29 replies to this topic

[Bruce Klein]

Existential Risks
Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards

Nick Bostrom
Department of Philosophy
Yale University
New Haven, CT 06520

ABSTRACT

Because of accelerating technological progress, humankind may be rapidly approaching a critical phase in its career. In addition to well-known threats such as nuclear holocaust, the prospects of radically transforming technologies like nanotech systems and machine intelligence present us with unprecedented opportunities and risks. Our future, and whether we will have a future at all, may well be determined by how we deal with these challenges. In the case of radically transforming technologies, a better understanding of the transition dynamics from a human to a “posthuman” society is needed. Of particular importance is to know where the pitfalls are: the ways in which things could go terminally wrong. While we have had long exposure to various personal, local, and endurable global hazards, this paper analyzes a recently emerging category: that of existential risks. These are threats that could cause our extinction or destroy the potential of Earth-originating intelligent life. Some of these threats are relatively well known while others, including some of the gravest, have gone almost unrecognized. Existential risks have a cluster of features that make ordinary risk management ineffective. A final section of this paper discusses several ethical and policy implications. A clearer understanding of the threat picture will enable us to formulate better strategies.

http://www.nickbostr...tial/risks.html

[Bruce Klein]

The Gray Goo Problem
by Robert A. Freitas Jr.

In Eric Drexler's classic "grey goo" scenario, out-of-control nanotech replicators wipe out all life on Earth. This paper by Robert A. Freitas Jr. was the first quantitative technical analysis of this catastrophic scenario, also offering possible solutions. It was written in part as an answer to Bill Joy's recent concerns.

Research Scientist, Zyvex

Originally published April 2000 as "Some Limits to Global Ecophagy by Biovorous Nanoreplicators, with Public Policy Recommendations." Excerpted version published on KurzweilAI.net March 20, 2001.

Abstract
The maximum rate of global ecophagy by biovorous self-replicating nanorobots is fundamentally restricted by the replicative strategy employed; by the maximum dispersal velocity of mobile replicators; by operational energy and chemical element requirements; by the homeostatic resistance of biological ecologies to ecophagy; by ecophagic thermal pollution limits (ETPL); and most importantly by our determination and readiness to stop them.

Assuming current and foreseeable energy-dissipative designs requiring ~100 MJ/kg for chemical transformations (most likely for biovorous systems), ecophagy that proceeds slowly enough to add ~4°C to global warming (near the current threshold for immediate climatological detection) will require ~20 months to run to completion; faster ecophagic devices run hotter, allowing quicker detection by policing authorities. All ecophagic scenarios examined appear to permit early detection by vigilant monitoring, thus enabling rapid deployment of effective defensive instrumentalities.

http://www.kurzweila...es/art0142.html

[rune]

Yeah, this thread seems like my kind of thread. First I think we should rule out the nuclear holocaust scenario. The idea about all out, nuclear Armageddon, died with the Cold War and the science fiction of the seventies (though I still do enjoy to watch Dr. Strangelove every once in a while).

I would say that the two most immediate threats to our “civil” society are diseases and global heating.

Diseases: AIDS is of course the big one here. In less than twenty years, unless something drastic is done, over 70% of South Africa’s population will be wiped out by AIDS. I think those statistics speaks volumes. The Plague once eliminated a mind numbing percentage of the global population, and while the plague is now nothing more than a medical curiosity, there may be other, equally hostile diseases coming our way. Diseases that, due to reckless exposure to antibiotics, will be immune to anything we can throw at them.

Global Heating: I know some people aren’t convinced that there even is such a thing as global heating. But let’s wake up, our summers are getting longer and warmer, our winters are getting shorter and warmer. Maybe this isn’t due to global heating, but it seems clear to me that some damage is being done to our environment and nobody is really doing much about it. Sure people get together in rallies and conventions, but let’s face it: They never accomplish anything. If something will be done about this, it has to come from our governments and the multinational corporations, who are in all likelihood the ones responsible for the climate changes in the first place.

Here’s a link to a Wired article about various end-of-the-world scenarios you might enjoy. (Personal Note: Wired is my bible, I am an enthusiastic subscriber).

[DJS]

First I think we should rule out the nuclear holocaust scenario. The idea about all out, nuclear Armageddon, died with the Cold War and the science fiction of the seventies

[huh] By no means am I a dove. But man, are we on the same planet here? Multi billion dollar missile defense, space based lasers, new evasive counter measures...I wouldn't rule out anything.

[rune]

[huh] By no means am I a dove.  But man, are we on the same planet here?  Multi billion dollar missile defense, space based lasers, new evasive counter measures...I wouldn't rule out anything.

I just don’t see the possibility. Nuclear Armageddon has always been sort of an attractive and ideal end-of-the-world scenario, but really, who would be fighting this nuclear war? North Korea and the US? I don’t see that happening. Little Kim (or whatever his name is), isn’t a suicidal Al-Qeada operative who dreams of martyrdom. He is a ruler of a country and as such, he is hopefully smart enough to realize that if he starts dropping nukes, he and his regime will simply be crushed. The only place I could possibly conceive of nuclear warfare is between India and Pakistan, but even they are kind of under America’s shadow at the moment. I think the Pentagon, with recent events in Iraq, has made it quite clear what happens if you act even remotely suspicious about using weapons of mass destruction.

Why Bush builds ICBM defences? Because nukes are still a threat, just not in large scales. The Bush administration is still in panic after 9/11, and is hence doing everything to protect themselves. Plenty of malevolent scenarios involving nukes exist: Colombian drug cartels with vast resources getting angry at US politics, Al-Qeada truck-nukes exploded in Washington, etc, etc… So I’m not ruling out the fact that we may see a nuclear explosion on CNN someday, but rather the idea that numerous different nations will start flinging ICBM’s at each other.

Of course this is only my perception and I have often been proven wrong before.

[Lazarus Long]

I found this essay by Nick remarkably clear minded and I want to commend his concise and logical approach to this issue. I for one think we must approach the issue of such threats with the cold calculating demeanor of a pilot facing certain doom and seeking the impossible landing rather than "Chicken Little" panicking at the sky and breaking her own neck in the process.

One reason I have felt th issue of studying the fossil record to be crucial to this discussion is to determine if the past events were first off real or merely legendary (mythical), to determine the specific causes, and to ascertain if there exists a pattern. The last is to determine what is the actual threat based on a timetable rather than simple odds and second to attempt a valid form of prediction such that resources can be rationally allocated given that we do not possess unlimited resources to throw at problems and we must marshal them and focus them where they can be most effectively applied.

Toward this and to further the analysis here in this Council, which it should also be said I am an obvious party to its creation as I have been hawking this since for a very long time, in fact since previous incarnations of this forum; I am including the following articles for review:

Arctic ice shelf fractures
Climate change fingered as saltwater lake disappears.
24 September 2003

[http://www.nature.co....html]Gamma-ray burst linked to mass extinction[/URL]
440-million-year-old fossils hint at cosmic explosion.
24 September 2003

Space rock's close call
BBC World News
Wednesday, 24 September, 2003
Astronomers did well to spot the fifth closest approach by a passing space rock - even though their detection came after the event.

Scientists See Antarctic Vortex as Drought Maker
Tue Sep 23, 5:04 AM ET
By Michael Byrnes
SYDNEY (Reuters) - Australia may be facing a permanent drought because of an accelerating vortex of winds whipping around the Antarctic that threatens to disrupt rainfall, scientists said on Tuesday.

