6 ms·

In the near future it is more likely we will wipe out ourselves either due to Nuclear War, Global Warming, rogue AI or similar, than some hostile alien civiliza

In the near future it is more likely we will wipe out ourselves either due to Nuclear War, Global Warming, rogue AI or similar, than some hostile alien civilization will get us. It seems that we are those hostile aliens for ourselves.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
EamonnMR 5y ago
The universe could still be a dark forest of AIs ready to smash each other as soon as they spot each other.
yreg 5y ago
Do you think that most/all civilisations end this way before becoming spacefarers?
- NiceWayToDoIT 5y ago
  I don't think, or rather I hope there are civilization that as a part of their evolution had cooperation, sharing, exploration and innovation embedded as main and prevalent strategies of survival and thriving. I would like to think that there is as in magic fairy tails of old, civilization where good prevails. Where leaders (or what ever mechanism of decision they have) and those in power - are not easily corrupted as here.
  - hnbad 5y ago
    You're describing humans. Up to the point where you hope their leaders aren't corruptible. The problem with humans mostly comes down to centralization. We're an extremely cooperative species until we're put in an environment that promotes competition and punishes cooperation. Centralization of power is one such environment. And it's very hard to undo at this point.
    - NiceWayToDoIT 5y ago
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs Corruption is not just leaders it is a network of beneficiaries, like a snake with thousand heads, and regardless how many you cut new will grow. And we do not know how to get out of that mold. And democracy in uneducated society simply does not work. And we do not have it. All governments are aristocracies. News media displays of "busting" corruption is just "bread in circuses" of this age, media manipulations of wide populous while business as usual continues, hypnosis of population by spin offs and demagogues narrative.
      - hnbad 5y ago
        > All governments are aristocracies. All states are. Not all systems of government are states. > media manipulations of wide populous The media is owned by the same "aristocracy" that controls the state. In the US and other capitalist countries the aristocracy mostly consists of billionaires and a few political "clans" (usually with ties to "old money"). In the USSR the aristocracy was the Bolshevik intelligentsia and former capitalists that formed the bureaucracy. The problem isn't inherent to humanity, it's inherent to centralized systems. The video you linked actually supports this somewhat: a ruler can't rule alone, they need a staff of advisors and delegates to carry out the ruler's orders. But this is only a problem if you try to have a ruler, or a committee of rulers. The usual counter-argument is that decentralized systems don't work at scale. You can have small communities decide things with direct democracy but clearly that doesn't scale because it's harder to reach consensus the larger the group becomes. To address this I would invite you to read into Democratic Confederalism or watch Anark's aptly-titled video "after the revolution"[0] that explores a very similar anarchist/mutualist governance structure. In most of these scenarios the answer to "direct democracy doesn't scale" is a delegate system and it's easy to mistake this for the same representative democracy we're used to but the important difference is that the delegation is not only proportional but voluntary and consent can be withdrawn, either generally or on individual votes. NonCompete's video[1] has some poorly aged off-hand comments about how technology might help with this but he gives a good explanation of how such a delegate system can work. CGP Grey actually also has videos on alternative voting systems[2][3] making such a system feasible. The main difference with these systems is that they're decentralized in the sense that power is granted explicitly and voluntarily, i.e. it can be withdrawn at a moment's notice, making it impossible to hold on to it over technicalities (like receiving a minority share of the votes but then joining a coalition government that appoints your party leader as chancellor and then passes an Enabling Act to disempower the senate like in 1933). At first glance this may sound like sovereign citizens rejecting arrest by exclaiming "I do not consent" but the important difference is that a delegate's vote is only worth as much as the number of people backing them. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMoTWFZjoYA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMoTWFZjoYA [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yuok9TQfpo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yuok9TQfpo [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo [3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE
- chadwittman 5y ago
  It's a common proposed solution to the Great Filter idea.
myrmidon 5y ago
Do you think there is a "real" (>1% over the next century) risk for humanity to wipe itself out, or just that the hostile-alien risk is way beyond negligible in comparison? Because all current climate doom-erism notwithstanding-- humanity extinction seems impossible to achieve to me via climate change or nuclear war; rogue autonomous self-replicating systems might be a danger, but are too far beyound current tech to estimate risk IMO... Very curious if/how/why you disagree on this!
- hnbad 5y ago
  We don't need to go extinct. Our global economy is very fragile, relatively speaking and it's not at all clear we could sustain the economy necessary to perform space exploration if bad things happen. To avoid an extended argument about all the ways in which climate change will screw things up, let's focus on nuclear war: a nuclear war between, say, India and China would not only wipe out huge swaths of the human population but also ruin the global economy because industries in Europe and the US depend on these countries. And that's without going into the ecological effects of a nuclear war. The economy relies on layers and layers of extremely convoluted supply chains and can't sustain a loss of even 1% of the human population, let alone 10% or more. The US has only seen a death of around 0.2% of its population due to COVID and is already facing labor shortages in retail. The blockade of the Suez canal was a big concern but imagine the Suez canal is simply gone.
  - pharke 5y ago
    Those convoluted supply chains are a recent phenomena. Some international trade is necessary but large countries like the United States are capable of producing almost everything they require domestically. Trade is only preferable if you can import something for less money than you can manufacture it locally.
  - joshuahedlund 5y ago
    > The economy relies on layers and layers of extremely convoluted supply chains and can't sustain a loss of even 1% of the human population I think you are underestimating the ability of humanity to adjust and innovate, especially over time. I mean we literally essentially lose 1% of the human population to old age every year.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

EamonnMR 5y ago

The universe could still be a dark forest of AIs ready to smash each other as soon as they spot each other.

yreg 5y ago

Do you think that most/all civilisations end this way before becoming spacefarers?

