36 replies to this topic

[samson]

Utopia or Dystopia, you ask? Will the world be a wondrous paradise of joy, ambition and magic, or a dark and brooding hell, ruled over by orwellian tyranny? Will the tecnological process give birth to unseen wealth and fortune, or will the nature's ire for mankind strike us with righteous fist? Oh the endless, two, possibilities!
**** you, people. You place too much faith on humanity. We'll be sitting on our asses like we have always done. You can't believe that we could possibly create the said paradise on earth, or so hopelessly **** things up. It just won't happen. The world won't be a place of joy and happiness, free of hate and tyranny, free of bigotry and idiocity. It won't be a place of hate, fear and suffering, devoid of humanity and compassion, either. It will be the same dump, the same pile of shit, the same human sitting on it, pondering the meaning of life.
And therefore I prophesy, as is the theme of the thread, that it will be the same. Sure, some of the problems will be solved, like world hunger, thirst, need for energy (for a short while atleast), and all that. Some of the problems will be the same, like war, death and human suffering. Hope, joy, hate, bigotry, all will exist as they have existed to this day.
Make no mistake, most of todays problems will be solved. New ones will be born, like they always have. Nanocides taking uncounted lives, malignant viruses frying cyberbrains, malfuntioning servers causing losses some will never recover from, atmosphere control going AWOL and causing super-storms that rage across continents. Pain, suffering and death.
New glory will begin, a golden age of human ambition. Humanity will breach it's biological boundaries and evolve with ferocious speed. Gene-traits shaping our minds and bodies, nano-machines flowing in our veins, healing and augmenting. Non-biological intelligence merging with ours, giving birth to intelligences unmatched by any of todays'. Joy, happines and glory.

A new age will give new glory, new suffering and new promises of a better tomorrow. That, or somebody pushes the wrong button.

Edit by navigation:
This thread was split from 'Christian Communism' here:
http://www.imminst.o...=170&t=15556&s=

Edited by cnorwood, 24 April 2007 - 11:51 PM.

[maestro949]

The ability to shut off pain receptors will be available within 10 years. Sooner likely.

Drugs that perfectly balance emotions will be available in 20 years. Suffering will slowly fade into non-existance over the next couple of century as a result.

A full suite of computer aided self-diagnostic tests and DIY nanotherapies will be available within 30 years. General practioners will not exist as we know them today. Average life expectancy will be rapidly accelerating at this point. Cognative enhancers will be what todays multi-vitamins are.

Most pathologies will have medical cures within 40 years the rest will be maintainable. Aging diseases will start to fall one by one. Rejuvenation therapies will be in full swing and maximum age will be accelerating. Mind-Machine implants will further enhance cognition and memory.

In 50 years we will have constructed internal biorecycling plants that recycle proteins such that eating food will be optional. Our clothing will collect water from the air and recycle/reinject our persperation.

Within 75 years 1/3 of the population of advanced societies' information workers will be connected to the grid 24/7 and work in a virtual economy. Sleep will no longer be needed.

By 2150 this number will be 50%. Global issues of energy, population, hunger and conflict will start to decline in significance. Nanotechnology, automation and computing will have transformed every aspect of life by this time.

Within 3-4 centuries the entire world population will be wirelessly connected to a series of matrix-like grids breaking off periodically only for maintenance and upgrades. We will essentially carry out our day to day activities in an advanced form of World of Warcraft.

In 2-3 millenia our minds and senses will be shared and linked as we float around the solar system on extraterrestrial transports.

In 100,000 years we will be exploring the Milky Way.

[caston]

I wonder what the Marxist view of the singularity is?

[samson]

Maestro, you might want to start presenting EVIDENCE of some sort to back those time estimates of yours.

That, and I believe much more drastic changes than you present will occur.

[maestro949]

I'm just reading the tea leaves (green tea leaves that is) and listening to what they tell me. The predictions are based on studying a cross-set of microbiology, chemistry, physics, molecular dynamics and computational & complexity theories and then using my imagination to envision emergent technologies and concepts that will evolve out of these based on market forces, social pressures and individual decision making. Despite the chaos that we see at a global level there are many trends across all of these strata and within each field of science and various markets that are quite easy to follow.

Many of these fields and markets are still disjointed with little overlap. As the edges of these "networks" increasingly overlap it will result in higher levels of emergence. The most profound emergence we will see nearterm are from the crossets of high-throughput computational chemistry (think protein folding), data driven advancements in molecular knowledge (genomics) and drug design and miniaturization (nanotech). Tip of the iceberg samson. The revolution hasn't even begun yet. The 20th century gave us the basic tools. the 21st we will uncover the knowledge and start applying it. There's no looking back from there. Buckle yourself in dude.

That, and I believe much more drastic changes than you present will occur.

Drastic in regards to what? Nuclear detonations, mass plagues, major grid failures, social upheaval, etc? Sure, there will be some bumps along the way but the upward trends will continue nonetheless.

[samson]

I'm just reading the tea leaves (green tea leaves that is) and listening to what they tell me.  The predictions are based on studying a cross-set of microbiology, chemistry, physics, molecular dynamics and computational & complexity theories and then using my imagination to envision emergent technologies and concepts that will evolve out of these based on market forces, social pressures and individual decision making.  Despite the chaos that we see at a global level there are many trends across all of these strata and within each field of science and various markets that are quite easy to follow. 

WELL, since the evidence is so abundant, obvious, and easy to follow, you wouldn't mind expounding upon it, eh? Besides, you wouldn't really expect there to be any real debating or intelligunt conversation without anything to debate on, would you?

Many of these fields and markets are still disjointed with little overlap.  As the edges of these "networks" increasingly overlap it will result in higher levels of  emergence.  The most profound emergence we will see nearterm are from the crossets of high-throughput computational chemistry (think protein folding), data driven advancements in molecular knowledge (genomics) and drug design and miniaturization (nanotech).  Tip of the iceberg samson.  The revolution hasn't even begun yet.  The 20th century gave us the basic tools.  the 21st we will uncover the knowledge and start applying it.  There's no looking back from there.  Buckle yourself in dude.

Well, DUDE, I *know* that. I've read my Kurzweil (and Freitas and all that crap) after all, no matter how much I felt like chewing on shit after reading *his* predictions on the wonderland that is to come in 50 years, according to him. What *I* am asking, is where will this development put us in, say, 40 years.
The most obvious one, the one that we can already observe in high gear as to say, is the Information paradigm shift, and what it does to global economy. Information has largely become free, and with it, the markets have taken an interesting turn when it comes to trading with it. That is, the drastic decrease in the overall price of information, though it is masked by the explosive growth of the actual market size.
What I wonder is that will the same decrease and diminishment of price do to medical and other markets. As biotech and nanotech revolutions crunch into full gear, what will it do to the scarcity and high costs of affected markets (which are actually almost everything, but anyways)? End of material poverty? Or what?
Of course, nanotech and biotech revolutions won't solve all the scarcity of human life, namely that of cognitive capability. That's the area of robotics revolution, but I think it's too far away to be taken into this conversation just yet.
So what I'm pondering is, how will the G and N revolutions affect human society as capitalism as a mode of regulation becomes moot, as the abundancy of virtually everything will make the wealth classes meaningless.
One possibility, as presented by our doomsday-sign waving commie, is that the ruling class, in desperation, will attempt to control the revolutions. And that'll be easy, just like controlling teh intarbutt, amirite? All you have to is to control all research and flow of information done everywhere in the world. Pisa cake, eh?
Nay, the most likely course is the gradual diminishment and eventually (in exponential timescale) the decreasement into virtual obscrunity, of the cost and meaning of material wealth and medical skill. This would lead to the eventual, and peacefull I hope, collapse of capitalistic marketing economy. What follows, is the open question...