The Greatest Explosions Studies Reveal Crowded, Violent Early Universe

Asteroids and Comets


These problem must be distinguished from the separate yet more more immediate threats derivative of human behavior that overlap as in the case of global warming. As suggested by recent discoveries regarding Polar Melting, Polar Climate modeling, Temperate Regional Pandemic, Population and Habitat migration, global crop productivity/types, and disease preventative/treatment policy and methodology to name just a few that influence our collective daily and mundane lives.


West Nile epidemic grows
Densely populated, mosquito-rich California could be next for virus.
18 September 2003

Drug companies snub antibiotics
Pipeline threatens to run dry as pharma concentrate on chronic illness.
18 September 2003

GM debate results due
BBC World News
Wednesday, 24 September, 2003
More than half of Britons who took part in a nationwide debate on genetically modified crops say the plants should never be introduced.

The GM gamble
BBC World News
Wednesday, 24 September, 2003
How do you get the biotech pros without the cons?

[http://in.news.yahoo....html]Hepatitis Threatens to Wipe Out Two Amazon Tribes[/URL]

Please pay close attention everyone to the detail that while in some respects this can all be seen as "Old News," when instead we look across the lens of time every example I happened to choose above is from very current events and are all published separately within a week of each other. I am only positing these as they are overlapping in impact regardless of cause and as such can be seen "collectively as causal for real risk" and must be tactically addressed in common.

This includes the obvious impact such events have on a globally destabilizing economy and general politics. Sadly if I wanted to belabor the point I can gather quickly numerous more issues that enter into this to support this point but I would rather go forward and address outlining a rational manner of dialog.

What we are also witnessing is a synergy of relatedness as famine, is caused by the same issues that are impacted by climate and human behavior effect climate (to an as loosely defined rate) but also it effects politics, migrations, economics, pandemics and is in turn effected by it. The synergy is not coincidental or random, it is causal in a dependent manner and may be addressable as such.

Now add the monkey wrench of cataclysmic occurrences that may have more refined methods for prediction available than are being applied and whose importance for developing cannot be understated.

For example I have said I am far less sanguine about an asteroid impact than I am about a Gamma Ray burst; why?

Because they are more predictable, less probable and while less preventable may in fact be easier to survive once we have global tech in a modern rational society available to focus on the task. They are more predictable and less likely to kill us because they are not as likely as a local galactic event, whereas phenomenon such as solar behavior, galactic and solar system tidal forces, regional celestial dust clouding, planetary tectonic and magnetic behavior, and NEO, Asteroid, and Kuiper Belt orbital periodicity characteristics as well as human behavior may be combining to produce a long term climate pattern that will drastically impact our lives in a foreseeable future.

So where to begin graphing this relationship needs a much bigger circle than is generally defined by pi and here is a Real Audio from the radio show Democracy Now which exemplifies how the process will inevitably be politicized regardless of how you agree or disagree with the speaker Ross Gelbspan. )

“The Position of the Bush Administration is Truly Criminal” – Environmental Reporter Ross Gelbspan on George Bush, Oil and Coal.

[Lazarus Long]

Oh and just for grins and giggles add these three articles on human behavior too and then reflect on how we can as an organization whose membership has to be numbered in at least the dozens of interested parties around the world can wave our arms in unison to define better approaches to the hazards we face in common.

Panicking mice find flaws in exit routes
Rodents hint at how people flee from a crowded room.
23 September 2003
http://www.nature.co...2/030922-3.html

Bored fans prompt Mexican wave
12 September 2002
http://www.nature.co...9/020909-8.html

Panic over? modeling panic
Panicking people are unpredictable -- or are they?
Philip Ball investigates a potentially life-saving computer model.
28 September 2000
http://www.nature.co...8/000928-9.html

[nefastor]

Lazarus, on the subject of people fleeing / panicking and resulting apparent "chaos", the french have done very interesting studies several years back.

Scientists from the CNRS discovered that, in fact, you could apply fluid dynamics to people, modelling people as gaz in a closed chamber. I heard this work has been used to improve the design of large halls and corridors in supermarkets.

For instance, a few pillars, if well positionned, can radically regulate and lower the "flow" of people, without hampening any evacuation procedure. That way, people stay in longer, which is good for commerce, but they don't get trapped if the place starts burning.

I don't know how this application of fluid dynamics has evolved, but 6-7 years back it was all the rage in France. It's even been used to model the way people seat in trains depending on the number of seats and people.

It was remarkable because it showed how something as complex as a human being, when in great numbers, was as simple as an hydrogen molecule.

This also goes a long way to explain why religions were always so successful : you're not dealing with intelligent beings, there, only with very predictable humans.

Jean

[nefastor]

Now to get back to the topic of existential risks :

Nuclear warfare and/or armageddon is not something I'd rule out : humans love guns, and the bigger the gun the more they love it. It's that phallic symbol stuff psychologists talk about ever since Freud came along. Humans will keep on making nukes, if only for the sake of "having a big one", and if something bigger is ever invented, they'll want it too. The fact that weapons are dangerous is only secondary in our minds.

As for space-based lasers, I wouldn't count on it in case of all-out ICBM festival. Last I heard, even if the complete defense system was up, it couldn't stop more than 10% of what the ex-USSR could throw at the USA. There's just a problem with firing rate : lasers (at least for now) are slow and such defenses easy to saturate.

Besides, lasers won't be of any use agains short-range, low-yield nukes (low-yield, today, means way over 50 times Hiroshima-style destruction - 80,000 dead). And MIRV-loaded missiles could possibly be reconfigured to separate before entering ennemy laser range. You can aim at an ICBM, but individual rentry warheads are way too small to be hit... and there's 3, 6 or more of them in a single ICBM.

Not to mention some recent anti-laser ideas : use more MIRV missiles, but only put one live nuke in each, and fill the MIRV with dummy warheads. That means even if you managed to destroy some rentry warheads, you'd probably not destroy the "good ones".

Moreover, nuclear armageddon doesn't even need missiles or human will to happen. Let me remind you that, over a decade ago, the USAF crashed a B-52 over the north pole. One of the nukes it was carrying has sunk below the ice and can never be recovered. It's still here to this day, its shell slowly eaten away by the salt and stressed by the temperature delta between the water and its plutonium core. Who knows if it won't blow up, melt the pole and drown us all ?

Then there is the SNAP-9A and similar "incidents". To summarize : NASA uses RTG's (radioisotope thermoelectric generators) for its deep-space probes (like Galileo, of which we recently heard in the news). What do you think happens when a nuclear-powered satelite launch fails and the satelite blows up in the air ? Instant plutonium contamination of the Earth atmosphere ! And trust me, it's by ever-increasing ammounts !

One such "SNAP" power source (SNAP : System for Nuclear Auxiliary Power) that blew up was designed so the plutonium would remain confined in a multi-layered metal shell. These "modular heat sources" fell into the pacific ocean... on the mid-oceanic trench. That's to say, by several thousand meters deep, in a volcano. Impossible to recover. It's shell decaying. Still down there. Think of the pollution when it will break open... you still have time to eat fish before fish are gone forever.

The first SNAP that blew up (SNAP-9A) contaminated half of mankind and it's been calculated that, over time, it will have given lung cancer to 30,000,000 people worldwide, of which 5% will die (or have already). Of course, the US DoE and NASA wrote it up in the press release as "a minor incident", stressing that the SNAP RTG had behaved "as designed".

