5 ms·

The way progress has been accelerating... "Vanilla" humans are not going to be important 10,000 years from now, and might not even exist. You can debate whethe

The way progress has been accelerating... "Vanilla" humans are not going to be important 10,000 years from now, and might not even exist. You can debate whether we will see radical improvement through genetic engineering or brain-computer interfaces, or whether AI makes humans obsolete, or global warming wipes us out. But all of those reach "tipping points" way before 10,000 years from now. We just don't know which will strike first (I am betting my time and money on brain-computer interfaces).

devoply 7y ago
What isn't political and should be political is the nature of change on this planet using technology. It's taken for granted that change is a constant and constantly necessary. That stability is impossible, though this is not factually true -- stability in short time frames like 10,000 years is historically definitely possible at many levels. That infinite competition is necessary and that the people are simply cogs in that system... where that system should serve people. Instead people serve the system. In such a system open to constant change and destruction it is rather difficult to create other systems that survive the destruction of the meta system that contains them.
- neural_thing 7y ago
  You would like Meditations on Moloch, if you haven't read it already. https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/
- Mirioron 7y ago
  I think it is necessary. If you stop improving then it means that anybody that could've benefitted from the improvements that would've happened don't get those benefits. Furthermore, if some part of society ignores your drive for stability and still keeps trying to improve, then over time they'll simply take over, because they'll be more advanced in many ways.
  - devoply 7y ago
    That's really the crux of the issue. That it's a global political matter and because we're organized in nation states which are competing against one another it is impossible for anyone to stop or change the terms of the agreement. It's really a constant economic war fought with weapons of technology, which perhaps sorely needs disarmament.
    - Mirioron 7y ago
      I don't think it's due to us being divided into nation states. Even inside a nation state you have different groups fighting one another. The side that stops improving disappears. I don't think any kind of "disarmament" could ever work either, because the problem isn't limited to technology proper. We have constant advancements in "social technology" as well. Think about how many "hacks" happen nowadays. It's usually not through vulnerable software or hardware, but theory social engineering instead. If you took a modern smart person and threw them into the 1800s then they could probably get a lot of power, because they could use ideas such as pyramid schemes to amass a lot of wealth. People from that time are unfamiliar with these kinds of "social technologies" and would probably fall prey to it. Even ideas like ponzi schemes are part of that improvement and if you don't keep up then eventually you won't even know how the other group took power. Eg I think that what Trump managed to pull off is probably one of those moves that people in the future will find obvious, but to many of us it was baffling (the idea that he said outrageous things so that the media would constantly keep talking about him, because familiarity often breeds fondness).
      - devoply 7y ago
        Everyone knows how to build and use an a-bomb. Yet no one does. Why? MAD. Similarly any piece of technology you can know how to use it, you can keep doing research on it, you can accumulate more knowledge about it and its uses. You just can be limited from making use of it publicly and even privately through surveillance. And how do you stop people from doing anything if it's known, fines and jail through policing. You can't control nation states as they don't answer to no one except each other. Individuals answer to the state.
7373737373 7y ago
Are any emerging BCI companies already public?
- neural_thing 7y ago
  No.
stcredzero 7y ago
The way progress has been accelerating... "Vanilla" humans are not going to be important 10,000 years from now, and might not even exist. In his books in the Accelerando continuity, Charlie Stross has a "human fundamentalist" movement. What we have in the 20th and 21st century, is that it's much harder for tech and culture to go away completely. Someone, somewhere makes it their hipster shtick, establishes a little shop in Tokyo, or bases a PhD and an academic career on it. This might well happen for the technology of Homo sapiens. (What if we go extinct, then only exist in simulations, then come back from that? That might make for a good Sci-fi novel!)
slfnflctd 7y ago
I'm a big fan of the 'brain in a jar' concept. We might need more than just the brain, but if quality of life is comparable for that individual via BCI to what they would have had with a full sized biological body (or better), it will happen. For one thing, that person requires fewer resources, such as nutrients, physical space and waste management. For another, it could increase lifespans and would definitely reduce cancer risk. I suspect it could eventually become a requirement for many types of space exploration.
baron_harkonnen 7y ago
"progress has been accelerating" mostly due to an abundance of cheap energy, which is both limited and now showing consequences far more destructive than we initially imagined. I wouldn't worry too much about people in 10,000 years living all to differently than they did 10,000 years ago.