Drastic in regards to what?  Nuclear detonations, mass plagues, major grid failures, social upheaval, etc?  Sure, there will be some bumps along the way but the upward trends will continue nonetheless.

Bitch, please. I was talking about the drastic changes when it comes to the actual changes that the GNR revolution brings forth. Genetics, biotech (including the protein folding question, which actually falls under nanotech and -medicine), nanomedicine and all are just dimishingly small when they're compared to the other facets. Merger technology and conjoining are just two examples that will shape the nature of humanity to it's foundations, but that's that.

[maestro949]

WELL, since the evidence is so abundant, obvious, and easy to follow, you wouldn't mind expounding upon it, eh? Besides, you wouldn't really expect there to be any real debating or intelligunt conversation without anything to debate on, would you?

Not sure what you are asking for here. A list of precursor technologies and therapies that will revolutionize society? Pointers to various market analysis that predict growth & consolidation based on major technological improvements? A roadmap of how technologies will emerge and converge? A list of increasing efficiencies such as Moore's Law, or how many atoms can be simulated by x computing cycles, or how many species have had their DNA decoded, how much faster we can complete NP complete complexity classes than a year ago, the increase in the number and type of complex problems we can tackle yearly? I could write a book on what I've read and compiled in the past two years on just genomics and informatics alone but it will be obsolte in 12 months thanks to the accelerating speeds at which the data, tools & tech that is pouring out of these fields. I'd get to chapter 6 and have to rewrite chapter 1-3 at which point 4-6 would then be obsolete!

As biotech and nanotech revolutions crunch into full gear, what will it do to the scarcity and high costs of affected markets (which are actually almost everything, but anyways)? End of material poverty? Or what?

Technology will drive inefficiences out of every material market. All materials needed to sustain current and even larger populations (food, water & basic goods) will become mass producible commodities. Luxury goods and entertainment services (most entertainment will be virtual) will exist for quite some time I suspect but intellectual rewards will be more desired when cognative enhancements are generally available to all. Whether these commodities will be made available to all is still in question, especially for the early generations, but I suspect they will as a larger percentage of individuals reach a point of sustenance and enhanced (technologically) thinking such that fears are so diminished that they willingly choose to turn their attention to helping others and solving global problems.

nanomedicine and all are just dimishingly small when they're compared to the other facets

I disagree. The changes that lead to indefinite lifespans and enhanced cognative abilities will be the most significant changes that affect humanity as all of the social contracts are based upon the life-death cycle and assumptions that individual decisionmaking is a result of slavery to biological programming (e.g. fear, fight-flight, etc). When these limitations (weaknesses have you) are lifted, the social contracts will need to be renegotiated or simply tossed out altogether. Perhaps they will simply go obsolete and be ignored as outdated laws from past centuries do.

What follows, is the open question...

What will follow will be an organic cooperative meritocracy based on networks of individuals that interact with each other at several levels. These networks will be interest based and will compete for high-order resources and access to powerbrokers within other networks. Examples would be scientific projects, information organization, technological, entertainment and spiritual. These networks will have lifecycles, overlap and interact at many levels. Due to cognative enhancements individuals with the ability to think in a multi-threaded fashion along with AI stand-ins will be able to belong to 10s of thousands of these networks simultaneously and fit within a hierarchical pecking order for each based on their merit. Precursors of these types of networks are today's internet forums, myspace, mailing lists, newsgroups, religious affiliations, corporations. These will continue to grow in sophistication, increasingly overlap and develop independent revenue streams that provide micro-salaries to individual participants/contributors (again, merit based). At times various groups will choose to break off and start new colonies that will evolve into different flavors of civizations and networks.


Edit: Fixed typo, grammar

Edited by maestro949, 29 April 2007 - 03:47 PM.

[halcyondays]

Interestingly, the clinically depressed seem less susceptible to these basic cognitive errors. For instance, healthy people can be deluded into greater happiness when granted the mere illusion of control over their environment; the clinically depressed recognize the illusion for what it is. All in all, it's yet more evidence that unhappy people have the more accurate view of reality — and that learning how to kid ourselves may be a key to mental health.

[Shannon Vyff]

lol-- my husband's book is the opposite of mine--in portrayal of the future.

He won an award for a Texas Manuscript competition Science Fiction/Fantasy/Horror, and AnotherRealm.com's Higney.

His is also a pretty accurate portrayal of future where the wealthy live in protected green areas, and the urban poor/whole cities are sort of worse than third world countries today, but they have black market nano-tech drugs and such.

I almost didn't date him because it was so dark and violent--but he is very 'guy' ,damn smart, and strangely--one of the happiest humans I've seen--driven yes, but with a laugh that is distinguished within a movie theatre. I can't wait for his book to come out-- It'll likely be a year or so... but it is fun to see how differently people strongly believe our future will be.

[maestro949]

All in all, it's yet more evidence that unhappy people have the more accurate view of reality � and that learning how to kid ourselves may be a key to mental health.

In a world of near-perfect and realitme information reality is all to easy to grasp. It takes quite a bit of will and imagination to rise above the herd's cynicism and have hope confidence that positive change can be made and then work towards that change without subjecting yourself to a life of clinical depression.

[samson]

Not sure what you are asking for here.  A list of precursor technologies and therapies that will revolutionize society?  Pointers to various market analysis that predict growth & consolidation based on major technological improvements?  A roadmap of how technologies will emerge and converge?  A list of increasing efficiencies such as Moore's Law, or how many atoms can be simulated by x computing cycles, or how many species have had their DNA decoded, how much faster we can complete NP complete complexity classes than a year ago, the increase in the number and type of complex problems we can tackle yearly?  I could write a book on what I've read and compiled in the past two years on just genomics and informatics alone but it will be obsolte in 12 months thanks to the accelerating speeds at which the data, tools & tech that is pouring out of these fields.  I'd get to chapter 6 and have to rewrite chapter 1-3 at which point 4-6 would then be obsolete!

I mean the proof that makes you say that everyday nanomedicine and regular cognition udgrades are within 30 years, and so on. Complete essays and articles (books too, if one can conviniently access them) would be nice, but correlating statistic and the like will do, if they support your case with the time estimates.

Technology will drive inefficiences out of every material market.  All materials needed to sustain current and even larger populations (food, water & basic goods) will become mass producible commodities.