Scary isn't it ? Well get this : SNAP-9A contained about ONE kilogram of plutonium. The Cassini-Huygens probe contains over TEN kilogram, and NSA has plans for a future probe containing a HUNDRED kilograms. Now if that one fails to launch, you'll see the NASA dudes put on the gaz masks. I suggest you do the same. I know for sure I will.

Ho ! did I mention the numerous nuclear subs of the USSR navy, rotting away in such places as Mourmansk ? Their plutonium is still there, most of the reactor sections aren't sealed or even closed, and of course since the primary heat-transfer circuits has grown cold it's impossible to drain all the solidified, highly-radioactive sodium inside ! (and to make things worse, remember sodium burns when in contact with water, even if it's just atmospheric humidity)

Nuclear explosions aren't the only thing to fear. Plutonium poisonning of 70% of the planet (the oceans) and 100% of the air we breathe, is much more probable, and no laser will help us there !

***** Other means of mass destruction ************************************

We all know the perils of bio / chemical warfare. But there are many other ways mankind could condemn itself.

Fast-food restaurants chains (I'm not targetting any in particular, please note) might as well be classified as bio- AND chemical weapons, for instance. I hear over 50% of the americans are suffering from obesity, and we all know how bad it is for the body (cardiovascular diseases) and the soul (self-esteem).

The human mind itself is dangerous. If we weren't so "intelligent" and lived as animal, we'd still be in balance with the rest of nature. Animals even manage to adapt to our destroying the planet, so we take no hint... and we are so sure to be "the dominant species on Earth"...

Cars ! In civilised countries, everyone and their kids want their own car. Nothing is spared so that even the poorest can buy one... and add to pollution and global warming.

Internal combustion engines are about 5% efficient ! That means 95% of the fuel you pour in your car is just burning to heat up the planet ! I'm an environmentalist, and not just in talk : I refuse to own a car, I refuse to own air-conditionning (even if it's tough during summer), and I'm solid enough that I take all my baths and shower with cold water. I use low-consumption light bulbs everywhere at home. When I travel I use public transportation, train, subway, buses... taxis at worst, but more often I use my two feet and a good pair of shoes. If we all did this, there would be MUCH less global warming AND islamic terrorism (since people like Bin Laden got their funds from oil... that is, from the car drivers he's out to kill !)

Genetically modified food (plants and animals) are also much more destructive than they appear. Because we gave them an "unfair" advantage over natural plants and animals, they will slowly but surely tip the delicate balance of our ecosystem. It'll be a domino effect all along the food chain... and guess what, we are also in the food chain. Modern non-GM agriculture already produces VAST excedents EVERY year, why oh why must we produce more ? We don't even ship the excedents to third-world countries !

What about "death by packaging" ? Today most people have at least hald a dozen HiFi, TV or computer appliances, and they each come with PLENTY of plastic bubble-wrap, plastic bags, polystirene anti-shock foam... all stuff that can't bio-degrade and can't be digested either. Someday we'll be breathing PVC !

It makes me laugh sadly when I see people sorting their trash for "recycling"... and then climb in their cars to go buying more packaging to sort and trash, polluting the air along the way... and thinking they are hard-core ecologists taking it upon themselves to save the Earth.

(note : I buy my computer parts "bulk" 90% of the time. That is, without the complicated packaging. I pay less, and it performs exactly the same. I wish they did this for everything you can buy)

Death by cellular phone is also very exciting. Look at all the GSM, GPRS, UMTS, WiFi relays popping up three by three, twelve by twelve, on every roof of every city... and emitting at such high frequency and power it could fry your testicles at 5 meters.

Did you notice no bird will land on these things ? I'll tell you why : because as they get close they feel the heat of the microwaves. On aircraft carriers, it's forbidden to walk past the main radar antenna (unless you want to be sterilized). I've seen birds boiled alive because they had landed on a radar antenna and it was switched on later. It's very scary. And now we're surrounded by similar antenna.

The terrible thing is, they are so many that you can't get away enough from them unless you live the city. And for most of us, work is 40+ hours a week INSIDE a city's busiest and most "covered" area.

That reminds me I should go for a sperm count... you never know.

********* AIDS *****************************************************

Curiously, I don't see AIDS as a potential "species killer", but that's only because, for know, all the ways I can think of to achieve immortality imply forsaking flesh and becoming partly or totally a machine. And machines don't have AIDS.

Moreover, nanotechnology could very well solve the AIDS problem, and every other virus that might follow. For a novel I'm writing I "invented" nanomedicine as a means of curing diseases by "repairing" people accoring to their DNA as recorded at birth. The technique would destroy any molecule that doesn't belong to a healthy human by including :
- space alien diseases we know nothing about
- cancer tumors (even just a cell will be "normalised")
- the ink used for tattoos
- scars
And it would also rejuvenate you, since it's based on "young" DNA

Then I saw the movie "Jason X" and realised the writer had a similar idea. His nanomedicine can repair the effects of cryogeny and even regrow / reattach severed limbs or organs and make prosthetics in case of "irreparable" damage. If it existed, our quest for immortality would be complete.

At this stage, only a desease based on nanotech itself could be a real threat. If one such disease appears, it's clear it will have been engineered by humans, but that wouldn't surprise me at all. I'm actually expecting the very first use of nanomachine will be warfare. Mark my words.

********* Conclusion *****************************************************

I've only covered some of the most obvious potential causes for short-term Earth biosphere destruction (yes, I don't believe nature will survive if don't survive our OWN nastyness). There are countless more dangers, but it's useless to go there because we don't even act on those I've named.

In France, you can be an environmentalist ("green") politician and still use a big limo with driver and private jet, and have air-conditionning in every room of every place you go. That says volumes on human behavior. Even after the terrible summer we've had, no one will react (the death toll of the heat alone has been monumental, and there were villages infested with flies !). Global warming is just left alone and people say "wow, that was an excellent summer we've had ! The shares in sun screen manufacturers have skyrocketted ! Business is gooooood !"

Like my mother says... I've never seen a safe go to the funeral of its owner. And you can't eat bank-notes even if your life depended on it.

All the more reasons why I seek immortality. And it better be radiation-hardenned !

Jean

[Lazarus Long]

I want to bring the Orwellian Risk back into the discussion as we are entering the age of electronic archiving.

There has been a long running debate going on within our group on the issue of posting entire articles and links. A little over a month ago I posted above and applied the rules as it was suggested at the time is "safer" with regard to law. My point is that virtually every link I utilized is now dead.

To anyone that has encountered this I suggest you copy/paste the specific title into Google and most of the time you will find their archived article. As I get the time I will try to update links but in this environment, such a process needs to be done by a Bot or it will become the lifelong career of one of Kafka's clerks working full-time in an office designed by Escher on a Sysiphistic task.

I have no "faith" in any system, nor any trust in those that promise they will keep themselves honest for ages. I prefer an objective mirror to keep us honest and to accomplish this in an age of electronic archives we must disperse globally, independently, AND randomly held archives of original data distributed as widely as possible and insure open access to any and all that seek it in as democratically possible a file sharing worldwideweb-work imaginable.

