4 ms·

I don't think life can survive itself in order to become super-intelligent. It's easy to see why we have the Fermi Paradox. Homo Sapiens have been around for sa

I don't think life can survive itself in order to become super-intelligent. It's easy to see why we have the Fermi Paradox. Homo Sapiens have been around for say 100,000 years yet the last 200 years, as we have become technological, we have basically destroyed our environment. I think any intelligent lifeform would have a similar path; where the social intelligence lags behind the technological intelligence. We are not mature enough to handle the global problems that we are facing today. Solutions to these problems require the political will on a global, not nationalistic scale and we just are not ready. Hence we are destroying the environment. So any intelligent life-form would have to survive this period where they have the technical intelligence to create damaging things such as cars, coal-fired power plants, nuclear bombs, etc but lack the maturity and will to manage the bad issues resulting from that technology. And I can't see how we will create the solutions on a global scale within such a divisive world society. It just won't happen. And any life-form would go thru the same phase. So life will flourish until technology enters the picture, and then the issues of technology (pollution, over-population, resource depletion, etc.) will happen very quickly and destructively since any life-form would be emotionally ill-equipped to handle them. I mean, how can we construct global solutions when the majority of people still believe in a 'god'. We are still immature apes yet with nuclear bombs. It would be a rare civilisation that would be able to survive this period. And hence that's why intelligent life-forms would continually rise and fall, but never progressing past a certain level of intelligence.

youeeeeeediot 10y ago
So whenever I open the newspaper every headline I see in the newspaper points to the birth pangs of a type one civilization information. However, every time I open the newspaper I also see the opposite trend as well. What is terrorism? Terrorism in some sense is a reaction against the creation of a type one civilization. Now most terrorists cannot articulate this. They don’t even know what the hell I’m talking about, but what they’re reacting to is not modernism. What they’re reacting to is the fact that we’re headed toward a multicultural tolerant scientific society and that is what they don’t want. They don’t want science. They want a theocracy. They don’t want multiculturalism. They want monoculturalism. So instinctively they don’t like the march toward a type one civilization. Now which tendency will win? I don’t know, but I hope that we emerge as a type one civilization. —Michio Kaku. "Will Mankind Destroy Itself?", 2010 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale
- phs318u 10y ago
  > What they’re reacting to is the fact that we’re headed toward a multicultural tolerant scientific society and that is what they don’t want. They don’t want science. They want a theocracy. They don’t want multiculturalism. They want monoculturalism. Sadly, you've also described an increasing number of western political conservatives. https://m.mic.com/articles/95234/psychologists-discover-the-striking-difference-between-conservative-and-liberal-brains#.K34utmriA https://m.mic.com/articles/95234/psychologists-discover-the-...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
gauto 10y ago
Maybe the problems of today will be solved with the technology of tomorrow. As far as nuclear bombs, we don't really seem to be using them much anymore. They are just trump cards in the mutual assured destruction game.
- ImTalking 10y ago
  Any technical solutions to the global issues we face will be thwarted by sociological factors due to our immaturity as a species. Climate, for example, requires cooperation on a global level and all populous industrialised countries must participate. China, for example, may decide to not participate for any number of economic or political reasons. What then? They would be further destroying the planet. Should we force them to participate since their decision is adversely affecting other nations?
  - gauto 10y ago
    Solutions don't necessarily need everybody to be on board. Somebody could come up with something tomorrow. Maybe a bacteria that can populate the ocean, which precipitates carbon from CO2 in the air, and drops little pellets to the bottom. Probably not a real practical solution, or even a good idea, but it shows how things could rapidly change if the right tech comes along. They wouldn't need to get everyone together - just a petri dish thrown into the ocean. We are still thinking of solving today's problems with today's technology, which I agree is futile to get everyone on the same page.
    - ImTalking 10y ago
      Certainly possible. Problem is that the issues are very diverse. You have increased carbon, over-population, resource depletion, increased toxins in environment, etc, and each would require very different technological solutions. Also, I think solutions such as your bacteria idea would just make us lazy. We wouldn't fix the real issue but would just ultimately rely on technology to solve what are really social issues.
- whyenot 10y ago

youeeeeeediot 10y ago

So whenever I open the newspaper every headline I see in the newspaper points to the birth pangs of a type one civilization information. However, every time I open the newspaper I also see the opposite trend as well. What is terrorism? Terrorism in some sense is a reaction against the creation of a type one civilization. Now most terrorists cannot articulate this. They don’t even know what the hell I’m talking about, but what they’re reacting to is not modernism. What they’re reacting to is the fact that we’re headed toward a multicultural tolerant scientific society and that is what they don’t want. They don’t want science. They want a theocracy. They don’t want multiculturalism. They want monoculturalism. So instinctively they don’t like the march toward a type one civilization. Now which tendency will win? I don’t know, but I hope that we emerge as a type one civilization. —Michio Kaku. "Will Mankind Destroy Itself?", 2010 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

phs318u 10y ago
> What they’re reacting to is the fact that we’re headed toward a multicultural tolerant scientific society and that is what they don’t want. They don’t want science. They want a theocracy. They don’t want multiculturalism. They want monoculturalism. Sadly, you've also described an increasing number of western political conservatives. https://m.mic.com/articles/95234/psychologists-discover-the-striking-difference-between-conservative-and-liberal-brains#.K34utmriA https://m.mic.com/articles/95234/psychologists-discover-the-...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

gauto 10y ago

Maybe the problems of today will be solved with the technology of tomorrow. As far as nuclear bombs, we don't really seem to be using them much anymore. They are just trump cards in the mutual assured destruction game.

ImTalking 10y ago
Any technical solutions to the global issues we face will be thwarted by sociological factors due to our immaturity as a species. Climate, for example, requires cooperation on a global level and all populous industrialised countries must participate. China, for example, may decide to not participate for any number of economic or political reasons. What then? They would be further destroying the planet. Should we force them to participate since their decision is adversely affecting other nations?
- gauto 10y ago
  Solutions don't necessarily need everybody to be on board. Somebody could come up with something tomorrow. Maybe a bacteria that can populate the ocean, which precipitates carbon from CO2 in the air, and drops little pellets to the bottom. Probably not a real practical solution, or even a good idea, but it shows how things could rapidly change if the right tech comes along. They wouldn't need to get everyone together - just a petri dish thrown into the ocean. We are still thinking of solving today's problems with today's technology, which I agree is futile to get everyone on the same page.
  - ImTalking 10y ago
    Certainly possible. Problem is that the issues are very diverse. You have increased carbon, over-population, resource depletion, increased toxins in environment, etc, and each would require very different technological solutions. Also, I think solutions such as your bacteria idea would just make us lazy. We wouldn't fix the real issue but would just ultimately rely on technology to solve what are really social issues.
whyenot 10y ago