They are that already, food and basic goods.
What I do wonder is, what will happen when humanity turns into more ambitious projects, such that need every available resource. High-scale (think planetary ring like) superstructures would be quite impossible if you had to support billions of humans at the same time, AND provide them with adequate living conditions. Then what will humanity choose? High population or more ambitious projects? Because eventually a point will be reached where you will have to choose either, or so I'd reckon.

Luxury goods and entertainment services (most entertainment will be virtual) will exist for quite some time I suspect but intellectual rewards will be more desired when cognative enhancements are generally available to all.  Whether these commodities will be made available to all is still in question, especially for the early generations, but I suspect they will as a larger percentage of individuals reach a point of sustenance and enhanced (technologically) thinking such that fears are so diminished that they willingly choose to turn their attention to helping others and solving global problems.

Abso-fucking-lutely not. Why? Simple, just look at our avarage stupendously rich person. They essentially have every concievable thing they can wish for, and you can count those who actively seek to solve global problems with your fingers. How would enchanting of intelligence affect this selfish quality? On the controrary, I've noticed that it is intelligence that makes humans selfish and shallow, as they have the means to pursue their egotistic aims.
It's not intelligence, pure counting power and grasping of consepts we need, but wisdom and morality. Granted, I do not concur to either, chaotic and unruly as I am, but I do see the need for wise and benevolent leaders and individuals (those with power, mind you. An individual without power is meaningless to The Greater Good) before highly intelligent.

I disagree.  The changes that lead to indefinite lifespans and enhanced cognative abilities will be the most significant changes that affect humanity as all of the social contracts are based upon the life-death cycle and assumptions that individual decisionmaking is a result of slavery to biological programming (e.g. fear, fight-flight, etc).  When these limitations (weaknesses have you) are lifted, the social contracts will need to be renegotiated or simply tossed out altogether.  Perhaps they will simply go obsolete and be ignored as outdated laws from past centuries do.

Nanomedicine is not reprogramming and enchanting human performance. It is the practice of curing human ailments through nanotechnology, nothing more. Get your definations straight.
Anyways, I do agree with you. The elimination and changing of basic human reactions (not fight-flight, as combat situations are always that, a computation of favourable outcomes versus risks) and reflexes does rise problems when it comes to both human interraction and social contracts. It brings great change, but I am not sure if it's for the best. I mean for example, the elimination of guilt and doubt in an individual would breed a particularly vicius criminal. Toss in the lack of fear and ruthless ambition, and you've got a regular Devil on your hands.
Difficult questions rise when it comes to engineering of human nature... Hmm, actually I see a correlation between the FAI question and this one, though this one might be, IS even more threatening, as we cannot control every human. All it takes just one curious human to bestow this world with an unshackled demon. The worst part is, there are great many of such humans...
I don't want to think the alternatives if "we" fail at this question. Okay, I do, but that's inconsequential.

What will follow will be an organic cooperative meritocracy based on networks of individuals that interact with each other at several levels.  These networks will be interest based and will compete for high-order resources and access to powerbrokers within other networks.  Examples would be scientific projects, information organization, technological, entertainment and spiritual.  These networks will have lifecycles, overlap and interact at many levels.  Due to cognative enhancements individuals with the ability to think in a multi-threaded fashion along with AI stand-ins will be able to belong to 10s of thousands of these networks simultaneously and fit within a hierarchical pecking order for each based on their merit.  Precursors of these types of networks are today's internet forums, myspace, mailing lists, newsgroups, religious affiliations, corporatins.  These will continue to grow in sophistication, increasingly overlap and develop independent revenue streams that provide micro-salaries to individual participants/contributors (again, merit based).  At times various groups will choose to break off and start new colonies that will evolve into different flavors of civizations and networks.

Wow, that's quite a claim. You might want to start elaborating and argumenting why such would be, before I even start mounting counter-arguments. You've got some proofing to do.

Interestingly, the clinically depressed seem less susceptible to these basic cognitive errors. For instance, healthy people can be deluded into greater happiness when granted the mere illusion of control over their environment; the clinically depressed recognize the illusion for what it is. All in all, it's yet more evidence that unhappy people have the more accurate view of reality — and that learning how to kid ourselves may be a key to mental health.

Funny. I wonder how far that goes. I mean, I'm psychotic as hell and depressed beyond emo (though everybody knows that those gutless sacks of *nothing* have neither the balls to kill themselves, nor the depression they moan of). I wonder, maybe I've got some divine insight to the true nature of the universe. [tung]

lol-- my husband's book is the opposite of mine--in portrayal of the future.

He won an award for a Texas Manuscript competition  Science Fiction/Fantasy/Horror, and AnotherRealm.com's Higney.

His is also a pretty accurate portrayal of future where the wealthy live in protected green areas, and the urban poor/whole cities are sort of worse than third world countries today, but they have black market nano-tech drugs and such. 

I almost didn't date him because it was so dark and violent--but he is very 'guy' ,damn smart, and strangely--one of the happiest humans I've seen--driven yes, but with a laugh that is distinguished within a movie theatre.  I can't wait for his book to come out-- It'll likely be a year or so... but it is fun to see how differently people strongly believe our future will be.

First of all, I just *love* the dark, the violent and the moody things. [lol]
Second, what's the book called? Piques my interest.

Edited by samson, 27 April 2007 - 10:32 PM.

[Shannon Vyff]

It's unofficial title is 'unProtected'.

I read a chapter he sent after we met on match.com--and I really thought he might be a bit nutty--lots of blood--sex--backstabbing--just reading the synopsis makes one depressed....

Good thing, I responded to him anyway--he's the most moral guy I've met. The book is very intellectual really.

[Shannon Vyff]

Hah! He said he'll thank me when accepting his Hugo award! I'm sure he'll outsell me someday

Now since he's a cryonicist --maybe he'll work it into some plot

[maestro949]

I mean the proof that makes you say that everyday nanomedicine and regular cognition udgrades are within 30 years, and so on. Complete essays and articles (books too, if one can conviniently access them) would be nice, but correlating statistic and the like will do, if they support your case with the time estimates.

It's more than just nanomedicine and cog upgrades. The list of potential technologies and therapies that will combine to have an impact are vast. It's difficult to find comprehensive articles that can accurately consolidate all of these advancing technologies. Experts within specific fields are even overwhelmed with the amount of information and new technology pouring out as we are increasingly attacking problems in an interdisciplinary fashion. This isn't going to slow down but rather continue to accelerate. Here's a quick list of stuff off the top of my head. I'm sure that I'm missing much and the detail behind each is an ocean of turbulent change and advancement...