In fact the US government under the current Administration has recently moved against Google for archiving their pages from the "Official Government Website" because with respect to the Iraq conflict they have been quietly going back and rewriting them in order to create a "New History" of events that is more in accord with their political spin. When they found that Google would not willingly cooperate they began making it impossible to actually record some information from the pages on the site.

The struggle for knowledge as power is about to overtake the quest for WMD's as the physics of politics is vastly more arcane and dangerous than mere social and material science.

For "Must Reads" to be able to work as a tool for learning; first we must have open unlimited access and second what is accessed should be as accurately and honestly presented or Historical Revisionism will enter a most Machiavellian phase of Orwellian Political Correctness.

[Mind]

US develops lethal new viruses

 
19:00 29 October 03
 
Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
 
A scientist funded by the US government has deliberately created an extremely deadly form of mousepox, a relative of the smallpox virus, through genetic engineering.

The new virus kills all mice even if they have been given antiviral drugs as well as a vaccine that would normally protect them.

The work has not stopped there. The cowpox virus, which infects a range of animals including humans, has been genetically altered in a similar way.

The new virus, which is about to be tested on animals, should be lethal only to mice, Mark Buller of the University of St Louis told New Scientist. He says his work is necessary to explore what bioterrorists might do.

Read the rest here, New Scientist

My view is that this is the greatest threat in the near term. Human engineered viruses. I do not fear AIDS, West Nile, Sars, and "the plague". Natural viruses have been around for as long as we have and you know what...we are still standing. In fact, we have so populated the earth that now some people fear we are going to destroy it with our thirst for energy and progress. HA...civilization should spit in the face of natural viruses. They were just a tiny bump in our road to mastering the planet.

Human engineered viruses could end up having different properties, such that our immune system is rendered useless. Thus, someone has to do the research decribed above. Only open information between responsible parties can foster defensive strategies against these pathogens. It is better to be done in the free world than in terrorist lab.

Nuclear Holocaust? Rune is correct, that's 70's sci-fi. A civilization-ending nuclear war is extremely unlikely to happen.

Global Warming? If it doesn't ruin the entire ecosystem within the next decade, we shouldn't have to worry. Life on this planet has shown tremendous resiliency to climate change throughout the earth's history. It would take a catastrophic warming in a very short time (years, not decades) to outpace the ecosystem's ability to adapt. I am not saying there isn't warming, or there will be no discomfort, but that life will adapt and move on, and likely flourish beyond this planet (if global warming is the only threat we face).

Edited by Mind, 30 October 2003 - 06:57 PM.

[Lazarus Long]

Nuclear Holocaust? Rune is correct, that's 70's sci-fi. A civilization-ending nuclear war is extremely unlikely to happen.

My dear Mind you fail to understand nuance. You and all too many think monotheistically with respect to prophecy. It isn't "One Immediate Threat" even in the near term, it is a smörgåsbord of all of the above.. and much, much more.

I generally speak in terms of WMD and NBC rather than simply saying "Nuclear Holocaust" and that is because I see the use of Nuclear weapons merely like the flint in the trigger mechanism, Chemical as the powder in our magazine, and Biological as the ball.

So welcome to reality we are all getting it all right and it is a race against time, not merely one another.

World War III has already begun, it began as a Third World War, and now we talk of the toys for dogs of war. Toys that kill like booby trapped candy dolls filled with fragmentation devices and propaganda.

So you want to live forever?

Fight for peace, reason, and justice while the whole world stands a chance of hearing and before we start beating each other's brains out every way imaginable.

[Mind]

My dear Mind you fail to understand nuance. You and all too many think monotheistically with respect to prophecy. It isn't "One Immediate Threat" even in the near term, it is a smörgåsbord of all of the above.. and much, much more.

I agree with you on this point.

My point is that the singular nuclear holocaust envisioned in the 70's and 80's is a very remote possibility.

[nefastor]

From all I've read on the topic (including this entire thread) it seems the one big existential risk for mankind is to stay on Earth and not seek to colonize space.

Figure it like this : there's 6.5 billion of us in the same room, and we won't open the windows to get air. Instead we're thinking "If I stop with the mexican food, maybe I won't poison the other guys with my farts".

I say open the windows and fart to your heart's content.

One of my oldest friends always says : if you never fart or burp, you're bound to explode.

OK so it's gross... but it's so true. We live in a closed ecosystem and there is only so much we can do without bursting the bubble that won't end up killing us in a shorter term than you'd think.

Still, NASA and comparable agencies give us "scheddules" for space colonisation written in decades or even centuries ! Let's get real : In one century we've had over 100 wars on Earth, 2 of them being worldwide, and 1 of them having ended nuclear.

Leaving Earth would much reduce existential risks : the Muslim could live on a planet with only "sons of the prophet" and no one to kill in the name of Allah, we could live on a planet full of immortalists and no one to kill us, Hollywood could... huh... I don't know what they could do on their own... and WMD-crazy military wackos could duke (nuke) it out on their own battlefield-planet.

It's like leaving a field to rest (I don't know the english words, it's "jachère" in french) : when you do, the next time you use it the crop is more plentiful. Let some fresh air into our planet-sized room... and get out for a walk.

One thing is sure : after reading this thread, who in his right mind would still want to stay on this planet ?

Some say UFO's don't exist. I say : if they DO exist, do you see one good reason why they'd want to land here ? [alien]

In a video game a crazy general "said" : We nailed our god to a wooden cross, we blast nukes in our only biosphere... don't f*** with the human race.

Don't you find interesting that the chinese, with their limited space program, have already started to make their own space station ? Everyone who can wants to bail out.

****************************************************

About the dead links, Lazarus : I don't usually post links on forums precisely because these days links get dead faster than muslim airline pilots. It's got to do with the new methods for web design and maintenance : they have reached such a complex and automated behavior you'll soon see "sentient web sites".

There used to be a time when URL meant Uniform Ressource Locator. Scratch that, the concept is dead. [cry]

I think quoting is still the best way to go. Most web sites allow this as long as it's not for making profit... and the ImmInst is a non-profit organisation.

In doubt, I'd e-mail the author and seek approval. If you see me quoting an article, that's what I will have done first.

Jean

[Lazarus Long]

From all I've read on the topic (including this entire thread) it seems the one big existential risk for mankind is to stay on Earth and not seek to colonize space.

As a student of history you probably understand that this is the Standard Operating Procedure with respect to this problem since prehistoric times. It was the impetus, far more than Helen's delicate beauty, that launched not only a thousand but a million ships, and guided caravanistas across the expanse of this entire planet. It is in part our lost frontier that is driving us now into conflict with one another. We have no safety valve for the rapidly building internal and external social and environmental resource pressures.

The problem is that we are not likely to be able to emigrate fast enough or in sufficient quantity of population to any off world system of colonization before we hit the critical social mass that makes humans auto-destructive en mass.

I suggest that we could buy some time for developing off world access by first developing an intermediary approach that pushes social development off shore to the vast coastal regions around the world and attempts some new paradigms for socio-technological interaction with the marine environment. We have already turned much of what was once fertile coastal "natural habitat" into aquatic desert, we may as well now return to it and make it a vital habitat again, only this time with an additional Transhuman element.

This approach wouldn't permanently solve the "entropy in a closed system" problem but it could provide necessary training in hostile environmental conditions that will produce a New Age explorer better equipped to go off world. It would also accelerate the tech necessary in biological terms to function as viable autonomous "life support" as we do.

