There are so many things nowadays to be worried about. What do you think is the biggest threat for mankind right now or in the near future?
Edited by dunbar, 03 January 2014 - 12:26 AM.
Posted 03 January 2014 - 12:22 AM
Edited by dunbar, 03 January 2014 - 12:26 AM.
Posted 07 January 2014 - 05:32 PM
Posted 07 January 2014 - 06:37 PM
Posted 09 January 2014 - 10:41 PM
Posted 11 January 2014 - 05:12 PM
Edited by AgeVivo, 11 January 2014 - 05:14 PM.
Posted 11 January 2014 - 06:10 PM
Posted 17 January 2014 - 04:21 PM
Posted 20 January 2014 - 01:51 PM
Posted 20 January 2014 - 06:46 PM
What do you fear about AI? Like robots turning against humans?
Posted 22 January 2014 - 10:03 AM
Edited by Deep Thought, 22 January 2014 - 10:04 AM.
Posted 23 January 2014 - 09:05 PM
Edited by Florian Xavier, 23 January 2014 - 09:06 PM.
Posted 23 January 2014 - 09:57 PM
http://www.treehugge...e-gone.html
http://guymcpherson....gical-collapse/
by far
Posted 24 January 2014 - 12:15 AM
Posted 24 January 2014 - 03:08 AM
Posted 28 January 2015 - 01:39 PM
Overpopulation.
Posted 01 February 2015 - 10:49 AM
I'd say immortality, if achieved in the near future, is a huge threat in itself. It would pose an enormous number of moral dilemmas in all aspects of life. This idea of immortality scares me the most although I'd like to be immortal mostly because of irrational instincts. Immortality would certainly bring a new meaning to the word "egotism".
Posted 01 February 2015 - 06:10 PM
What exactly disturbs you in he immortality? People can be forever young, if they control their birth rate. What moral dilemmas you mean?
Posted 02 February 2015 - 10:37 PM
What exactly disturbs you in he immortality? People can be forever young, if they control their birth rate. What moral dilemmas you mean?
I think a wide range of social institutes and ideas would become obsolete. Like parenthood, jobs, romantic love etc. Many things which people nowadays uncritically see as laws of nature would become very dubious. I think most of the selflessness in a modern world arises out of a despair of a mortal human, so if people became biologically immortal they'd be less willing to do any sacrifice for others. Immortality would create a Nietzschean world where strength would be the only measure of goodness. But this period wouldn't last long so we'd not be able to enjoy our immortality to its full. The questions of eugenics would surge in importance, also technologies would enable enhancement of our bodies and minds which, in my opinion, would inevitably lead to the extinction of humans as a result of singularity. Humans are too inefficient conductors of information and innovation after all. I suggest it would be the end of biological evolution and a new, digital or informational evolution would start.
Edited by Maecenas, 02 February 2015 - 10:37 PM.
Posted 03 February 2015 - 12:31 PM
Parenthood maybe - we will have to control our birth rate. Jobs.. maybe you mean jobs like workers in kinder gardens. Why do you think, that romantic love will disappear? What social institutions you think will disappear too? The Nietzschean world is not necessary. What system will be there in an immortal society is completely different question. All systems are possible in an immortal people world. Why the singularity will lead to extinction? Humans are too inefficient conductors of information and innovation after all. Lol from the known alive things today, the humans are the most efficient in inventions. Does the evolution of people exist today? The sacrifice for others, and what exactly they sacrifice is up to personality. In the current world, the sacrifice for others is on the way to disappear anyway.
Posted 03 March 2015 - 06:51 PM
What exactly disturbs you in he immortality? People can be forever young, if they control their birth rate. What moral dilemmas you mean?
I think a wide range of social institutes and ideas would become obsolete. Like parenthood, jobs, romantic love etc. Many things which people nowadays uncritically see as laws of nature would become very dubious. I think most of the selflessness in a modern world arises out of a despair of a mortal human, so if people became biologically immortal they'd be less willing to do any sacrifice for others. Immortality would create a Nietzschean world where strength would be the only measure of goodness. But this period wouldn't last long so we'd not be able to enjoy our immortality to its full. The questions of eugenics would surge in importance, also technologies would enable enhancement of our bodies and minds which, in my opinion, would inevitably lead to the extinction of humans as a result of singularity. Humans are too inefficient conductors of information and innovation after all. I suggest it would be the end of biological evolution and a new, digital or informational evolution would start.
In order:
1. Social institutions have been going under since time immemorial. The real issue here is re-employment once the institutions go under as such; employment is already a looming issue due to increased robotic usage and will likely have to be dealt via with a universal basic income at some point and will, eventually, lead to a post-scarcity economy insofar as basic needs are concerned.. However in this case parenthood and romantic love is not going under (and not completely either) due to immortality; it will be curtailed by people using VR-based sexual experiences in place of real relationships (relationships are very hard, risky, and expensive. VR is not).
2. Selflessness is not the issue; being willing to assist others is. People are much more willing to do that when they have enough and have trust sufficient in the other to believe they're not being taken advantage of. Both these things are more the case when the giver is more experienced and established as a longer lived person tends to be.
