23 replies to this topic

[macdog]

Of particular to would be immortals should be a probability theory known as the Carter Catastrophe. In essence what the Carter Catastrophe states is that we are actually at the zenith of the human population right now, and that our species will be going extinct in the next century or two. I think there are some solutions that might explain why this supposition is incorrect, but I'm interested to see if anyone else will come up with them. Meantime, a far better explanation of the Carter Catastrophe and excellent discussion of the issues can be found at:

Webpage

[John Schloendorn]

Physical immortality would be a good reason for that theory being incorrect...

[macdog]

That's exactly it.

[advancedatheist]

Of particular to would be immortals should be a probability theory known as the Carter Catastrophe. In essence what the Carter Catastrophe states is that we are actually at the zenith of the human population right now, and that our species will be going extinct in the next century or two. I think there are some solutions that might explain why this supposition is incorrect, but I'm interested to see if anyone else will come up with them. Meantime, a far better explanation of the Carter Catastrophe and excellent discussion of the issues can be found at:

Webpage

Actually the trend in net energy supplies supports the Carter Catastrophe:

The Peak of World Oil Production and the Road to the Olduvai George, by Richard C. Duncan.

Recently Duncan announced that the empirical energy and population data he plots on his curve predict a wave of permanent blackouts around the world starting in 2008.

Edited by advancedatheist, 05 January 2005 - 07:34 AM.

[stevethegreat]

And what if nothing of this happen? Just like in Medieval times that the end of world was near .... but it never happened, instead we went through rainassance and the dark ages fall.

Just like the year 1000 when the christians waited for the doom of the world and Christ would rise again like a king, or the more recent to us year 2000, when a massive blackaout was awaited us after the failing of the computers to faction properly. I have fed up of "world destruction" pessimist people.

Yes it fascinates when you hear about that, but it never happens. According to this predictions human must be dissapeared about 35232 times from earth ... but we are here. These predictions are like the very optimistic ones that said we would have dwell in Luna, shortly after our fist visit to it, but it never happened either.

And, lastly, I don't believe there are any peaks or edges to anything in nature, there are all infinite, like the numbers. We invent the word "peak" just to understand better, just because ourselves had an end in this world. I don't know whether this will continue to happen or not, but one is for sure; we won't predict our end when and if will happen, that's why it would happen.

[JMorgan]

Actually, I've wondered whether or not our species is doomed for extinction, but not in a catastophic or doomsday type of way. Already, the trend is that more affluent nations have fewer children. The US population is being sustained now by immigration rather than actual births. (As most couples in this country no longer have the 2+ children needed to sustain population growth.)

The developing nations are the only regions of the world sustaining our current population growth, and as they join the industrialized world, they too will have less children. If we achieve radical life extension, over time we may find ourselves in a situation where most people are hundred (if not thousands) of years old and children are so rare that we simply die out.

It's not to hard to imagine a time thousands of years from now in which the entire population is too old to have children.

[stevethegreat]

It's not to hard to imagine a time thousands of years from now in which the entire population is too old to have children.

But in a thousand years, if there are people around, they will surely be immortal. So although they will be like 800 years old they will remain young and have the ability have children, if they want to. I don't think that our concern is "if" we will be immortal, but "when". One is for sure we can't predict the future because every parameter changes, nothing remains stable, so the assumption that sth will remain stable is wrong.

[macdog]

Another solution to the Carter Catastrophe is that modern humans will go extinct, but that we will be replaced by a differing genetic and/or enhanced population. Post-humans. This is called a "false extinction", and is the same phenomenon that saw dinosaurs replaced with birds.

[JMorgan]

Another solution to the Carter Catastrophe is that modern humans will go extinct, but that we will be replaced by a differing genetic and/or enhanced population. Post-humans. This is called a "false extinction", and is the same phenomenon that saw dinosaurs replaced with birds.

The Human Body 2.0? When our bodies begin to be more machine than man, or when our cognitive abilities and knowledge far exceeds that of any ordinanary biological human, then humans become extinct as we know them today. Who would want to remain in this "outdated" flesh that can be so easily damaged?

[thughes]

I don't think the carter catastrophe is a valid line of reasoning, so I don't think it requires a solution.

The carter catastrophe's line of reasoning is roughly equivalent to taking a bomb with you on a plane because the chances of there being 2 bombs on the same plane is astronomically low. Well, its not as low any more since you've already beaten the first set of odds... You can't take compute future odds of this sort based on something that has already occurred.

Regardless of when the largest human race population occurs, some humans have to beat the odds and be present earlier on, regardless of what those odds are. If you are here, you've already beaten those odds.

Also, given the current population I imagine the human population of 100,000 years ago could have thought they were in the end times due to the same line of reasoning, and been wrong [lol]

[susmariosep]

I am glad to have landed into your thread here, dear Macdog.