Considering the area involved and the rate of even the currently decelerating population increase we are looking at a viable concept, applicable even with currently developing tech that could create sufficient relief zones in our "current" lifetimes.

Since the distances are not so great it also could overcome a second drawback, it would not be so removed from our "home of origin" such that the colonists would receive little or no support and they could also return occasionally. This way they wouldn't be signing a social death warrant with respect to family and our homeworld.

Clearly the advances achieved through this approach would facilitate the inevitable and necessary process to go off world as well but going this route might buy us the time to get to that stage and the knowledge we need to be successful.

The second idea is to shift our off world focus from going directly to interplanetary colonization and emphasize instead a primary focus on asteroid/comet catching/development as an interim step that leads to the larger goal more incrementally but allows us a far more practical foothold off world.

By mining and colonizing asteroids/comets we can build the great colony ships off world that can transport the populations numbers needed to make a difference on a routine basis with sufficient material support from the home world. We can also develop the fabrication and resources off world that are critical to viable colonization.

NEO's are the place to start and two different approaches could work side by side. One to capture and move some asteroids into orbit around the Moon for local development and the second is to capture and redirect some asteroids into controlled heliocentric wide elliptical orbits that allow the habitats created inside these artificial worlds to serve as our fleets of Mayflowers carrying colonists as far as the Jovian & Saturnine moons, not simply Mars.

If a large enough self supporting habitat could be constructed then we are also creating the transportation system requisite to the task. That these ships will become as obsolete as Caravels in short order I have no doubt, but first we must reach the shores of new worlds before we focus on building Clippers to ply the vastness of the distances in more reasonable time, more efficiently. First we must build our wealth of experience to ensure success.

[nefastor]

Colonizing the seas is a great idea, I really like it, and it's truly as challenging as colonizing space. France, where I live, has one of the best sea diving institute in the world (if not THE best) : COMEX. They use on a regular basis specific suits and breathing melanges to work at depths well beyond 400 feet, down to 1,000 feet, as well as diver bells designed for this kind of operation : you should see them, they look like spacemen with a MIR station.

But to relieve the social pressure building up on Earth, invading the seas might not be enough. The ammounts of materials, metals in particular, required to build underwater habitats is too large. We'd be bringing all other industries to a full stop and we'd still not be able to build enough habitats. Even more so if the depths at which we're building increase (and they will, if we really start building into sea massively).

Using small planetoids like asteroids, on the other hands, seems much more interesting. I remember reading a novel when I was a kid : people had burrowed into an asteroid to create an habitat inside, and installed giant engines feeding on matter-energy conversion, to go colonise a far away planet. As population increased in the ship, they'd dig more corridors and rooms and use the debris to feed the engines. A very interesting concept.

I think we can speed up space colonisation tremendously if we'll just use space ressources. There's a simple plan I've developped over the past year I'd like to share with you. It's derived from my interest in self-assembling / self-replicating systems, itself derived from my interest in nanotechnology.

First, let's find a method for launching stuff in orbit using electricity. Simple : use electrolysis to turn water into hydrogen and oxygen (the very fuel of the french Ariane 5 high-capacity launcher).

Second, let's find plenty of cheap electricity. Easy again : cover a good part of the Sahara desert with a solar powerplant. The sun gives you energy, you turn it into fuel, and that fuel, burning, becomes water again. Nothing is lost, zero pollution in the whole process !

Third, use your cheap, limitless-capacity launch system to send up in space automated mining and refining stations. Aim them at the asteroid belt beyond Mars. Designing these machines is well within our current technological capability.

Fourth, have these "robot mines" shoot the metal ingots they produce towards moon orbit, so they can be easily collected.

Five, the way you sent out the robotic miners, send out automated workshops into moon orbit. Have them use the incoming metal (or other space ressources) to produce self-assembling space-colony elements. (the workshops could also produces more automated mines and workshops !)

Six, have the space colony elements shot where you want your space colony (say, at a Lagrange point, or just about anywhere) and let the colony self-assemble.

Seven : send in the colonists to finish the job and paint the bulkheads. Have them add everything you couldn't make from the ressources you harvested in space.

Once you can make massive space colonies without much hassle nor plundering the Earth, you can use your launchers to send people up as fast as you can. With massive space infrastructures you'd be able to build large space ships to colonize other planets.

Of course, this plan depends heavily on the usefulness of whatever ressources we'll find in the solar system. But I'll be damned if not a single asteroid around us contained the slighest trace of metal. It might not be titanium or aluminium... but who cares ? Remember we won't be launching the station elements from Earth, so they could be made of iron and it wouldn't make a difference... especially with an unlimited supply.

As for all the required electronics and plastics, they can be made from silicon, which is quite abundant on Earth, and probably in space too.

What I like with this plan is that we could implement it right now. It only relies on well-known technologies (like metallurgy, machining, casting, X-ray lithography, robotic assembling...) and most of these work even better in low-gravity and vaccum !

This could of course be improved by developping some "miracle technologies". For instance, transmutation of atoms observed in nuclear physics could be developped into a way of transforming any ressource (even dust or waste) into whatever ressource we need (titanium, germanium, carbon, oxygen...). Such transmutation devices could be evolved from the Farnsworth fusor... they can already turn boron into carbon by adding a proton.

In case you're wondering, the first application I thought of for such automated space-building technology was the building of a Dyson sphere, a sphere that would be built around a planet or a star to enclose it. Such a structure is so immense it just can't be built by humans. It has to be self-built.

Drifting from the threats to life, are we ?... hmmm... well we did agree staying on Earth is one big threat that we definitely must deal with. This is my proposal for a short / mid-term solution. Then, of course, there's the terraforming of Mars or some Jovian moon(s). Book me a seat for Jupiter, HAL my friend

I just hope unlimited ressources will be enough for mankind... we're so greedy that I wouldn't be surprised if space colonies declared war against each other someday. It's actually been the topic of plenty of novels and japanese animation classics like the Gundam universe (in short : a universe where even space is two small for two ideologies to co-exist... and where WMD's run rampant in the form of giant space robots carrying nuclear bazookas)

I'll say it again, to summarise (?) : although Earth holds many threats to life (most of them originating from humans, life global warming or bio-weapons), the big threat is mankind itself. If we obtain unlimited ressouces and space (and time, with immortality) there is a chance the threat might be lessened... but I won't bet on it.

Jean

[Lazarus Long]

This is when we spin off a new thread, but I might just transfer the specific posts to the thread on new ideas for Space Programs.

[Omnido]

To sum up, there are numerous issues that need to be addressed.
In some (and most) cases, its far easier and more convenient to merely "pack up and move". The metaphor doesnt necessarily speak of literal relocation, but more of starting anew instead of solving the problem. Humans are notorious for this.
You see a problem? You attempt to deal with it. If it starts to get too difficult or uncomfortable, you simply ignore it. Eventually, when it overruns you, you either fight it or flee from it, abandoning it to its own (you hope) ends.
What do you do next?
Start over with a contingency against such a future problem ever arising.

Nukes, Viruses, Social indifferences, Religious fanatacism, etc... these are all issues of the "old world" as I like to put it. We can sit and try to "clean-up" the mess that has been the result of our existence here, or we can attempt to start anew with better ideas, filters, and preventive maintenance intended on eliminating our faults.

Does this solve our existing ones?
No.
However it does allot us a new system with which to deal with the old, instead of working inside the old and investing so much effort on converting it to the new.