devoply 7y ago

What isn't political and should be political is the nature of change on this planet using technology. It's taken for granted that change is a constant and constantly necessary. That stability is impossible, though this is not factually true -- stability in short time frames like 10,000 years is historically definitely possible at many levels. That infinite competition is necessary and that the people are simply cogs in that system... where that system should serve people. Instead people serve the system. In such a system open to constant change and destruction it is rather difficult to create other systems that survive the destruction of the meta system that contains them.

neural_thing 7y ago
You would like Meditations on Moloch, if you haven't read it already. https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/
Mirioron 7y ago
I think it is necessary. If you stop improving then it means that anybody that could've benefitted from the improvements that would've happened don't get those benefits. Furthermore, if some part of society ignores your drive for stability and still keeps trying to improve, then over time they'll simply take over, because they'll be more advanced in many ways.
- devoply 7y ago
  That's really the crux of the issue. That it's a global political matter and because we're organized in nation states which are competing against one another it is impossible for anyone to stop or change the terms of the agreement. It's really a constant economic war fought with weapons of technology, which perhaps sorely needs disarmament.
  - Mirioron 7y ago
    I don't think it's due to us being divided into nation states. Even inside a nation state you have different groups fighting one another. The side that stops improving disappears. I don't think any kind of "disarmament" could ever work either, because the problem isn't limited to technology proper. We have constant advancements in "social technology" as well. Think about how many "hacks" happen nowadays. It's usually not through vulnerable software or hardware, but theory social engineering instead. If you took a modern smart person and threw them into the 1800s then they could probably get a lot of power, because they could use ideas such as pyramid schemes to amass a lot of wealth. People from that time are unfamiliar with these kinds of "social technologies" and would probably fall prey to it. Even ideas like ponzi schemes are part of that improvement and if you don't keep up then eventually you won't even know how the other group took power. Eg I think that what Trump managed to pull off is probably one of those moves that people in the future will find obvious, but to many of us it was baffling (the idea that he said outrageous things so that the media would constantly keep talking about him, because familiarity often breeds fondness).
    - devoply 7y ago
      Everyone knows how to build and use an a-bomb. Yet no one does. Why? MAD. Similarly any piece of technology you can know how to use it, you can keep doing research on it, you can accumulate more knowledge about it and its uses. You just can be limited from making use of it publicly and even privately through surveillance. And how do you stop people from doing anything if it's known, fines and jail through policing. You can't control nation states as they don't answer to no one except each other. Individuals answer to the state.

7373737373 7y ago

Are any emerging BCI companies already public?

neural_thing 7y ago
No.

stcredzero 7y ago

The way progress has been accelerating... "Vanilla" humans are not going to be important 10,000 years from now, and might not even exist. In his books in the Accelerando continuity, Charlie Stross has a "human fundamentalist" movement. What we have in the 20th and 21st century, is that it's much harder for tech and culture to go away completely. Someone, somewhere makes it their hipster shtick, establishes a little shop in Tokyo, or bases a PhD and an academic career on it. This might well happen for the technology of Homo sapiens. (What if we go extinct, then only exist in simulations, then come back from that? That might make for a good Sci-fi novel!)

slfnflctd 7y ago

I'm a big fan of the 'brain in a jar' concept. We might need more than just the brain, but if quality of life is comparable for that individual via BCI to what they would have had with a full sized biological body (or better), it will happen. For one thing, that person requires fewer resources, such as nutrients, physical space and waste management. For another, it could increase lifespans and would definitely reduce cancer risk. I suspect it could eventually become a requirement for many types of space exploration.

baron_harkonnen 7y ago

"progress has been accelerating" mostly due to an abundance of cheap energy, which is both limited and now showing consequences far more destructive than we initially imagined. I wouldn't worry too much about people in 10,000 years living all to differently than they did 10,000 years ago.