5 ms·

But plastics don't occur spontaneously in nature, do they? So why would any species of plastic eating life form survive until our days after running out of all

But plastics don't occur spontaneously in nature, do they? So why would any species of plastic eating life form survive until our days after running out of all the available early plastic?

erulabs 7y ago
Now that's an interesting thought - look at biological adaptations in the ancient ancestors of existing animals. If a 40 million year old extinct insect appears to be able to process plastics, that's a pretty good indication that _its_ ancient ancestors had a diet of plastics. Biology might just be the "last artifact". I suppose that's not terribly useful when looking at mars though :P
- samstave 7y ago
  I like the idea that we are the biologic boot loader for AI, as Musk put it. Imagine that biologic creatures evolve over time long enough to develop, birth, and disperse AI out into the greater universe - and collapses after doing so. it takes a very long time for another civilization to evolve to the point that it spawns another AI form into the universe, and all remnants of the prior are gone. Gah - I just mean I enjoyed the thought experiment of his statement. If you are not aware, Elon said this on his appearance on Joe Rogan.
  - Izkata 7y ago
    A universe of what we perceive as AI, reminds me of the short story They're Made out of Meat [0] (and a version on youtube [1]). [0] https://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/thinkingMeat.html https://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/think... [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tScAyNaRdQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tScAyNaRdQ
  - PavlovsCat 7y ago
    "AI" is really just a wishy-washy way of offloading the responsibilities of leading a decent life today to some magic future. There is no reason AI will be "better "on any axis except scale and speed. So, think the Holocaust times a gazillion, in one microsecond, but don't think Bob Ross or Fred Rogers, because even if you could just make that "more powerful" (you can't, not in the same way you can crank up destruction and insanity), that's not even on the menu, there's no money in that. And hey, if AI is so great, and can spread it into all sorts of areas that are inhospitable to carbon-based life, what's the rush with getting rid of carbon-based life? Why does it have to be the extinction of humans and the destruction of spontaneity? Have you entertained the possibility that this outlook might say more about you than the state of things? > [Hobbes] foresaw the necessary idolatry of power itself by this new human type, that he would be flattered at being called a power-thirsty animal, although actually society would force him to surrender all his natural forces, his virtues and his vices, and would make him the poor meek little fellow who has not even the right to rise against tyranny, and who, far from striving for power, submits to any existing government and does not stir even when his best friend falls an innocent victim to an incomprehensible raison d'etat. > For a Commonwealth based on the accumulated and monopolized power of all its individual members necessarily leaves each person powerless, deprived of his natural and human capacities. It leaves him degraded into a cog in the power-accumulating machine, free to console himself with sublime thoughts about the ultimate destiny of this machine, which itself is constructed in such a way that it can devour the globe simply by following its own inherent law. -- Hannah Arendt
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
garmaine 7y ago
Generally speaking organisms of today retain the adaptations of their ancestors, at least to a measurable degree. Whatever organism that ate plastics back then is unlikely to have gone extinct but rather gone back to whatever it was eating before, while retaining the plastic metabolism. Within the span of hundreds of thousands or millions of years (e.g. when a prior evolved primate would have had their technological period) those adaptations would probably remain intact and their descendants would be munching away on plastic today. If we suppose that the plastic culture existed further back than that, then there might not be organisms with intact metabolisms, but nevertheless there'd be some residual proteins that had an enzymatic decaying effect even if the organism didn't make good use of it. The fact that plastics have shown no deterioration at all for extended periods of time seems to indicate that nothing which survives today in contact with plastic has any lineage back to organisms which once consumed plastic in the past.

But plastics don't occur spontaneously in nature, do they? So why would any species of plastic eating life form survive until our days after running out of all the available early plastic?

erulabs 7y ago

Now that's an interesting thought - look at biological adaptations in the ancient ancestors of existing animals. If a 40 million year old extinct insect appears to be able to process plastics, that's a pretty good indication that _its_ ancient ancestors had a diet of plastics. Biology might just be the "last artifact". I suppose that's not terribly useful when looking at mars though :P

samstave 7y ago
I like the idea that we are the biologic boot loader for AI, as Musk put it. Imagine that biologic creatures evolve over time long enough to develop, birth, and disperse AI out into the greater universe - and collapses after doing so. it takes a very long time for another civilization to evolve to the point that it spawns another AI form into the universe, and all remnants of the prior are gone. Gah - I just mean I enjoyed the thought experiment of his statement. If you are not aware, Elon said this on his appearance on Joe Rogan.
- Izkata 7y ago
  A universe of what we perceive as AI, reminds me of the short story They're Made out of Meat [0] (and a version on youtube [1]). [0] https://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/thinkingMeat.html https://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/think... [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tScAyNaRdQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tScAyNaRdQ
- PavlovsCat 7y ago
  "AI" is really just a wishy-washy way of offloading the responsibilities of leading a decent life today to some magic future. There is no reason AI will be "better "on any axis except scale and speed. So, think the Holocaust times a gazillion, in one microsecond, but don't think Bob Ross or Fred Rogers, because even if you could just make that "more powerful" (you can't, not in the same way you can crank up destruction and insanity), that's not even on the menu, there's no money in that. And hey, if AI is so great, and can spread it into all sorts of areas that are inhospitable to carbon-based life, what's the rush with getting rid of carbon-based life? Why does it have to be the extinction of humans and the destruction of spontaneity? Have you entertained the possibility that this outlook might say more about you than the state of things? > [Hobbes] foresaw the necessary idolatry of power itself by this new human type, that he would be flattered at being called a power-thirsty animal, although actually society would force him to surrender all his natural forces, his virtues and his vices, and would make him the poor meek little fellow who has not even the right to rise against tyranny, and who, far from striving for power, submits to any existing government and does not stir even when his best friend falls an innocent victim to an incomprehensible raison d'etat. > For a Commonwealth based on the accumulated and monopolized power of all its individual members necessarily leaves each person powerless, deprived of his natural and human capacities. It leaves him degraded into a cog in the power-accumulating machine, free to console himself with sublime thoughts about the ultimate destiny of this machine, which itself is constructed in such a way that it can devour the globe simply by following its own inherent law. -- Hannah Arendt

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

garmaine 7y ago

Generally speaking organisms of today retain the adaptations of their ancestors, at least to a measurable degree. Whatever organism that ate plastics back then is unlikely to have gone extinct but rather gone back to whatever it was eating before, while retaining the plastic metabolism. Within the span of hundreds of thousands or millions of years (e.g. when a prior evolved primate would have had their technological period) those adaptations would probably remain intact and their descendants would be munching away on plastic today. If we suppose that the plastic culture existed further back than that, then there might not be organisms with intact metabolisms, but nevertheless there'd be some residual proteins that had an enzymatic decaying effect even if the organism didn't make good use of it. The fact that plastics have shown no deterioration at all for extended periods of time seems to indicate that nothing which survives today in contact with plastic has any lineage back to organisms which once consumed plastic in the past.