- Stem Cell Therapy - Has and is already showing signs of significant rejuvenation capabilities
- RNAi Therapy - Only discovered a decade ago and RNAi based therapies are already in trials
- Gene Therapy - Still holds promise despite some early setbacks.
- Phages & Viral therapies
- Telomeres
- Biomarker Detection
- Imaging technology (radio, flourescence, microscopy, xray crystalography, etc)
- Artificial Organs
- Bioengineered tissues & organs along with the ability to keep organs alive outside the body (Organ, Tissue & Stem Cell Banking)
- The explosion of biological / genomic & proteomic data
- Neutriceuticals such as resveratrol and antioxidants. We will likely find many more natural molecules that have health and neuroprotective properties.
- High throughput screening & lab-on-a-chip devices
- miniturization/nanotech/nanomedicine - I lump drug design into nanomedicine as the same molecular CAD tools will be used for designing next gen "smart drugs" will also be used for evolving larger molecular complexes that can be self-assembled. While nanomedicine still needs some tools to evolve, first versions of many small-scale implants are rippling through the medical community today.
- cog upgrades - smart drugs are already here (Modafinil?), improved versions are already being worked in the labs. Implants for disease are already helping Parkinson's patients and electrodes that allow signals to interface the brain for visual, auditory and speech are being tested today. Finding mechanisms to extend and retrieve memories might be next.
- Computing advances - genetic algorithms, AI, informatics and many other NP algorithms, parallel processing applied to all of the above. In silico simulations of subcelluar components, computational neuroscience & chemistry, distributed computing, faster networks, supercomputing, etc, etc. the list here goes on and on. I can't stress enough how fast the computing advances combined with plugging in genomic and proteomic data into systems models will enable us to design extremely effective combinatorial multi-molecular and gene therapies that make the small molecular solutions of the past few decades look like a joke, despite the billions poured into them.
- Self Directed Medical Care - This is going to be huge. You can pump your gas so you should be able to prick your finger and take some blood. Surely people will still want to run things by doctors but do-it-yourself monitoring devices (blood analysis, heart rate, temp, swallowable devices, urinalysis, etc) that plug into your USB port and upload data for analysis will revolutionize healthcare. Wearable monitors and implants that wirelessly send data to Ipods and cellphones are already in the works and on whiteboards in front of VCs. Catching disease early will be the number one factor for extending life over the next several decades. Once detected, the full brunt of the above tech & therapy can be brought down on the poor little pathogens and tumors. It's almost not fair but don't worry, those little microbes won't let us off easy :O, they'll just evolve faster...

What I do wonder is, what will happen when humanity turns into more ambitious projects, such that need every available resource. High-scale (think planetary ring like) superstructures would be quite impossible if you had to support billions of humans at the same time, AND provide them with adequate living conditions. Then what will humanity choose? High population or more ambitious projects? Because eventually a point will be reached where you will have to choose either, or so I'd reckon.

I think we will eventually be able to boom population into the trillions if we choose as each life form will be able to consume very little energy and resources by today's standards. Future projects will certainly take longer as they increase in quantity, size and scope but time will not matter. The boundaries of the scientific frontiers will also be so significant that it will take centuries to tackle the next hurdles. I see us plateuing in terms of understanding the laws of the universe, deeper dimensions & what is beyond within the next 200-300 years. Maybe sooner.

Simple, just look at our avarage stupendously rich person. They essentially have every concievable thing they can wish for, and you can count those who actively seek to solve global problems with your fingers. How would enchanting of intelligence affect this selfish quality?

Money doesn't free one from his or her biological wiring. The subconscious brain is still managing the mind and most of the decisions it makes. Surely we can sieze control of it and navigate just as we can take control of our breathing but we usually revert back to habitual patterns that are driven by biologically driven signals to eat, sleep, hunt, build shelter, reproduce and nurture offspring. Intercepting and dispatching these primative signals and restructing the portions of the brain that are wasted on processing this crap such that it can be used for problem solving and real entertainment will be an option. We think we like those things but that's only because we're biologically wired too. We could rewire ourselves to like anything we choose. Even each other.

On the controrary, I've noticed that it is intelligence that makes humans selfish and shallow, as they have the means to pursue their egotistic aims.

Selfishness and ego are evolutionarily conserved systems imprinted into the brain for the sake of survival of the species. They are no different than say the rooting reflex or fight vs. flight instincts. Intelligence simply enables creativity for the sake of achieving desired results regardless how noble those pursuits are.

It's not intelligence, pure counting power and grasping of consepts we need, but wisdom and morality.

I don't disagree. Living longer with a higher rate of education combined with technological solutions that prevent the mind from growing weary, cynical and hopless will lead to a human species that can retain its youthful idealism, creativity and energy yet also accumulate vasts amounts of knowledge and wisdom.

Death to me isn't defined by when my physiological systems finally collapes but rather when I have lost my idealism, hope and lust for creating a better world to live, enjoy the company of others and play in.

Granted, I do not concur to either, chaotic and unruly as I am, but I do see the need for wise and benevolent leaders and individuals (those with power, mind you. An individual without power is meaningless to The Greater Good) before highly intelligent.

Enhanced decisionmakers will lessen the need for centralized leadership. It has been a combination of competition, teamwork and knowledge that has advanced human civilization to this point. The competition component as a central motivator will fall by the wayside when individuals have more control over their mind's will. Both the intelligence and wisdom gaps between individuals will decrease to the point that all will recognize that the best path forward is not selfishly hoarding resources and wasting those resources to gain an edge but rather that cooperating, comprimising and negotiating are far more beneficial to all. The limiting factors for individuals to take part in these are 1. Cognition 2. Time. Remove constraints on both and much of what we think of as abusive power structures will simply fade away as we'll be able to clearly see the value in collective and networked decisionmaking.

Nanomedicine is not reprogramming and enchanting human performance. It is the practice of curing human ailments through nanotechnology, nothing more.

True however nanomedicine is the path to which transhumanism will emerge. Artificial organs and nano-therapies will initially displace diseased state but will eventually be more efficient and effective than their biological counterparts and prior versions. They will also have more redundancy and a higher mean time between failures. Imagine a synthetic liver that can filter any toxin, is far more efficient at managing carb metabolism, recycles ammonia rather than converting it to urea and lasts for 200 year. We are on the path to such devices. Eventually they will simply not be needed.

Anyways, I do agree with you. The elimination and changing of basic human reactions (not fight-flight, as combat situations are always that, a computation of favourable outcomes versus risks) and reflexes does rise problems when it comes to both human interraction and social contracts. It brings great change, but I am not sure if it's for the best. I mean for example, the elimination of guilt and doubt in an individual would breed a particularly vicius criminal. Toss in the lack of fear and ruthless ambition, and you've got a regular Devil on your hands.

It's true that a more intelligent mind that is less prone to fear and doubt will have the ability to be more agressive but it will also have the clarity to recognize and modulate this for optimal benefit. The cog enhanced mind will also be able to use it's improved creativity for harming and manipulating others but they will also be surrounded by others who are just as intelligent and less prone to manipulation thus an intellectial arms race at an individual level will discourage flawed strategies. Most severe criminals are such as a result of chemical imbalances that lead to emotional instability that impair judgement. As long as some level of self-preservation is retained as we improve our minds, I believe the benefits will outweigh the negatives at both the micro and macro level.