Please stay calm with me, don't go blowing up your stack at me, again.

Here is my contribution to your thread, which is a reproduction of my contribution earlier to that thread of Joydfox on Why I think aging should be fixed first.

I thought that from my stock reading, genetic engineering and genetic medicine will get rid for man such troubles as diseases and aging and death.

But it does not render man invulnerable to extramural agents of destruction like a bullet coming at you from a gun that can decommission a rhinoceros.

Genetic engineering, genetic medicine, and cloning will fulfill their promises of keeping us biologically alive indefinitely or even restore our biological life if we have the misfortune to suffer biological demise. But I like to bring our attention to the preceding paragraph, how do we save ourselves from extramural agents of destruction.

Turn ourselves into mechanical entities, they can last longer or they are much more durable, very much tougher, than biological systems.

Considering that what makes us peculiarly human is our rationality, then we can dispense with all the biology needed to keep biologically functional and alive.

Produce a memory machine which can acquire more memory of everything in the universe and of an individual person himself, say, Susma; make this machine capable of manipulating memory data, exactly you are correct, like the computer I am actually using now, only it can operate of itself, from itself, on itself, by itself, in itself, and for itself. What do you have now, what else but a person, an identity, a self.

This is a human self, if it is loaded with all the memory database of Susma, even though it is not biological. And this mechanical version of Susma will be rid of all the diseases and aging of the biological Susma, and do everything Susma is doing that is essentially and distinctively human, namely, rational operations.

I mean that the search for immortality or restoration of an individual human existence, mark that word, existence and not life, is best consigned to engineers and technicians. In which case we should not be properly speaking searching for immortality, but for indefinitely endurable existence or even restorable existence for man in his essentially distinct character of a rational being.

Susma

what do you think, isn't the mechanization of the human entity a sure countermeasure to the avalanche coming of the Carter Catastrophe?

And please, again, don't blow your stack on me, for this contribution, which in my most sincere heart and mind is certainly on-topic.

Susma

[DJS]

Bostrom has written extensively on this subject. Enjoy [thumb]

A Primer on the Doomsday Argument

The Doomsday Argument and the Self Indication Assumption

The Doomsday Argument is Alive and Kicking

The Doomsday Argument, Adam & Eve, UN++, and Quantum Joe

Beyond the Doomsday Argument

[randolfe]

Quote from Malchiah:

The Human Body 2.0? When our bodies begin to be more machine than man, or when our cognitive abilities and knowledge far exceeds that of any ordinanary biological human, then humans become extinct as we know them today. Who would want to remain in this "outdated" flesh that can be so easily damaged?

I love my "outdated" (and at this point "aged") flesh. Life to me consists not only of mental exploration, it also consists of the physical pleasures of sight, sound, smell, feel, etc. I can't imagine life being better without sexual desire and orgasm, without the sweet smells of flowers, without the oblique pleasures of elimination, etc.

I think there is a real arrogance by those who are so eager to discard the life they have found precious enough to want to extend into eternity. If life is so sweet and so good, why should we want to alter it for "eternity"?

I'd be quite happy to spend the next few hundred years as a healthy functioning twenty-year-old in a youthful healthy body.

[tous]

And what if nothing of this happen? Just like in Medieval times that the end of world was near .... but it never happened, instead we went through rainassance and the dark ages fall.

Just like the year 1000 when the christians waited for the doom of the world and Christ would rise again like a king, or the more recent to us year 2000, when a massive blackaout was awaited us after the failing of the computers to faction properly. I have fed up of "world destruction" pessimist people.

Theres a fine difference here, the Carter Catatrphe uses math and underlying principles in society and the development of society to predict that if a drastic change isn't made the world will have to adapt or fall to ruin. The predictions that you were reffering to were religious in nature. Dawm religon, In my opinion, for all the good religion does, it is the biggest think holding back technological and socialogical development.

Actually, I've wondered whether or not our species is doomed for extinction, but not in a catastophic or doomsday type of way. Already, the trend is that more affluent nations have fewer children. The US population is being sustained now by immigration rather than actual births. (As most couples in this country no longer have the 2+ children needed to sustain population growth.)

I don't think this in my opinion is even arguabley a factor when your talking about the extinktion of humans becuase this problem can easily be reckognized and remedied. Anytime that the world has needed more babys they come in by the truck loads. IYCMD

[armrha]

Stevethegreat, I don't think it's reasonable to assume the world won't end just because it hasn't yet. That's the same kind of logic that says you won't die because you never have before. It is certainly possible for our race to be wiped out. There is a host of different ways.

We have a lot of probability-evidence pointing that we get closer and closer to annihilation every single day.

For those that have heard of the Simulation argument, but don't believe we are in a simulation, there is: All species die out before they reach a postbiological sentience level of advancement.

