4 ms·
How can long term existential risk be ,,speculative'' when we don't know any civilization that survived getting over Type I on Kardashev scale? Right now there
by xiphias2 4y ago
How can long term existential risk be ,,speculative'' when we don't know any civilization that survived getting over Type I on Kardashev scale?
Right now there is more evidence against surviving the transition than for it.
- tsimionescu 4y agoWe also don't know of any civilizations, or even peoples on Earth, that survived after discovering the philosopher's stone and being punished by God for their vanity. Putting physics research on hold to account for such a risk seems a bit silly though, and should definitely be classified as "speculative". Point being, the Kardashev scale is sci-fi, not science, and any worry about it is the very definition of speculative.
- xiphias2 4y ago> Putting physics research on hold to account for such a risk seems a bit silly though, and should definitely be classified as "speculative". I think we have as much choice in putting research into anything (AI / Physics) onto hold as monkeys had in evolving to humans to be kept in zoos and being used for experiments, I was not arguing against research. In my mind it will just all happen naturally, and we can't do anything to stop ourselves from being ruled over by AI, as we don't have the capability for global scale concensus anyways.
- goatlover 4y agoWe don't whether any intelligent life within detectable range has evolved. Intelligent civilizations could be rare enough that they're too far away. We simply don't know. Life itself could be incredibly rare, so no conclusions can be drawn.
- thisisbrians 4y agowe can't even prove that other civilizations even exist. c'mon. statistical likelihoods don't prove anything. never having seen a thing doesn't prove it never existed.