4 ms·

There are also aspects that should be considered in my opinion 1°/ individual intelligence and technological innovation is not necessary an ultimate achivement

There are also aspects that should be considered in my opinion 1°/ individual intelligence and technological innovation is not necessary an ultimate achivement that enables competitive advantage : human beings may be individually smart (compared to some other species) yet the collective intelligence of humanity is rather poor (which translates to the unability to solve collective problems such as sustainable management of our finite natural resources (e.g. oil) or of the consequences of our activity (e.g. biodiversity fall and climate change)). I suspect humanity will experience in a few decades a major regression (if not extinction) which could be interpreted as natural selection because of lack of collective intelligence. The same could also happen to other civilizations and maybe technological innovation the way we see it today is not necessary a ultimate achievement ! 2°/ even if some other intelligent species would exist, maybe they would not have the same need to communicate, the same need or will to travel, the same need or will to innovate, etc. 3°/ even if some civilizations could be infinitely smart both individually and collectively and have enough genius to implement all engineering allowed by the laws of physics and have the will to implement it, maybe the laws of physics together with the nature/amount of natural resources on a typical planet do not enable such intergalactic space travels ! Sure, we were able to fly to the moon and we can make 5nm transistors while our ancestors would never have believed it could be done and it might make us dream that "everything is possible because genius and engineering have no limits", yet I would still be careful and such claims sounds more like religious faith than science. People need to understand the enormous distances we are talking about here and we need to remain humble that maybe it is and will remain forever an obstacle :)