As for space colonization...
Well, until Politics and capitalism can look past their inherent flaws; namely their own fundamentally flawed design(s), it is my opinion that the space program is a joke.
Perhaps some isolated group of individuals or companies might endeavor to develop the far more advanced technology (that we are fully capable of developing) to catch the attention of on-lookers, but to be blunt, Things just arent that bad yet, and if they are, very few are taking notice.

Personally, I advocate what Ive always advocated.
The joint unity of all like-minded individuals for the development of the most efficient, productive, and logical solution to many of the so-called "non-feasible ideas".

Non-feasible? Please. We've had the ability to create nukes for decades. And now thanks to the increase in edcuational standards, Atomic chemistry and nuclear theory is practically elevated to college prerequisite.
We can now utilize genetic engineering as a definitive method of research and development for the expedited increase in artificial human evolution.
We can develop computers capable of full automation and reasonable levels of deductive, operational, and optimizational intelligence.

Feasibility is NOT an issue. It all boils down to what its Always boiled down to: Leadership, politics, and availability of resources.
Who will lead this bold new world past its current limits imposed as a result of corruption and fear?
Ive no idea. Id take the job if I could be sure I wouldnt wake up with a bullet between my eyes for just uttering the phrase: "Its possible, its feasible, its doable. We're going to do it and continue doing it."

Those words are frightfully threatening whether deliberately imposed and intended, or not. Even in the face of altruism and benevolence, people fear what they cannot control, and they presume their fear to be their best guidance for making decisions about the fate of what they cannot immediately comprehend.
So long as the human race continues to allow this, whether in whole or in part, we will forever be locked in a struggle against ourselves for long outdated genetic predispositional reasons.
Ultimately, if we cannot compromise a resolution, we will compromise our species into extinction.

But as Lazarus stated, this strays onto another topic...

Edited by Omnido, 01 November 2003 - 06:18 PM.

[nefastor]

Indeed we're now starying a fair bit from existential risks. Lazarus, I have no problem if you want to move my previous post to a Space Programs thread (it's quite obvious it belongs there)

I'll just finish this post by more thoughts on why we're the biggest existential risk to ourselves.

First, I agree with you entirely, Omnido : nothing is impossible. There's even a very old french saying : "Impossible isn't french". Most french know it, but they seem oblivious as to its meaning as they use the word "impossible" every day.

The problem is indeed leadership, and that's some kind of ouroboros we're facing... leadership as we know it arose from the necessity to share and distribute the limited ressources on Earth. Going into space would kill the "limited ressources" factor, and so, inherently, kill the need for leadership as we know it. And our leadership doesn't want to die.

Go tell George W. Bush or Jacques Chirac that if we conquer space guys like him will be out of a job... I don't think they'll like it. Not one bit.

Our civilisation is under the control of people who love power and money above all else. Conquering the unlimited ressources of space would make money useless and politics a joke. The people in control, understandably, don't want that. Because they'd become just like everyone else, normal people, and they are so acustomed to being regarded as "special", as "world leaders", people "above" the "commoners" that we are.

This brings us back to some of the most violent hours of mankind's history. When leadership won't recognise its flaws and step down peacefully, the only solution is revolution, with all the chaos that implies. Take for instance the french revolution of 1789 : people go beheaded for mere ideas, even for less sometimes, and although the previous form of leadership was removed successfully, those that followed didn't improve on the people's predicament.

To the point that today, France is still a kingdom. There is a new form of nobility (here, no movie actor will ever enter politics, you can be sure of that). And Chirac himself would be in jail right now if he hadn't been reelected : he used public funds for his own private use (travelling the world, filling his pockets...) and got full protection from law by virtue of our very Constitution !

So yes, Omnido, our problem is leadership... but unfortunately this problem is WAY harder to solve than problems involving technology.

Therefore, I'll conclude by writing this :

Human leadership is an existential risk, a quite possibly one of the biggest, if the THE biggest.

Jean

(PS : Omnido, you say humans are notorious for fleeing from their problems and it's true... but would that be a problem if we were to conquer the universe, which is infinite ? In the first "Matrix" movie, the agent Smith compares humans to a virus. Maybe that's exactly what we are ?)

[Lazarus Long]

Indeed we're now straying a fair bit from existential risks. Lazarus, I have no problem if you want to move my previous post to a Space Programs thread (it's quite obvious it belongs there)

I'll just finish this post by more thoughts on why we're the biggest existential risk to ourselves

Actually Jean, dealing with solutions for existential risk, such as the creation of viable off world and marine habitat development cannot in and of itself be seen as totally off topic. It exposes an aspect of the "Existential Risk" that is like the Medusa, only able to be safely seen in a mirror.

When we discuss ourselves as the "greatest threat," we all tend to find a means of blaming the "Other Guy," "Those people," The Rich, The Poor, The Educated, The Ignorant, the Powerful, the Weak Blind Followers," the Luddites, the Godless Techno Mages", and the truth is not merely in the middle, it is all of the above.

It is our very diversity and division within our single species that makes us the greatest threat to ourselves. So it is no small irony that it is also our greatest asset for overcoming the problem. You see that very diversity is a result of the memetic analog of divergence in genetic evolution and the source of adaptive social innovation.

For the moment Omnido I will grant that poor leadership induces an element of what I was more broadly categorizing as the "Orwellian Risk." Let us call it the Top/Down Inertial Resistance to Evolution. . (It needs to understood that evolution has a positive top down component when it is defined by exemplary behavior.) That said many of your criticisms are all valid but they are shall we say, "one sided".

There is an equally dangerous and even more powerful doppleganger to the top/down dilemma of poor leadership and that is the bottom/up popular demand for it. A good historian never absolves a people for the actions of its leaders. Nero wasn't totally responsible for the madness of Rome he also reflected it.

The Germans weren't totally dominated by a mad dictator that made them do what they did in WWII. Hitler was an elected official and his rhetoric was understood by all too many people at that time. We tend to like to blame leaders because it makes us feel absolved of the crime but in a democracy in particular, we must all learn to share and shoulder an existential responsibility, a liability for the actions of the collective and not try to simplistically pass off the problem to the opposition, or leaders.

So you see where I am leading?

It is the people's fault too.

Who am I to say this? Who are you?

We are the people.

Just as there is a duality from above that demonstrates the importance of the positive versus negative aspects of leadership there exists a vastly more common and actually more powerful component which is bottom/up and contained in the collective might of a "majority", a mass, or a mob. We can define the Superbeing aspect of this arcane study as memetics; the development of a "mass mind" whether organic. electronic, or both.

While it is the mind within our heads that leads, it is our bodies that builds our world. As a species we are little different. When the body blames the head for its ailment it has only itself to blame. Hence the need for a shield upon which to reflect the Gorgon's Visage for its face we fear is perhaps our own.

Our challenge is to first be true to ourselves, from this many truths evolve.

But to succeed we must transcend existential and collective guilt for history's long pages of crimes against each another and move to a state of "Existential Responsibility" for our present and future. We must address and understand the complexity of balancing individual and collective interest in a world that can no longer tolerate the quest for a single cultural primacy, regardless of that conflict as it is perceived between ethnic groups or as a question individual and their State.

We the people, like true parents, can alter the character of those children that would lead their own life best, not by force over them but by first changing ourselves. That is why we are Transhuman, we define change. That is why as much as many (such as your protagonist Mark) would like to type cast us as the source of the problem I argue we are the face of hope and opportunity.

