on their heels, which I think is a much better response than being timid or angry or just factual and serious which would not gain enough attention.

Post: #89

http://www.theverge.com/2014/9/3/6102377...rch-abbvie

Google $1.5 billion in.

Post: #90

The idea of living forever in a world controlled by really old wealthy assholes with no incentive to pass the torch and who never age is frightening. Eternal slavery with no end. Literally hell on Earth.

At least if you couldn't physically escape the Gulag in the old days you could just fucking die.

Post: #91

Rich people will make this happen out of self interest whether the peasants want it or not.

How about a world of only a select elite that stay young forever behind the curtains?

I'd rather have all the technology publicly available and transparent.

Post: #92

(09-04-2014 04:19 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  The idea of living forever in a world controlled by really old wealthy assholes with no incentive to pass the torch and who never age is frightening. Eternal slavery with no end. Literally hell on Earth.

At least if you couldn't physically escape the Gulag in the old days you could just fucking die.

Yes, that must be about the time a new breed of explorers set sail for Mars. Then of course, soon the Crown will send her ships to bring in the uppity colonies. If there is one thing that would make me want to live 500 years it is to see us colonize the solar system.

Post: #93

(06-08-2014 02:17 PM)rekruler Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 01:52 PM)Switch Wrote:  That sounds terrible. Life is supposed to end.

Death is not feature of life. Death is the antithesis of life. The greatest enemy of life is death. If you enjoy life, then you hate death. This shit is so obvious I can't believe I'm spelling it out. If I were the world's richest man I would gladly give up all that money + my left nut to be biologically 20 years old forever (or rather, until statistics took me out).

Totally agree with rekruler.

@Switch: if you believe that death is good, then what is the point of your life, and your living, if you're gonna die anyway, and for eternity you will spend it dead, and nothing you ever did in this life will matter at all.
Then if you consider death to be good, what is the point of still living now,
nothing at all will still matter for you in 100 years from now, nor in 100 millions from now...

Post: #94

staying youthful looking longer is a nice idea. I hate when I see women hitting the wall prematurely. the truth is that suntanning is bad and sunscreen lotions can't guarantee you a 100% protection. It's one of those things everyone involved in dermatology knows but it's not enough publicly acknowledged because there's a lot of interests at the stake in seaside tourism.

Post: #95

Haha, people are already going insane just for living 70 years. We can not handle immortality.

Post: #96

This chart summarizes some of the key lifestyle and diet points for the longest living people on earth:

I like the study the lives of these people.

Post: #97

I was thinking about this more the other day, and now I realize how rediculous immortality is.

Almost certainly, the overwhelming perponderence of evidence found in nature suggests that all living things are programmed to die.

Has there ever been a case of something living forever?
Do all animals evolve from other animals?

Thus it is plain to see that nothing lives forever.

And now science will save us? Can science even make something as simple as a tiny bacteria live forever? What makes them think they can do it for something 1000x more complicated as a human? Scientists today do not have the slightest inkling of how DNA actually works, and until they can make something as small as a little fly or toad live forever then no one should take this stuff seriously.

Post: #98

(09-05-2014 09:16 AM)Giovonny Wrote:  This chart summarizes some of the key lifestyle and diet points for the longest living people on earth:

I like the study the lives of these people.

"Empowered Women"



Cool with the rest of it, though.

Post: #99

(09-05-2014 09:41 AM)Samseau Wrote:  I was thinking about this more the other day, and now I realize how rediculous immortality is.

Almost certainly, the overwhelming perponderence of evidence found in nature suggests that all living things are programmed to die.

Thus it is plain to see that nothing lives forever.

This is very easily debunked:

Internet is not natural - it doesn't exist anywhere else in nature.

Airplanes are not natural - they don't exist anywhere else in nature.

Computers are not natural - they don't exist anywhere else in nature.

Washing machines are not natural - they don't exist anywhere else in nature.

Smartphones are not natural - they don't exist anywhere else in nature.

This is called technology progress, and it is not natural.

People being able to cure more diseases, and live young forever,
is a very good techonological progress as well

Post: #100

(09-05-2014 09:41 AM)Samseau Wrote:  I was thinking about this more the other day, and now I realize how rediculous immortality is.

Almost certainly, the overwhelming perponderence of evidence found in nature suggests that all living things are programmed to die.

Has there ever been a case of something living forever?
Do all animals evolve from other animals?

Thus it is plain to see that nothing lives forever.

http://www.cracked.com/article_20055_6-u...ortal.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydra_(genus)
http://animals.howstuffworks.com/marine-.../printable
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planarian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turritopsis_dohrnii