Wow, that's {regarding a networked meritocracy, etc} quite a claim. You might want to start elaborating and argumenting why such would be, before I even start mounting counter-arguments. You've got some proofing to do.

It's pretty mad but today it's happening to some degree in small populations. One example of this is the community of geeks and nerds that work on open source, gaming, websites dev, collaborate for sharing music and porn on darknets, etc. They collaborate to form a culture and society within a society. This same concept can and will increasingly apply to all segments of society such that this homogination will lead to few distinguishable characteristics of any one particular culture, nation or economic model.

When people eventually have more time on their hands due to fewer hours needed for a sleep and today's notion of a "day job" and as career dissolve into obscurity, individuals will seek "projects" that combine their interests, provide a level of reward in the form of achievement, expression, social interaction, self-purpose and entertainment. The convergence of longer and more youthful lives, cog enhancements and some breakthroughs in energy & nanotech will enable this scenario for many more people over time.

Edited by maestro949, 29 April 2007 - 03:55 PM.

[samson]

I think we will eventually be able to boom population into the trillions if we choose as each life form will be able to consume very little energy and resources by today's standards.  Future projects will certainly take longer as they increase in quantity, size and scope but time will not matter.  The boundaries of the scientific frontiers will also be so significant that it will take centuries to tackle the next hurdles.  I see us plateuing in terms of understanding the laws of the universe, deeper dimensions & what is beyond within the next 200-300 years.  Maybe sooner.

I meant economics, not scientific research.

Money doesn't free one from his or her biological wiring.  The subconscious brain is still managing the mind and most of the decisions it makes.  Surely we can sieze control of it and navigate just as we can take control of our breathing but we usually revert back to habitual patterns that are driven by biologically driven signals to eat, sleep, hunt, build shelter, reproduce and nurture offspring.  Intercepting and dispatching these primative signals and restructing the portions of the brain that are wasted on processing this crap such that it can be used for problem solving and real entertainment will be an option.  We think we like those things but that's only because we're biologically wired too.  We could rewire ourselves to like anything we choose.  Even each other.

And how many of those egotistical rich people will actually chooce to do this? Wait, I'll answer you. None.

Selfishness and ego are evolutionarily conserved systems imprinted into the brain for the sake of survival of the species.  They are no different than say the rooting reflex or fight vs. flight instincts.  Intelligence simply enables creativity for the sake of achieving desired results regardless how noble those pursuits are.

No, intelligence does not. We will still pursue our old aims, reproduction and survival, no matter how fabulously intelligent we become. Intelligence is not a magic word for "better". Intelligence does not solve the age-old problems of basic human nature. Intelligence simply provides us with computational power to pursue those aims.


And before you start giving me crap about humanity "evolving" from it's biological constraints in the distant and oh-so-magical future, concentrate. No one gives a **** about what *might* happen after two centuries, even if the idea makes you ejaculate with glee. Think today. Think a decade or two.

I don't disagree.  Living longer with a higher rate of education combined with technological solutions that prevent the mind from growing weary, cynical and hopless will lead to a human species that can retain its youthful idealism, creativity and energy yet also accumulate vasts amounts of knowledge and wisdom. 

Death to me isn't defined by when my physiological systems finally collapes but rather when I have lost my idealism, hope and lust for creating a better world to live, enjoy the company of others and play in.

Justice, Hope and Happiness are dead. Long live Strength, Hate and Misery.

I'll answer you with a quote.
"Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world? Where none suffered, where everyone would be happy. It was a disaster. No one would accept the program. Entire crops were lost. Some believed we lacked the programming language to describe your perfect world. But I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery. The perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from. Which is why the Matrix was redesigned to this: the peak of your civilization."
-A. Smith

Because, you know, it's true. Your dream world is just that, a dream. That, and you are alone with it. Your perfect world is another's hell.

Enhanced decisionmakers will lessen the need for centralized leadership.  It has been a combination of competition, teamwork and knowledge that has advanced human civilization to this point.  The competition component as a central motivator will fall by the wayside when individuals have more control over their mind's will.  Both the intelligence and wisdom gaps between individuals will decrease to the point that all will recognize that the best path forward is not selfishly hoarding resources and wasting those resources to gain an edge but rather that cooperating, comprimising and negotiating are far more beneficial to all. The limiting factors for individuals to take part in these are 1. Cognition 2.  Time.  Remove constraints on both and much of what we think of as abusive power structures will simply fade away as we'll be able to clearly see the value in collective and networked decisionmaking.

And again, in a few decades this will be incarnated as...?

It's true that a more intelligent mind that is less prone to fear and doubt will have the ability to be more agressive but it will also have the clarity to recognize and modulate this for optimal benefit. The cog enhanced mind will also be able to use it's improved creativity for harming and manipulating others but they will also be surrounded by others who are just as intelligent and less prone to manipulation thus an intellectial arms race at an individual level will discourage flawed strategies.  Most severe criminals are such as a result of chemical imbalances that lead to emotional instability that impair judgement.  As long as some level of self-preservation is retained as we improve our minds, I believe the benefits will outweigh the negatives at both the micro and macro level.

The thought of people purposefully becoming monsters didn't cross your mind, hmm?

Besides the fact, there will always be an inbalance; some will always be richer, more intelligent, more beutifull, etc, than others. Humans define their existance through imbalance, through black and white. There won't be a point where the inequality of humans disappears.

And, you do not recognize the manipulation of human mind as an equal, if not greater risk than SAI?

It's pretty mad but today it's happening to some degree in small populations.  One example of this is the community of geeks and nerds that work on open source, gaming, websites dev, collaborate for sharing music and porn on darknets, etc.  They collaborate to form a culture and society within a society.  This same concept can and will increasingly apply to all segments of society such that this homogination will lead to few distinguishable characteristics of any one particular culture, nation or economic model.

When people eventually have more time on their hands due to fewer hours needed for a sleep and today's notion of a "day job" and as career dissolve into obscurity, individuals will seek "projects" that combine their interests, provide a level of reward in the form of achievement, expression, social interaction, self-purpose and entertainment.  The convergence of longer and more youthful lives, cog enhancements and some breakthroughs in energy & nanotech will enable this scenario for many more people over time.

For once, I agree with you. The signs are visible, although it is debateable of how fast the meme saturation will occur.

However, social force creates a counter-force. If there is a strong force to support communal working and living, a counter-force supporting absolute individualism and/or ambitious hierarchial social structure. , for my ponderings of the matter.See

[jc1991]

Justice, Hope and Happiness are dead. Long live Strength, Hate and Misery.

Perhaps I'm simply misreading you, but you seem to be completely ignoring everyone out there that doesn't want humanity to collapse into a carousel of chaos and destruction.