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
> even if some other intelligent species would exist, maybe they would not have the same need to communicate, the same need or will to travel, the same need or will to innovate, etc. I think this is unlikely. It seems to me that some amount of curiosity would be a prerequisite for being able to make discoveries that lead to technological progress. Although I suppose it is possible such progress could be made through some kind of evolutionary mechanism as opposed to individual intellect.
- whatshisface 6y ago
  But why would an intelligent species have to make any discoveries, or progress in any way? Maybe they spend all of their intelligence designing birdsongs, until some random natural event drives them extinct. Far from an alien psychology, humanity would be like that if you took away a fraction of the people with the greatest curiosity.
  - klmadfejno 6y ago
    Because discoveries are useful. If the collective reason for your species' existence is writing birdsong, you're going to want agriculture to ensure people can eat, medicine to prevent them from dying, and electricity to make rad synthetic birdsong dubstep remixes. Tech solves problems, and everyone has problems. Doesn't mean you need to leave the solar system though.
    - whatshisface 6y ago
      How is this hypothetical species going to discover any medicine if they spend all their time writing birdsongs? Any individual with a slightly lower proclivity to write birdsongs will be evicted from the gene pool with great prejudice, so there is no chance that anyone will ever be born with the desire to spend a whole hour thinking about something else. Again, if this seems unrealistic, just imagine humanity with the mean "art vs. programming" balance of desires shifted a little bit towards art. There are many people who do not care at all about doing the kinds of things that lead to solving problems, and it is easy to imagine a species that is just them.
      - klmadfejno 6y ago
        Because at some point you run out of food, and if you write birdsong in spite of that you just die out. It may be possible but its not much an effective long term strategy. Too stupid to survive doesn't earn a lot of marks towards being an intelligent species. Individuals with a desire to improve their survivability being evicted from the gene pool is the opposite of how natural selection works. Humans would still invent things even if painting gave everyone erotic pleasure.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
whatshisface 6y ago
>maybe the laws of physics together with the nature/amount of natural resources on a typical planet do not enable such intergalactic space travels This is already known not to be the case, the Breakthrough Starshot project is expensive, but merely expensive.
fossuser 6y ago
AGI seems like a likely option and under discussed for what could be met first. It’d be easier for it to travel great distances than organic life, it’d be possible for a variety of organic life to arrive at creating it, it may be hard for organic life to solve the control problem to limit it, etc.
lisper 6y ago
It is important to remember when analyzing such things that evolution does not optimize the reproductive fitness of organisms, it optimizes the reproductive fitness of genes. Organisms are a side-effect, a result of the fact that cooperation often provides a competitive advantage [1]. But evolution neither knows nor cares about civilization. It just so happens that, at the moment here on earth, genes that build brains that build civilizations reproduce better than genes that don't. But that has not always been the case, and there is no guarantee that it will continue to be the case. It is entirely possible that this whole civilization thing is just a transient. IMHO a prerequisite to the survival of civilization is the recognition that the interests of civilizations can be, and often are, at odds with the interests of genes, and so we are necessarily in active conflict with the genes that made us. The best example of this is birth control, which is an obvious existential threat to the reproductive fitness of our genes. So genes that build brains that have an instinctive revulsion to birth control will, all else being equal, reproduce better than genes that build brains that don't have this revulsion. In the absence of active intervention, the result will be overpopulation. For a civilization to succeed long-term it has to recognize that it is necessarily in conflict with the genes that produced its individual members, because otherwise the genes will win. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation
- whatshisface 6y ago
  I'm not sure if birth control is the greatest example of our genes being the enemy. Birth control is popular because raising a child is horrifyingly net-negative in the 21st century (unlike most prior centuries, where it made you richer and secured your future), and also because birth is incredibly painful for humans specifically. Both of those are unpleasant facts, and many people would consider our civilization better if they changed.
  - lisper 6y ago
    Birth control is not an example of genes being our enemy, it is an example of us being our genes' enemy. And "us" is not really the right way to characterize this because our genes are part of "us". It is more like "the part of us that sees value in technological civilization in its own right" vs "the part of us that sees value in being the biological creatures we call humans". The fact that these concepts don't have names is one indication of just how far off the radar this idea is.
dcolkitt 6y ago
> even if some other intelligent species would exist, maybe they would not have the same need to communicate, the same need or will to travel, the same need or will to innovate, etc. This is true. But even if just a small fraction of civilizations engaged in interstellar expansion, they'd quickly subsume the galaxy on geological timescales. Darwin applies just as much across the stars as it does in a tide pool. As long as there's even a small amount of competition, it will push every player to aggressively expand. The only way out is either 1) technological civilization almost never evolve anywhere. 2) Virtually every technological civilization winds up eschewing interstellar expansion. Or 3) a single player previously won the game, and used its dominant position to benevolently stop the game.
- SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
  > and used its dominant position to benevolently stop the game. Why benevolently? Why not maliciously?
fiftyfifty 6y ago
I think the assumption by many that we are being visited by aliens was based on the idea that the universe must be just teeming with intelligent life. Over time we are gathering more and more data that shows that may just not be the case. As we've built better and better telescopes we've found no evidence of Type III Civilizations. We've intercepted no interstellar communications or even errant radio waves. As we learn more about other stars we find that many of them probably create hostile environments for life on nearby planets due to solar activity. On top of that a number of studies have come out recently like these two: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-020-00057-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-020-00057-8 https://phys.org/news/2018-06-advanced-civilization-universe.html https://phys.org/news/2018-06-advanced-civilization-universe... that, through the use of models and simulations, come to the conclusion that we are dang lucky to have evolved on the Earth at all. While I don't know that I was ever a believer in the Earth being visited by ETs, I always thought that we wound find evidence of intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy any day now. For the reasons above, I'm less and less convinced of that with every passing year.
bryananderson 6y ago
> human beings may be individually smart (compared to some other species) yet the collective intelligence of humanity is rather poor (which translates to the unability to solve collective problems such as sustainable management of our finite natural resources (e.g. oil) or of the consequences of our activity (e.g. biodiversity fall and climate change)). This makes a big assumption: that our inability to solve these problems is rooted in a lack of intelligence (collectively or individually). I don't think that's the case at all. Solutions to these problems are widely known, and most educated people support them, at least in theory. The problem isn't with our intelligence, it's with our incentives. Climate change is a tragedy of the commons (as are other environmental degradation issues, such as loss of biodiversity). Each of us would benefit if everyone cooperated (a nice environment for each of us), but each of us also benefits when we individually defect (cheaper energy for our various needs). As a result, we predictably end up with the suboptimal outcome of (almost-)everybody-defects. What's the way out of the dilemma? It's clearly not a matter of getting smarter. I don't think it's an issue we can solve with moral pleading either: we've been trying that for decades. But what if we could change the game and remove the incentives to defect? * We could implement a carbon tax, incentivizing firms and consumers to use carbon-neural energy sources. * We could subsidize clean energy, incentivizing the same. * We could invest as much money as possible in reducing the cost of clean energy sources, eventually removing the need for ongoing tax/subsidy policies. If non-polluting energy sources are cheaper, more widely available, and easier to use than polluting sources, no one would ever choose the latter. No heightened intelligence required.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago

> even if some other intelligent species would exist, maybe they would not have the same need to communicate, the same need or will to travel, the same need or will to innovate, etc. I think this is unlikely. It seems to me that some amount of curiosity would be a prerequisite for being able to make discoveries that lead to technological progress. Although I suppose it is possible such progress could be made through some kind of evolutionary mechanism as opposed to individual intellect.

whatshisface 6y ago
But why would an intelligent species have to make any discoveries, or progress in any way? Maybe they spend all of their intelligence designing birdsongs, until some random natural event drives them extinct. Far from an alien psychology, humanity would be like that if you took away a fraction of the people with the greatest curiosity.
- klmadfejno 6y ago
  Because discoveries are useful. If the collective reason for your species' existence is writing birdsong, you're going to want agriculture to ensure people can eat, medicine to prevent them from dying, and electricity to make rad synthetic birdsong dubstep remixes. Tech solves problems, and everyone has problems. Doesn't mean you need to leave the solar system though.
  - whatshisface 6y ago
    How is this hypothetical species going to discover any medicine if they spend all their time writing birdsongs? Any individual with a slightly lower proclivity to write birdsongs will be evicted from the gene pool with great prejudice, so there is no chance that anyone will ever be born with the desire to spend a whole hour thinking about something else. Again, if this seems unrealistic, just imagine humanity with the mean "art vs. programming" balance of desires shifted a little bit towards art. There are many people who do not care at all about doing the kinds of things that lead to solving problems, and it is easy to imagine a species that is just them.
    - klmadfejno 6y ago
      Because at some point you run out of food, and if you write birdsong in spite of that you just die out. It may be possible but its not much an effective long term strategy. Too stupid to survive doesn't earn a lot of marks towards being an intelligent species. Individuals with a desire to improve their survivability being evicted from the gene pool is the opposite of how natural selection works. Humans would still invent things even if painting gave everyone erotic pleasure.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

whatshisface 6y ago

>maybe the laws of physics together with the nature/amount of natural resources on a typical planet do not enable such intergalactic space travels This is already known not to be the case, the Breakthrough Starshot project is expensive, but merely expensive.

fossuser 6y ago

AGI seems like a likely option and under discussed for what could be met first. It’d be easier for it to travel great distances than organic life, it’d be possible for a variety of organic life to arrive at creating it, it may be hard for organic life to solve the control problem to limit it, etc.

lisper 6y ago

It is important to remember when analyzing such things that evolution does not optimize the reproductive fitness of organisms, it optimizes the reproductive fitness of genes. Organisms are a side-effect, a result of the fact that cooperation often provides a competitive advantage [1]. But evolution neither knows nor cares about civilization. It just so happens that, at the moment here on earth, genes that build brains that build civilizations reproduce better than genes that don't. But that has not always been the case, and there is no guarantee that it will continue to be the case. It is entirely possible that this whole civilization thing is just a transient. IMHO a prerequisite to the survival of civilization is the recognition that the interests of civilizations can be, and often are, at odds with the interests of genes, and so we are necessarily in active conflict with the genes that made us. The best example of this is birth control, which is an obvious existential threat to the reproductive fitness of our genes. So genes that build brains that have an instinctive revulsion to birth control will, all else being equal, reproduce better than genes that build brains that don't have this revulsion. In the absence of active intervention, the result will be overpopulation. For a civilization to succeed long-term it has to recognize that it is necessarily in conflict with the genes that produced its individual members, because otherwise the genes will win. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation

whatshisface 6y ago
I'm not sure if birth control is the greatest example of our genes being the enemy. Birth control is popular because raising a child is horrifyingly net-negative in the 21st century (unlike most prior centuries, where it made you richer and secured your future), and also because birth is incredibly painful for humans specifically. Both of those are unpleasant facts, and many people would consider our civilization better if they changed.
- lisper 6y ago
  Birth control is not an example of genes being our enemy, it is an example of us being our genes' enemy. And "us" is not really the right way to characterize this because our genes are part of "us". It is more like "the part of us that sees value in technological civilization in its own right" vs "the part of us that sees value in being the biological creatures we call humans". The fact that these concepts don't have names is one indication of just how far off the radar this idea is.

dcolkitt 6y ago

> even if some other intelligent species would exist, maybe they would not have the same need to communicate, the same need or will to travel, the same need or will to innovate, etc. This is true. But even if just a small fraction of civilizations engaged in interstellar expansion, they'd quickly subsume the galaxy on geological timescales. Darwin applies just as much across the stars as it does in a tide pool. As long as there's even a small amount of competition, it will push every player to aggressively expand. The only way out is either 1) technological civilization almost never evolve anywhere. 2) Virtually every technological civilization winds up eschewing interstellar expansion. Or 3) a single player previously won the game, and used its dominant position to benevolently stop the game.

SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
> and used its dominant position to benevolently stop the game. Why benevolently? Why not maliciously?

fiftyfifty 6y ago

I think the assumption by many that we are being visited by aliens was based on the idea that the universe must be just teeming with intelligent life. Over time we are gathering more and more data that shows that may just not be the case. As we've built better and better telescopes we've found no evidence of Type III Civilizations. We've intercepted no interstellar communications or even errant radio waves. As we learn more about other stars we find that many of them probably create hostile environments for life on nearby planets due to solar activity. On top of that a number of studies have come out recently like these two: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-020-00057-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-020-00057-8 https://phys.org/news/2018-06-advanced-civilization-universe.html https://phys.org/news/2018-06-advanced-civilization-universe... that, through the use of models and simulations, come to the conclusion that we are dang lucky to have evolved on the Earth at all. While I don't know that I was ever a believer in the Earth being visited by ETs, I always thought that we wound find evidence of intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy any day now. For the reasons above, I'm less and less convinced of that with every passing year.

bryananderson 6y ago

> human beings may be individually smart (compared to some other species) yet the collective intelligence of humanity is rather poor (which translates to the unability to solve collective problems such as sustainable management of our finite natural resources (e.g. oil) or of the consequences of our activity (e.g. biodiversity fall and climate change)). This makes a big assumption: that our inability to solve these problems is rooted in a lack of intelligence (collectively or individually). I don't think that's the case at all. Solutions to these problems are widely known, and most educated people support them, at least in theory. The problem isn't with our intelligence, it's with our incentives. Climate change is a tragedy of the commons (as are other environmental degradation issues, such as loss of biodiversity). Each of us would benefit if everyone cooperated (a nice environment for each of us), but each of us also benefits when we individually defect (cheaper energy for our various needs). As a result, we predictably end up with the suboptimal outcome of (almost-)everybody-defects. What's the way out of the dilemma? It's clearly not a matter of getting smarter. I don't think it's an issue we can solve with moral pleading either: we've been trying that for decades. But what if we could change the game and remove the incentives to defect? * We could implement a carbon tax, incentivizing firms and consumers to use carbon-neural energy sources. * We could subsidize clean energy, incentivizing the same. * We could invest as much money as possible in reducing the cost of clean energy sources, eventually removing the need for ongoing tax/subsidy policies. If non-polluting energy sources are cheaper, more widely available, and easier to use than polluting sources, no one would ever choose the latter. No heightened intelligence required.