3 ms·

I think the best argument contra Kurzweil's timescale is that business organization and the human element in infrastructure processes is incompressible below a

I think the best argument contra Kurzweil's timescale is that business organization and the human element in infrastructure processes is incompressible below a certain threshold. I make this argument here: http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2005/09/reading-the-sin.php http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2005/09/reading-the-sin.p... and here: http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2005/09/nanotechnology.php http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2005/09/nanotechnology.ph... I don't think there's a good argument to be made contra what Kurzweil expects to happen. At this point a transhumanist society of enhanced, long-living humans+ seems fairly inevitable, arriving in probably three to four decades rather than two.

jacquesm 17y ago
Please. This is such an outrageous claim to make that you need evidence to back it up, calling anything on this scale 'inevitable', let alone to stick an upper limit on it less than two centuries into the future is not very realistic. So, instead of looking for all the excellent arguments that have already been made 'contra' Kurzweil, the biggest of which is that nobody can predict the future, let's hear some of the reasons why this is 'inevitable' that do not contain any qualifications or build upon other technologies that we do not have today.