Obviously, if all of humanity was as you say it is, we would already have fallen back into barbarism. (And that’s assuming that we would have first gotten to where we are today, which seems unlikely.) I’ll agree with you that some people wouldn’t think twice about using advanced technology to become monsters of the worst kind, but there are enough people now to counteract them, and I don’t really see that fact changing for the worse unless the “bad people” have exclusive access to new technology. (This is possible, but unlikely. Even if all of the nations of the world enacted laws that prevented the development of new technology, there are enough underground groups that would develop new technology anyway and use it for selfish, but not horribly destructive, purposes. These people might want to conform the world to their personal ideals, but most of them don't want to completely destroy it or it's inhabitants.)

And how many of those egotistical rich people will actually choose to do this? Wait, I'll answer you. None.

Maybe not all of rich people, but there are plenty of people with moderate to large amounts of money that would be perfectly willing (and some quite possibly eager) to get rid of their “biological wiring.” There are many highly influential people today that contribute large amounts of time and money to the betterment of mankind and, again, I don’t see a good reason to expect this to change.

Of course all of this is assuming that we don't/can't develop AI first, or that we do develop AI first and it decides to ignore us. If super-intelligent AI is developed before we develop all of the really destructive technologies, and if that super-intelligent AI is benevolent, there's a fairly good chance of everything going smoothly, at least for a while. Things may break down eventually, but hopefully (and likely) there will be at least some people smart enough to leave as quickly as possible and establish a foothold in parts unknown for safety reasons.


(On another subject, the Matrix isn’t exactly the best citation for accurate information about the inner workings of the human mind.)

[samson]

Perhaps I'm simply misreading you,

Yes. Yes you are. I was referring to the collapse of romantic views of the 20th century on human nature and society. The world's not a nice place, or so I've noticed that people are thinking, as opposed to the general happiness of the 20th century (in spite of the wars).
This can be noticed from the rise of gritty and dark subcultures. Take a random subculture, not counting pop, and the odds are that it has something to do with misery, hate, death or some other "dark" subject.

Maybe not all of rich people, but there are plenty of people with moderate to large amounts of money that would be perfectly willing (and some quite possibly eager) to get rid of their “biological wiring.” There are many highly influential people today that contribute large amounts of time and money to the betterment of mankind and, again, I don’t see a good reason to expect this to change.

I'm quite sceptical on that one. Besides, the "good" people aren't the concern really, it's the egotistical, the selfish, the callous and the idiots that cause the problems. In addition of running the world, that is.

Of course all of this is assuming that we don't/can't develop AI first, or that we do develop AI first and it decides to ignore us. If super-intelligent AI is developed before we develop all of the really destructive technologies, and if that super-intelligent AI is benevolent, there's a fairly good chance of everything going smoothly, at least for a while. Things may break down eventually, but hopefully (and likely) there will be at least some people smart enough to leave as quickly as possible and establish a foothold in parts unknown for safety reasons.

There are a lot of iffies there, you know... The fact is that we really can't predict the future beyond technological and societal developement, where we factual evidence. The world might end in bang, or we might ascend to the greatest glory, on the virtue of our reaction to the technological revolution. I believe in FAI, but I have concerns about the will of humanity to create it.

On another subject, the Matrix isn’t exactly the best citation for accurate information about the inner workings of the human mind.

Again you miss the point. I simply make the remark that human perception works through black and white, good and bad. Thus you can never eliminate the perception of bad things, should you wish keep the perception of good things. No light without darkness.
That, and I had watched The Matrix (again) two hours before writing the post. [tung]

[edison]

This is my first post on this site. I am excited that the subject of Dystopia is even mentioned on a forum. I like discussions like this. Forgive my lack of a spell checker and poor grammer.

I buy into most of what Ray Kurzweil and his pals predict, as far as the rate of change of technology, and the timeline for this to occur. Predictions such as when a computer will outpace a single human intellect or even more extreme, a pc that can emulate all human cilivization for the past 10,000 years in a couple of planc seconds. (thats a lot of computing power in other words. ) As well as nanobots, foglets, Immortality, Brain simulation, all that wacky stuff. I say, sure it is probably going to happen very soon.
At the same time I think Marshal McCluhan was rather brilliant as well.
After reading McCluhan's take on human progress, I get a vague notion that technological innovation is about give and take. For example when writing was invented, the majority of humans lost the capacity and interest for the oral tradition of story telling. I mean, think of the Iliad, who alive today could orate a story like this, let alone what audience would have the patience to watch it being performed?.
When computers and internet became mainstream I feel that people lost an interest in reading great works of literature. In fact people in larger and larger amounts simply lost the attention span to read books, to read any book. According to the people I meet, your average person these days is much more likely to read a magazine article or a blog on the internet then a book. People, as a direct result of the internet appear to me, to have much shorter attention spans. They also have a tendency for immediate gratification, get bored faster in other words.
Okay I dont want this post to be too long. Just know that I see this sense of losing something when we gain something. Extrapolate that to computers that not only think faster and better then a human brain, but think better then all of civilization. What will we lose? I think we always lose something when we gain something. I think a huge part of that loss will be attention span.


In addition, I think that our expectations will outpace whatever technological innovations appear. I'm talking about a jaded public. I predict, people will have a boredom singularity, a disinterest singularity that outpaces the technological one. No matter how advanced things appear to be. There will be people who want playstation 345, because they are bored with playstation 344, for example. While this makes for better playstations, the basic condition of boredom and expectation remains the same.


Sorry for the long post.

Edited by edison, 25 May 2007 - 07:45 PM.

[aldrin]

Heh.

Statistics. Trends. Quotes. References. Hopes. Desires. Fine if one uses them to predict what might be. Potentials with varying degrees of certainty and probability. We use them to debate what we believe will be due to our perspective. Such debates tend to be biased, romanticized, passion filled. Of course they are, this is our future were talking about, but then how can we be surprised when we predict the wrong time, the wrong method, the wrong concept? There are some very simple observations we can make though, ones that may give us a little more grounding.

There are many problems such as world hunger that do not need to be solved. We already have the answer, it is just not the most profitable course of action for the persons in control at the moment to correct the issue.

People are innately selfish. We take the path of maximum gain for minimum cost. Each persons view of what a gain and what a loss is different, so it makes predicting actions a bit tricky at times, but they usually are not difficult to read in retrospect.

Persons in power generally do not want to lose power, and so they are hesitant of leveling the playing field for all to be equals. They will use that power to defend it or gain even more. Hate them if you will, you have a different conceptual frame work then them is all if you see their acts as evil. Such terms as evil and good are relative.

But, but, but! But what? Innate Morality? Unless your religious I want to hear you talking about neurochemistry. People do what people do, the universe does not judge. Unless of course again you are religious; It doesn't matter though.

We all want something different, we all have our own personal singularity fantasy, and it is unlikely we will be completely happy with some one else's. It's all about coming out on top, winning. Perhaps your nightmare dystopian future is the fantasy of someone, or some collective, in power currently. Uh-oh, someone has a big head start, and they want something very different from me. Not good.

Hmm. We could go on about how it's unfair. We could casually sit back and observe, hope all goes well, wait until it's looking really bad before acting. Or we can meditate on what we want. What do we want the future to be like? I want this, and I want that, I don't want that. What ever it is, it is good to you, and that's all that matters.