There's the fermi paradox result which says life is common, but dies out before it reaches the technology level neccessary to make self-replicating probes.

There's the Doomsday argument for the probability of being born being in the largest subset of possible humans. If we were going to exponentially colonize all planets, there could be untold scientific notation possible humans in the future... yet we are here in the first batch.

There's more, too...

While it's possible the 'false extinction' holds true, it doesn't make much sense to me why even with all new people being banned on the planet, we wouldn't make more people eventually as we spread out. I think we are probably (it's probable that we are) doomed. But let's give it our best shot anyways!

[stevethegreat]

That's the same kind of logic that says you won't die because you never have before

Prove me that it is sure one day you will die.

[DJS]

*chuckle*

Nothing's "for sure" Steve, but there's definitely a chance.

[stevethegreat]

Nothing's "for sure" Steve, but there's definitely a chance.

I agree with that. However some times I seem to be dogmatic on some of my ideas just because they are unpopular and I want to give 'em the right attention, I think, they deserve. However, then again, the only of my ideas I am dogmatic is that nothing is "for sure" and, at the same time, there is always a chance, as it was opposed.

[knite]

Stevethegreat, I don't think it's reasonable to assume the world won't end just because it hasn't yet. That's the same kind of logic that says you won't die because you never have before. It is certainly possible for our race to be wiped out. There is a host of different ways.

Hmm, no its not actually. 1 life can easily be snuffed out, a rogue asteroid could easily take out MANY people, but it would be nearly impossible to kill all 6 billion people on the planet without an intelligent drive behind it, or short of the planet being obliterated ala Star Wars. That analogy makes no sense because there are so many people, it would be a better analogy to think of each human as a single cell in a larger organism (Albeit a very unspecialized organism, no organs here.). I think people underestimate the resilience of life, and humanity in particular. If just ten thousand survived, humanity has a decent chance of coming back SOME day. I think you are confusing the end of life AS WE KNOW IT and the end of humanity (huge difference).

[armrha]

Hmm, no its not actually. 1 life can easily be snuffed out, a rogue asteroid could easily take out MANY people, but it would be nearly impossible to kill all 6 billion people on the planet without an intelligent drive behind it, or short of the planet being obliterated ala Star Wars. That analogy makes no sense because there are so many people, it would be a better analogy to think of each human as a single cell in a larger organism (Albeit a very unspecialized organism, no organs here.).  I think people underestimate the resilience of life, and humanity in particular. If just ten thousand survived, humanity has a decent chance of coming back SOME day. I think you are confusing the end of life AS WE KNOW IT and the end of humanity (huge difference).

There is no reason to assume this. Our tiny atmosphere is a thin slice on the skin of a tiny planet circling around a mediocre star in a galaxy in a universe where there are more galaxies then there are humans on this place. The tiny, insignificant amount of force neccessary to kill six billion people is bouncing around all over the place. Just a single well-placed gamma-ray burst can scorch that atmosphere off our planet, kill every living thing in minutes. A sufficiently large collision could kill us all from the massive acceleration, just palp us all over the place while our planet slowly broke apart. The earth has been lucky so far. No reason to assume it will stay that way. We are still very dependent on our ecosystem for life. Even just on the subject of asteroids, there's no reason to assume a given collision would be small enough to wipe out 90% of the people but never large enough to wipe out 100%. It's not that much less likely to happen, certainly not impossible.

As we are right now, all of the survival instinct in the world wouldn't save us if the sun stopped shining.

Our real problem is having all of our eggs in the same basket.

Edited by armrha, 27 April 2005 - 03:55 PM.

[knite]

uhh, it would take a seriously rare event or combination of events for something like that to happen, im not saying its impossible, but based on what we DO know about the galaxy and our solar system in particular, these things are ALMOST impossible. I mean, the sun burning out? Perhaps if Einstein was completely wrong its possible. A gamma ray burst? FROM WHAT? Do you know how low the chances are of any sort concentrated gamma ray burst hitting us, are only an estimated 500 per day in the UNIVERSE, and only 1 per day that we can SEE, so lets see, an estimated 500 a day, 1 that we can see(if we cant see it, it cant hurt us), with an estimated 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the visible universe, you do the math, I dont think ill waste the time to predict such an insignificant probability.. A planet sized asteroid hitting us to cause this "massive acceleration"? Why not just say we could crash into Jupiter? I mean, on a long enough timeline, yeah, Id say we are pretty screwed, we already know we are gonna collide with Andromeda, but to say we have any real chance of the earth being destroyed (yes the whole thing) is silly. Its also speculated that the earth was actually hit by another planet already, which is what created the moon. Now our solar system is comparitively stable, so barring any frikken huge rock cruising in from outside the solar system, missing all the other planets AND the sun, and for some frikkish reason hitting our tiny little butt, Id say we ok on the extinction front.