This is more subtle an approach definitely requiring more determination and patience but it is an ever more powerful one that is predicated on the power of evolutionary creativity instead of revolutionary destructive change. What is understood by us all that know history is that we are the inheritors of the wind.

Edited by Lazarus Long, 01 November 2003 - 05:54 PM.

[Lazarus Long]

BTW, leave these posts as they are to better appreciate the continuity of how they evolved. One of us or I will find the time to copy the specific aspects over to the other threads on Space Development.

Omnido raises a point which truly must be more closely examined in relation to "fight or flight." What I suggested is prehistoric about this dilemma, and he called "Old World" thinking is true, and while I suspect we are all in agreement that it might buy us some time if we can create a new frontier, it may only be making the problem worse in scope over the long run unless we come to grips with our character as a species and as individuals.

On the other hand who would want to live forever without an infinite Universe to explore?

Ohh that's right, the Universe may be finite after all.

Well, then let's make it Infinite.

[nefastor]

You're right Lazarus : we, you, I : we are the people, and we are no better or worse than anyone else (even if we think we are). I just didn't have time to talk about everyone of us last time I typed (had some groceries to go buy... life is tough...)

I don't consider myself as not being a threat to existence : I enjoy brawling every so often (one reason why I practice martial arts) and I enjoy physically dominating other people. Asserting my strength feels good (and I assume it does for just about everybody). And I like feeling good (just like everybody).

Truly I'm not placing anyone above anyone, when it comes to existential risks. We are humans, predators, and at that, careless predators. We are self-centered even when we demonstrate altruism (don't we help people just so we'll feel better ?)

Hitting on the leaders was easy, but I honestly can't apologize for shooting at the biggest target instead of shooting my own feet, so to speak.

You're right, my criticisms are one sided, but it is to be expected : I am one, so how could I be on more than one side ? Especially opposing sides ! And after all, you did write that we must be true to ourselves.

I am true to myself, I believe. My belief is that you can achieve this by :
- Considering your actions (past) in the light of pure logic.
- Accepting failures or mistakes, and acting on them.
- Refusing to lie to yourself so you might "feel good".
- Facing each challenge in life on your own chosen terms. Be it fight, or flight, as long as you are perfectly aware of the consequences of your choice.

As such, I don't lie to myself on the reasons why I like martial arts, for instance, and I don't lie to myself about the selfishness there is in seeking my own immortality.

I don't lie to myself either when I say I want to help whoever wants to become immortal and/or clear the threats to our existence.

Not ever lying to yourself or to others is something I was unable to do until the age of 18, maybe 20. It has since been my way of life. When I don't want to say the truth, I just keep my mouth shut.

Being so honest has caused me much trouble, especially at the beginning, but still now. I'm not liked at all by most people because of my utter lack of complacency (or indulgence. Is that the correct word ?). But this is the cost of being true to myself, and I revendicate it.

Anyway, all this is to say I do agree to being part of the problem (existential risks). The saying goes, if you ain't part of the solution, you're part of the problem, but I sure hope it doesn't apply to people !

Jean

[Lazarus Long]

Hitting on the leaders was easy, but I honestly can't apologize for shooting at the biggest target instead of shooting my own feet, so to speak.

Actually assassination is at the heart of the target. It is both the center of the bull's eye and the cheapest, easiest shot. While scattering one's impact upon the periphery of society is like peppering the forest leaves and losing the prey. However, it is by those ripples spreading through trees like waves of words that we define the riddle of goals for the object we aim at. While seeming much easier to miss the mark it is actually more difficult and more important to define the boundaries of conflict than the center.

All Leaders, both good and evil comprise the center of any conflict but all wars are fought by the mass in the middle, the people. Perhaps it would be better to return to an age of heroes and let the likes of Bush and Saddam enter the arena themselves with the whole world watching. Now that would be spectacle on a Roman scale, epic and worthy of the finest Achilles' heels to play for sport.

Ultimately though, we all only lead ourselves, if we find the ability to lead at all.

[Omnido]

Let us call it the Top/Down Inertial Resistance to Evolution. .  (It needs to understood that evolution has a positive top down component when it is defined
by exemplary behavior.)  That said many of your criticisms are all valid but they are shall we say, "one sided".

I entirely agree. The "one sided" criticism that you refer to is true, to a point. The people elect our "leaders" by popular vote (as with the U.S), and the addage "The blind leading the blind" is to what I refer. The people are not aware of all the possibilities, and their "collective opinions" are impartial as well as incomplete.
One is allowed to vote in ths U.S when they reach the age of 18, yet one is not considered a "full adult" until they are 21.
Yet, this 18 year old can make decisions that impact the future of our nation, they are considered legally responsible for themselves, and they can do what has been considered to be the greatest possible effort for our nation: They can spill their own blood, surviving or dieing for the ideal of "Protecting" our liberties.
Liberties that do not apply to them for another full 3 years, when they are then considered "Full adults."
That is the most rediculous idea Ive ever heard. My logic to that is: "If I am going to risk my life or even die for the country with whose policies and very foundation is based upon freedom and equality, I should be able to take part in ANY freedom, priviledge, or right that I am fighting to uplhold. NO EXCEPTIONS!" [angry]

Well, we all know the end of that story.
"Young adults are not responsible, blah blah blah". Excuses.[!]
As Lazarus Stated: "Defined by Exemplary Behavior." I agree 1000%. Such behavior is not congruent with political nature, unless deviations thereof would provide a means of the constant "throat-slitting" that is everpresent within our governmental system. We've seen it all many times. Senator/Congressman/Judge/Official A accuses Senator/Congressman/Judge/Official B of conduct or opinions unbecoming an ideal Senator/Congressman/Judge/Official.
Interesting to note how this only happens if someone else has something to gain from taking Senator/Congressman/Judge/Official's position for themselves, or otherwise producing a desired group of well affililated controlling parties.
Hmm...Lets see...Democrats? Republicans? Shall I go on?[!]

Then theres the issue of what those Senator/Congressman/Judge/Official's do once begin their respective duties. And what is that?
Provide plausible deniability for actions involving decisions for which these elected officials withold both Information, and public choice in regards to the aforementioned.

Wow, and here we "The People" thought that these individuals were really working for our own best interests. [!]
Actually, theyre working for their own best interests, disguising them as what they think our best interests are, and what they decide to interpret them as.
A cook is only as good as their ingredients, and only half as good as their creativity.

Our challenge is to first be true to ourselves, from this many truths evolve.

I couldnt agree more. 'Tis too bad everyone else fails to adhere to this principle.
As far as corruption is concerned, we are (or should be) well aware of those whom dont adhere to this principle, which is our main cause for concern in the first place.

But to succeed we must transcend existential and collective guilt for history's long pages of crimes against each another and move to a state of "Existential Responsibility" for our present and future.  We must address and understand the complexity of balancing individual and collective interest in a world that can no longer tolerate the quest for a single cultural primacy, regardless of that conflict as it is perceived between ethnic groups or as a question individual and their State.

Eloquently stated, and completely correct in my opinion. However, there is one slight problem:
There exists no such government...yet.[sfty]

We the people, like true parents, can alter the character of those children that would lead their own life best, not by force over them but by first changing ourselves.  That is why we are Transhuman, we define change.