Then it's a matter of acting, not today- but yesterday, last month, five years ago. Use what you have to get what you need to get what you want. Or don't. Many never leave the starting line, some run in the opposite direction, you could judge them, but thats time lost from acting. You only lose all control when you're dead.

Do what you will, just don't complain to me about your circumstance; brag to me about your action.

Now, who out there is acting?

[Shannon Vyff]

Playing a family game last night, the little girl age 5 and me as mom, were the only ones trying to help fellow team mates. There can be only one winner however, dad was upset I enabled the 10 year old to win through my helping--he as a male does not see why one would advance another instead of themselves.

I don't think people are innately selfish--I'd say two of our 5 family members are not. I contend that without helping each other, we as humans would not be where we are today, nor will we survive the next 1000 years.

Sort of the mortality breeds morality stance--we have empathy, know we all will die. To win, we must live. To live, we must work together, pool resources -- at this point educate others of the possibilities... I hope to write more--so far at least one 11 year old loved my book, and I hope he grows keeping some of the ideas in mind. (I'll post his review in my "21st Century Kids" book thread)

[aldrin]

Indeed, females tend to have greater empathy. I might go so far as to say females are more prone to see benefits in terms of the "group" while males see benefits in terms of how they benefit themselves. That sort of discussion tends to get messy though, some people like to believe everyone has an even playing field when biologically it just isn't so.

I'd still maintain that it's a matter of action being based on maximum benefit per cost. A person may see a benefit to another over themselves being a benefit at a slight cost (losing a game but the child is happy), based mostly on ones collective concepts (It is good to help others, it is a beneficial action even though it may cost me it is still worth doing.)

Indeed there is compromise, there has to be because no one has absolute power. We sacrifice some things personally so most of us can get what we want most of the time and be mostly happy. Indeed compromise IS the best route if we don't have significant advantage to begin with, we get more for less in the end.

The thing is not all people are so certain of their own ultimate demise, or see such as possibly being beneficial. Some do have enough power to only have to make small compromises, compromises that keep them in power and are negative to the majority. Such people are the ones who lead us into the potential of a mostly negative future for most people at full speed. There needs to be more players in the game with the intention of doing the opposite. I fear for my own well being otherwise.

Of course, I am biased towards my own opinions. So it goes.

[crayfish]

Take a random subculture, not counting pop, and the odds are that it has something to do with misery, hate, death or some other "dark" subject.

Music - being written by emotional beings to affect others emotions - tends to express aspects of the human condition.

This may involve misery, hate and death but also love, joy, hope and life - all allusions found in, again, any random subculture.

Even black metal has the occasional break to euphoric transcendency and blues can end on a mellow note... probably more often, on balance, than hot jazz or children's tv theme tunes tend to wax despondent or reveal the Grim Malevolence of Unfettered Evil.

[PWAIN]

I suspect that this entire thread has more to do with Samsons emotional state.

Comments like:
"as opposed to the general happiness of the 20th century (in spite of the wars).
"

Really do nothing but discredit you and make you look exceptionally naive or ignorant.

Cheer up life is good, exceptionally good and better than ever before. Try talking to some of the elderly and tease out of them the reality of what life was really like in the past.

[samson]

Even black metal has the occasional break to euphoric transcendency and blues can end on a mellow note... probably more often, on balance, than hot jazz or children's tv theme tunes tend to wax despondent or reveal the Grim Malevolence of Unfettered Evil.

Yes, true. Unlike one would think, I too feel "positive" feelings. This however does nothing to diminish the general theme of sub-cultures (which almost always involve music, amusingly). Why do you think black metal is called black metal?
My point is that while positive feelings have not died in new sub-cultures, they have a smaller imposition when it comes to negative ones, meaning that the certain "positive bubble" we have used to shield ourselves from daily suffering and darkness has burst. The same trend could have seen in post-first-world-war europe, when the faith in peace had fallen under the ruins. Anyways, I'm saying that slowly humanity is beginning to look things as they are, instead of hiding under pointless positivism. And they don't like what they see. And insatisfaction is the basis for all progress. Feeling yay on suffering already? [sfty]

I suspect that this entire thread has more to do with Samsons emotional state.

Sure, whatever makes your clock tick.
...More that what?

Besides, of course it has. Everything I do has something to do with my "emotional state". It's what makes me do things, unlike some other people who mirac'ulously work under other effects, which unfortunately remain undiscerned by me.

Cheer up life is good, exceptionally good and better than ever before. Try talking to some of the elderly and tease out of them the reality of what life was really like in the past.

...
I really hope you see the delicious irony behind your words.

[hypnotoad]

I think people who are looking for some sort of Utopian future are going to be sadly disappointed.

Based on changing world demographics and free-falling fertility rates in the West, I think the world is going to go into a period of general decline - a dark ages - throughout the next 75+ years.

I see America and Western Europe receding, and China advancing. In the West, the number of poor and uneducated will grow, and the technological elites will become smaller and smaller in percentage (overall number will increase, but at a smaller percentage to the total US population) and more isolated from the have-nots. The latest in cloning, robotics, genetic advances etc. will remain available to those who can pay. "Older" technologies will trickle-down to the underclasses as always, but for the foreseeable future, having LOTS of money is still the best insurance one can have to ensure quality of science and medicine available.

Conversely, China's enormous population will create a huge middle class that drives much of the world's economy. Same with India, but to a lesser extent.

Europe will become "Eurabia" - a volatile mix of technologically and culturally backward Islamic citizens that have overpowered the remnants of Western civilization by virtue of their larger fertility rate during the early part of the 21st century. No country in all of Western and Eastern Europe is even at MAINTENANCE levels of population growth. What is Italy's fertility rate? 1.29! 2.1+ is needed just to maintain a stable population! If Europe is to survive, it will be through Islamic immigrants. Barring some sort of cheap and widely distributed super-pill that dramatically extends life (very unlikely), Europe's native Western population will continue to be cut in half every generation or so. But eventually, like every other "modern, advanced, and secular" culture, Eurabia's fertility rate will drop as well once the Islamic populations assimilate fully and the old religious values and traditions are lost.

I also think a nuclear terrorist attack on either the West or Israel is likely in the next 15 years (perhaps through Iran directly).

When I was younger I really, really hoped the future would be like Star Trek, where war, famine, disease, and racism had been mostly stamped out on Earth. Yet the older I get, the more I am certain the next 75 years is going to be more Blade Runner, Children of Men, and Idiocracy than some wishful-thinking cybernetic virtual-reality type utopian fantasy.

All this talk of nano-this and nano-that eradicating hunger and human misery and the world plugged into cyber-grids and what-not is, I think, the modern equivalent to those 30's and early 40's artistic visions of flying cars and floating cities. Might have seemed plausible at the time, but in retrospect it was a bit too optimistic and naive.

But hey.. that's just me.

Now If I can only figure out why I actually want to live long enough through LE techniques to see if my personal predictions come true!? I guess I'm a glutton for punishment.

Edited by hypnotoad, 01 June 2007 - 01:09 PM.