3. Speaking generally, indefinite lifespan and the singularity are separate topics. You can argue for one and against the other as you like, especially when it comes to AI-based general superintelligence. What I would point out here is that we are perfectly capable of full cellular rejuvenation WITHOUT the singularity whether or not it might take longer to accomplish in that case.
Edited by Sanhar, 03 March 2015 - 06:53 PM.
Posted 04 March 2015 - 04:24 PM
Jenny McCarthy.
Posted 16 April 2015 - 04:23 PM
I fear too many things
Posted 19 April 2015 - 04:10 PM
What exactly disturbs you in he immortality? People can be forever young, if they control their birth rate. What moral dilemmas you mean?
I think a wide range of social institutes and ideas would become obsolete. Like parenthood, jobs, romantic love etc. Many things which people nowadays uncritically see as laws of nature would become very dubious. I think most of the selflessness in a modern world arises out of a despair of a mortal human, so if people became biologically immortal they'd be less willing to do any sacrifice for others. Immortality would create a Nietzschean world where strength would be the only measure of goodness. But this period wouldn't last long so we'd not be able to enjoy our immortality to its full. The questions of eugenics would surge in importance, also technologies would enable enhancement of our bodies and minds which, in my opinion, would inevitably lead to the extinction of humans as a result of singularity. Humans are too inefficient conductors of information and innovation after all. I suggest it would be the end of biological evolution and a new, digital or informational evolution would start.
I dont think this will happen like you fear it will:
-Selfless actions have nothing to do with the lifespann of people, but if you think they do, why should someondo anything selfless if he/she, as someon once said, will only walk this path once?
-Whats the problem with people enhancing themselves? If we can eliminate that what we call the human condition which, to put it brutally simple, is nothing more than a bunch of horrible problems we are FORCED to face (loonlines, mortality, the question of freedom, suffering and all that together making the quest for meaning a bit "meaningless") and which is seen as a wonderfull thing by a horde of medicore philosophers* who get to much attention, then i have no problem with us ending mankind, without bringing an end to the individuals of which it consists. Nietzsche was a bit insane, but he was right, so that the Übermensch (Superhuman) may live, Man and God have to die.
*philosophy maybe something that shouldnt be left to the philosophers but to the scientists
Posted 17 June 2015 - 04:31 AM
What exactly disturbs you in he immortality? People can be forever young, if they control their birth rate. What moral dilemmas you mean?
I think a wide range of social institutes and ideas would become obsolete. Like parenthood, jobs, romantic love etc. Many things which people nowadays uncritically see as laws of nature would become very dubious. I think most of the selflessness in a modern world arises out of a despair of a mortal human, so if people became biologically immortal they'd be less willing to do any sacrifice for others. Immortality would create a Nietzschean world where strength would be the only measure of goodness. But this period wouldn't last long so we'd not be able to enjoy our immortality to its full. The questions of eugenics would surge in importance, also technologies would enable enhancement of our bodies and minds which, in my opinion, would inevitably lead to the extinction of humans as a result of singularity. Humans are too inefficient conductors of information and innovation after all. I suggest it would be the end of biological evolution and a new, digital or informational evolution would start.
Great, immortal people will no longer sacrifice themselves to die in wars.
I don't see why immortals couldn't experience real love. It's time that parenthood becomes obsolete. It's such a huge waste that people die just a few decades after they reached the skills and knowledge to do things and then having to teach this again to children and endlessly repeating this cycle.
Edited by s123, 17 June 2015 - 04:40 AM.
Posted 17 June 2015 - 02:11 PM
But what would be life without unnecessary suffering ? Will life be worth it ?
Imagine not being condamned to work and die an horrible death ? I mean what's the point ?
This is why anti-aging therapies and IA robots are a disaster.
Edited by Florian Xavier, 17 June 2015 - 02:13 PM.
Posted 17 June 2015 - 02:17 PM
But what would be life without unnecessary suffering ? Will life be worth it ?
Imagine not being condamned to work and die an horrible death ? I mean what's the point ?
This is why anti-aging therapies and IA robots are a disaster.
Posted 19 June 2015 - 08:42 PM
Lol there is a new life-treatening risk : the sixth mass extinction
Sixth mass extinction is here: Humanity's existence threatened
http://www.scienceda...50619152142.htm
all in all, it will be a miracle if we are still alive in 100 years, between this and robots killing us and climate change, overpopulation and WW3 or crazy terrorists xD.
Not mentionning epidemics, asteroids or a brutal end of the universe xD
Because 4 years ago, scientists had already warned about this : http://www.scienceda...10302131844.htm and humanty didn't care, the chance that we will see a regain of interest sufficient to fix the problem is from 0,01 to 0,05%.
Edited by Florian Xavier, 19 June 2015 - 09:05 PM.
Posted 19 June 2015 - 11:38 PM
Phase transition :
http://www.huffingto..._n_4437807.html
It's better to laught at how much the universe is hostile.
Posted 10 January 2016 - 08:43 AM
Phase transition :
http://www.huffingto..._n_4437807.html
It's better to laught at how much the universe is hostile.
I will not hold my breath for it.
Posted 15 January 2016 - 03:33 AM
WHY IS HUMAN STUPIDITY NOT LISTED? I CALL FOR A RE-LISTING OF SELECTIONS!
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users