NiceWayToDoIT 5y ago
I don't think, or rather I hope there are civilization that as a part of their evolution had cooperation, sharing, exploration and innovation embedded as main and prevalent strategies of survival and thriving. I would like to think that there is as in magic fairy tails of old, civilization where good prevails. Where leaders (or what ever mechanism of decision they have) and those in power - are not easily corrupted as here.
- hnbad 5y ago
  You're describing humans. Up to the point where you hope their leaders aren't corruptible. The problem with humans mostly comes down to centralization. We're an extremely cooperative species until we're put in an environment that promotes competition and punishes cooperation. Centralization of power is one such environment. And it's very hard to undo at this point.
  - NiceWayToDoIT 5y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs Corruption is not just leaders it is a network of beneficiaries, like a snake with thousand heads, and regardless how many you cut new will grow. And we do not know how to get out of that mold. And democracy in uneducated society simply does not work. And we do not have it. All governments are aristocracies. News media displays of "busting" corruption is just "bread in circuses" of this age, media manipulations of wide populous while business as usual continues, hypnosis of population by spin offs and demagogues narrative.
    - hnbad 5y ago
      > All governments are aristocracies. All states are. Not all systems of government are states. > media manipulations of wide populous The media is owned by the same "aristocracy" that controls the state. In the US and other capitalist countries the aristocracy mostly consists of billionaires and a few political "clans" (usually with ties to "old money"). In the USSR the aristocracy was the Bolshevik intelligentsia and former capitalists that formed the bureaucracy. The problem isn't inherent to humanity, it's inherent to centralized systems. The video you linked actually supports this somewhat: a ruler can't rule alone, they need a staff of advisors and delegates to carry out the ruler's orders. But this is only a problem if you try to have a ruler, or a committee of rulers. The usual counter-argument is that decentralized systems don't work at scale. You can have small communities decide things with direct democracy but clearly that doesn't scale because it's harder to reach consensus the larger the group becomes. To address this I would invite you to read into Democratic Confederalism or watch Anark's aptly-titled video "after the revolution"[0] that explores a very similar anarchist/mutualist governance structure. In most of these scenarios the answer to "direct democracy doesn't scale" is a delegate system and it's easy to mistake this for the same representative democracy we're used to but the important difference is that the delegation is not only proportional but voluntary and consent can be withdrawn, either generally or on individual votes. NonCompete's video[1] has some poorly aged off-hand comments about how technology might help with this but he gives a good explanation of how such a delegate system can work. CGP Grey actually also has videos on alternative voting systems[2][3] making such a system feasible. The main difference with these systems is that they're decentralized in the sense that power is granted explicitly and voluntarily, i.e. it can be withdrawn at a moment's notice, making it impossible to hold on to it over technicalities (like receiving a minority share of the votes but then joining a coalition government that appoints your party leader as chancellor and then passes an Enabling Act to disempower the senate like in 1933). At first glance this may sound like sovereign citizens rejecting arrest by exclaiming "I do not consent" but the important difference is that a delegate's vote is only worth as much as the number of people backing them. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMoTWFZjoYA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMoTWFZjoYA [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yuok9TQfpo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yuok9TQfpo [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo [3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE
chadwittman 5y ago
It's a common proposed solution to the Great Filter idea.

myrmidon 5y ago

Do you think there is a "real" (>1% over the next century) risk for humanity to wipe itself out, or just that the hostile-alien risk is way beyond negligible in comparison? Because all current climate doom-erism notwithstanding-- humanity extinction seems impossible to achieve to me via climate change or nuclear war; rogue autonomous self-replicating systems might be a danger, but are too far beyound current tech to estimate risk IMO... Very curious if/how/why you disagree on this!

hnbad 5y ago
We don't need to go extinct. Our global economy is very fragile, relatively speaking and it's not at all clear we could sustain the economy necessary to perform space exploration if bad things happen. To avoid an extended argument about all the ways in which climate change will screw things up, let's focus on nuclear war: a nuclear war between, say, India and China would not only wipe out huge swaths of the human population but also ruin the global economy because industries in Europe and the US depend on these countries. And that's without going into the ecological effects of a nuclear war. The economy relies on layers and layers of extremely convoluted supply chains and can't sustain a loss of even 1% of the human population, let alone 10% or more. The US has only seen a death of around 0.2% of its population due to COVID and is already facing labor shortages in retail. The blockade of the Suez canal was a big concern but imagine the Suez canal is simply gone.
- pharke 5y ago
  Those convoluted supply chains are a recent phenomena. Some international trade is necessary but large countries like the United States are capable of producing almost everything they require domestically. Trade is only preferable if you can import something for less money than you can manufacture it locally.
- joshuahedlund 5y ago
  > The economy relies on layers and layers of extremely convoluted supply chains and can't sustain a loss of even 1% of the human population I think you are underestimating the ability of humanity to adjust and innovate, especially over time. I mean we literally essentially lose 1% of the human population to old age every year.