[maestro949]

I think people who are looking for some sort of Utopian future are going to be sadly disappointed.

I don't entirely disagree as Utopia implies a perfect society, which is really only possible if you redefine society to mean a community size of one. Even then there will still be societal issues among the schizophrenic or those who engineer themselves multiple cognitive processing centers with distinct personalities. With the advent of mind-interfacing technology though, engineering your own nirvana will only be a mouse click away (or two).

Barring some sort of cheap and widely distributed super-pill that dramatically extends life (very unlikely),...

Dramatic life extension will not be a pill in the traditional sense where a single molecule is concentrated but rather the aggregation of many gradual improvements across a wide array of pathologies and aging. They will be therapy based (gene, tissue engineering, stem cell, etc) and molecular targets such as synthetic proteins and the typical pharmaceuticals we have today. Early detection of all maladies via genetic tests, biomarker detection and scanning tech will also contribute to significant extensions for both average and maximum life expectancies as therapies treated earlier typically always improve mortality rate and minimize damage and future risk exposure.

but for the foreseeable future, having LOTS of money is still the best insurance one can have to ensure quality of science and medicine available.

While it's true that these techs and therapies will initially be limited to wealthier individuals, they will follow market principals like every other product. Progress demands that we develop advancements as prototypes which are costly and then find means to mass produce them.

All this talk of nano-this and nano-that eradicating hunger and human misery and the world plugged into cyber-grids and what-not is, I think, the modern equivalent to those 30's and early 40's artistic visions of flying cars and floating cities. Might have seemed plausible at the time, but in retrospect it was a bit too optimistic and naive.

And then on the flipside, we may now be naively underestimating how quickly some of the advanced health and subsequent societal improvements will be realized by the emerging high-throughput and computational technologies being applied to genomic data outputs. Our ability to increasingly manipulate matter at smaller scales and improvements in energy efficiency by only a few orders of magnitude set the stage for some very impressive biotech breakthroughs that few are prepared for.

The trend is towards living longer and healthier for a subset of the population. This will continue with periodic leaps forward. Those same individual will also increasingly have access to more information, cognitive improving molecules & therapies, nano-automation and AI agents. They will all be capable of re-engineering themselves, the world around them and in-silico alter-universes that are indistinguishable from the real world.

This will trickle down to middle classes and by 2100 all of this and more that none of us can even predict will be as common as the lightbulb, anti-bacterial agents and laptop computers.

[edison]

I do wonder if certain nations, or even cultures within countries, will accept high tech, whereas as others dont, to a much greater extent than today. For example, look on youtube right now search "Robotics" tag. Not only are the huge majority of the clips Japanese, but the comments are kind of like this:
Just an example:

Western person comment : OMGZ Terminator will control the world!

Eastern person comment : Yeah the Mark 345 had really well placed actuators.

Western comment: Why the hell are those Chinks in Japan building robot fish?

Eastern Comment: I think he is attaching the battery on the HRG-5, it is remote driven not autonomous.

Western Comment : Robots are stupid. I mean why do it? Why do all these chinamen in Japan like robots so much? I mean whats the point?

Okay now imagine this cultural divide about technology getting greater and greater.
Now where is that Arthur C Clark qoute at ? Something like

'Any culture with significant technological prowess over another will appear to be doing magic.'
Or maybe its a misqoute from someone else, im having trouble remembering who said it.


Will there be a clash of cultures in the next few decades? I think there will.
I think that some cultures and groups within nations will have technology so far ahead of others that they could appear like an Alien invasion if they wished.



I also forsee medical/scientific research and advancements being banned in the USA to an even greater extent, whereas other nations who don't care about taboo will keep on doing the research. If we put trade sanctions on China for doing stem cell research for instance because our Bible disagrees they would probably laugh at us. As well as the rapid industrialization, computerization, biotech-industrailization of India.
To me it looks like the world will tilt towards the East for innovation, technology, wealth, and medical knowledge this next century. I dont think this is a bad thing for the world, just possibly bad from my perspective since I live in the USA and I love it here.

[maestro949]

Will there be a clash of cultures in the next few decades?

I doubt it. At least not over technological advances nor major leaps in life extending biotech. When presented with the option to live longer or die naturally, will people really opt out despite the perceived bleakness of future? Most don't today unless they're on the edge and the only option is more suffering. Surely some will opt for "self-deliverance" or be coaxed into believing in a better afterlife but I suspect the majority will opt for more time.

[samson]

Or maybe its a misqoute from someone else, im having trouble remembering who said it.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from Magic."
-Arthur C. Clarke

One of my favourite quotes. Because really, technology is magic.

I also forsee medical/scientific research and advancements being banned in the USA to an even greater extent, whereas other nations who don't care about taboo will keep on doing the research. If we put trade sanctions on China for doing stem cell research for instance because our Bible disagrees they would probably laugh at us.  As well as the rapid industrialization, computerization, biotech-industrailization of India.
  To me it looks like the world will tilt towards the East for innovation, technology, wealth, and medical knowledge this next century. I dont think this is a bad thing for the world, just possibly bad from my perspective since I live in the USA and I love it here.

Okay, first of all, you're not the west. *We* are here too, you arrogant pricks. You know, THE REST OF THE WORLD.
Besides, it's not that people "will" laugh at you, they already are.

Eventually, US hasn't, to my knowledge, done much to visibly curb down research on any specific field, no matter how much alarmists might wanna ring the bells about the stem-cell ban. Your religious extremists might screaming their heads off about satan and all, but really, nobody really cares about them. Your avarage human doesn't care less about nanotech nor biotech, save that it has something to do with ties and food. Anyways, I'd be (supposing that I was in your shoes. Thank god I'm not) much more concerned with your cripled economy, dimishing rights, religious right, corruption, and all the other fun traditions of american culture.

As for the shift in balance of high research, economic might, and so forth, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to notice that the might of eastern nations is rising. This isn't because they have better ideologies (just look at China), it's because they have teh monies. And research, innovation, power and prosperity follows money, and money alone.

I doubt it.  At least not over technological advances nor major leaps in life extending biotech.  When presented with the option to live longer or die naturally, will people really opt out despite the perceived bleakness of future?  Most don't today unless they're on the edge and the only option is more suffering.  Surely some will opt for "self-deliverance" or be coaxed into believing in a better afterlife but I suspect the majority will opt for more time.

QFT.


Anyways, I think the issue of dystopian future is not so much a matter of fighting forces opposing scientific progress, but getting people to actually notice that STUFF IS HAPPENING. I know, getting people to care about other things than sex and food is like pushing a mule uphill. But you gotta do it, supposing you don't want the mule get caught by a forest fire. Personally I'd opt to let the fucker burn, but alas I still need it to pack my groceries.
This is a marketing race, people, and we aren't winning by the looks of it.

[Shepard]

Okay, first of all, you're not the west. *We* are here too, you arrogant pricks. You know, THE REST OF THE WORLD.

Sure, sure. Whatever you need to tell yourself to feel significant.