People are afraid of change, especially if they dont understand it. "We the people" well, perhaps exclusive individuals whose experience and wisdom can justifiably demonstrate such qualities, but I do not recognize any such individual that operates within any ideal system of government. First there must be the individuals, then there must be support for the changes those individuals would desire to bring about, and lastly, there must be tolerance from an already existing system in which those individuals operate, in order for any changes in that system to be realized.

I must apologize Lazarus, but I do not agree with the Subtle approach, unless there is sufficient funding, resources, and communication available to bring about the enormous awareness schemes requried for the "subtle" to have any effect. In light of that, it no longer becomes subtle, but frontingly direct.
The only method in my opinion to work with subtlety, would be to have all the aforementioned as a means to an end, where that end occurs through "behind the scenes" planning. In that event, everything would be kept quiet until it was time to begin enacting change. By the time such change were ready to begin, there would be nothing any oppositional forces could do to prevent it. Still, it appears as a revolution or spontaneous evolution of memetics and technology, and could instantly transform a society if it had garnished sufficient "powers of change".
I know of no such organization that exists, and if they did, that would be the main reason why I did not know of them.

Edited by Omnido, 03 November 2003 - 08:51 AM.

[nefastor]

How true !

I somewhat agree when you say we should return to an age of heroes. In a small novel I wrote years ago, I had an emperor justify the fact that he went into battle himself, much like my hero Napoleon Bonaparte. The argument was that a cause can't possibly be worth fighting for, in the eyes of people, if the leaders won't fight for it themselves.

I love Napoleon because he was the best leader France ever had. His legal system and texts (the Code Penal and Code Civil) are still the ones we use today. He had a plan, and stuck with it, fighting on the frontlines in times where you could get beheaded by stray cannonballs before knowing it... and his troops loved him for that. He was stern, yet smart enough to accept defeat and act on it. He stayed true to himself.

Anyway, to expand on your shooting metaphors : while assassination is best done with a bullet in the heart, a careful aim isn't always necessary. That's what machine-guns were invented for, or at least what they are used for. Then, of course, you have more destructive weapons like explosives. But I'm not trying to assassinate anyone or anything here (as an immortalist, I not only wish not to die, but also that no one has to die.)

I'd rather that people could accept change, or at least not block it, but maintaining the statu quo seems very important to people, more important than even sheer, efficient logic and long term survival.

This human urge to maintain the statu quo could also be counted as an existential risk.

My argument there is that we know life is evolution (aging, learning, changes), and lack of evolution is death (inert corpse). And by definition, a statu quo is lack of evolution. Therefore, wishing to maintain a statu quo at human-species level is a deathwish.

Jean

[Bruce Klein]

relevant quotes and links resource on threats to life:

http://lifeboat.com/ex/quotes

[jans]

Bruce I agree with you 100%, I just listened to Steve Jurvetson speach on the sindularity conference about AI development where he emphacises 3 times the threat being ourselves evolving something brutal to us. That we are now at the point of evalveing something we do not understand, only understand how to get it started on evolution and how to get it evolved. You can listen to the whole speach of the Estonian here:
http://www.singinst....vejurvetson.mp3 great talk

He also sais ;
(Danny Hellas - sorry if not spelled right) computer engineer quote - "I (Jurvetson) beleave in, I think this is how we get to the AI futures" -

I think something that allows us to move beyond engineering,

something we do not understand, but we understand the process of its

creation is our ultimate goal as a speacies, is to propagete something

beyond ourselves and to fulfill our own symbolic desire for symbolic

immortality.

What do you think of that? To have this come about means then that we don't know what we got, we just kow what we did to get it??

[Athanasios]

Cognitive biases potentially affecting judgment of global risks
Forthcoming in Global Catastrophic Risks, eds. Nick Bostrom and Milan Cirkovic
Draft of August 31, 2006.
http://singinst.org/...tive-biases.pdf

Introduction

All else being equal, not many people would prefer to destroy the world. Even faceless
corporations, meddling governments, reckless scientists, and other agents of doom, require
a world in which to achieve their goals of profit, order, tenure, or other villainies. If our
extinction proceeds slowly enough to allow a moment of horrified realization, the doers of
the deed will likely be quite taken aback on realizing that they have actually destroyed the
world. Therefore I suggest that if the Earth is destroyed, it will probably be by mistake....

[Athanasios]

Beyond the Reach of God
http://www.overcomin...d-god.html#more

Today's post is a tad gloomier than usual, as I measure such things. It deals with a thought experiment I invented to smash my own optimism, after I realized that optimism had misled me. Those readers sympathetic to arguments like, "It's important to keep our biases because they help us stay happy," should consider not reading. (Unless they have something to protect, including their own life.)

So! Looking back on the magnitude of my own folly, I realized that at the root of it had been a disbelief in the Future's vulnerability - a reluctance to accept that things could really turn out wrong. Not as the result of any explicit propositional verbal belief. More like something inside that persisted in believing, even in the face of adversity, that everything would be all right in the end.

Some would account this a virtue (zettai daijobu da yo), and others would say that it's a thing necessary for mental health.

But we don't live in that world. We live in the world beyond the reach of God....

Edited by cnorwood, 04 October 2008 - 06:28 PM.

[Imminst = pro murder (omega)]

I have not read the book that Mr. Klein referenced at the beginning of this thread. I do think the book that is the source of this thread's title obfuscates a major existential threat in its title alone. Existentialism is a threat that is a major component of what makes all life destroying events more possible. Powerful beings unable to see themselves as a part of all, not catering to empathy or understanding, thoroughly absorbed in a winner takes all competition with all others render violence. To use the word "existential" in one specific meaning that does not take the cybernetic understanding, what has been a philosophical understanding, to heart, is begging for disaster.

Protracted misinformation leads to alienation. Protracted alienation leads to existentialism. Existentialism leads to psychosis, not caring for anyone else except the self.

The acronym for this chain of events is MAEP.

It is actually a pretty simple idea. If one does not see or learn of the connections one has to all, one does not work for the benefit of all. There is less compulsion or motivation to learn of other than what comprises serving a very limited view of the self. This is inherently not a sustainable scenario as human abilities grow. We are going to need concerted intelligent massive global efforts to avoid disasters. We need to foster intelligence which is a combination of education and wherewithal at a time when purse strings are drawn tighter and social welfare is shafted.

Our legacy has been, basically, anarchy where it is every man or woman for their self. If that is not mitigated with applied knowledge to find and realize win-win strategies to the extent that we repair our biosphere, avoid the dangers, we destroy ourselves with myriad various forms of terminal suffering.

We will need to combat alienation and existentialism in ourselves and in others if we hope to survive, let alone have long quality lives.

Just open your eyes a wee bit and you can see stupidity amongst people is widespread. The very idea that there is something other than just the self that is worth striving for is considered taboo to many. There is so much misinformation being disseminated, so-called news bought and paid for by war profiteering interests; so much alienation, people out of touch with the ways and means of their own sustenance; so much cavalier lack of care or respect for humanity let alone being humane; so much acceptance of an existential perspective, so little compassion, we will need a great change from the limited heart and mind compromised psychological stance that embraces a dog-eat-dog paradigm and we are going to need that quick.

Seeing existentialism as a chief danger that increases all other dangers means it should not be obscured and relegated to a non-considered triviality. A better title for that book would have been something like "Existence Threats."

Edited by Omega, 26 May 2009 - 12:55 AM.