Science Surviving Progress

[Ark]

"How can we live within the real limits that our planet gives us?"

Uh, better question: "How can we expand the limits of the world we live in?"

At this point further scientific and technological progress is the only thing that's going to solve our problems, short of 90% of us swallowing cyanide and the rest going back to thatch huts.

 

[Suzy]

EDIT:
A little research led to this article. It seems that this film is based on a book/lecture series.

Reading that, I can't find fault with the book's premise. Humanity throughout history has 1) an unfortunate trait of hubris and 2) not learning from its mistakes. Civilizations have collapsed before and this one could end up the same way. There is nothing wrong with asking people to question assumptions like "technology will fix everything, no worries!", what sort of society is evolving and where we are heading. Also, recklessly destroying the environment we all depend upon is stupid beyond belief (and we won't be colonizing space anytime soon).

One example of such hubris (and the revenge of unintended consequences): "China Admits Problems With Three Gorges Dam"

 

[Codz]

Reading that, I can't find fault with the book's premise. Humanity throughout history has 1) an unfortunate trait of hubris and 2) not learning from its mistakes. Civilizations have collapsed before and this one could end up the same way. There is nothing wrong with asking people to question assumptions like "technology will fix everything, no worries!", what sort of society is evolving and where we are heading. Also, recklessly destroying the environment we all depend upon is stupid beyond belief (and we won't be colonizing space anytime soon).

One example of such hubris (and the revenge of unintended consequences): "China Admits Problems With Three Gorges Dam"

So obviously we should all run back to the caves and burn down some factories.:dry:

 

[Ghostrider]

So obviously we should all run back to the caves and burn down some factories.:dry:

No, just some factories we don't like.

 

[T.Neo]

So obviously we should all run back to the caves and burn down some factories.

I think it's more a case of being conscious in how we progress and having foresight in what we do. Progress is a good thing, but one always has to be cautious in what they do rather than rushing into things with a "what could go wrong" attitude and the eagerness of a cackling mad scientist.

But sometimes people like the idea of burning down factories anyway. :dry:

 

[Jarvitä]

So obviously we should all run back to the caves and burn down some factories.:dry:

No, we should be miniaturising factories, making them energy and matter-independent and self-replicating. From each according to their imagination, to each according to their wishes!

 

[T.Neo]

No, we should be miniaturising factories, making them energy and matter-independent and self-replicating.

Exactly. So some of them can become feral and cause havoc to our ecosystem.

Self [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Myna"]replicating[/ame], [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynesian_Rat"]independant[/ame] [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_eradication_in_Tierra_del_Fuego"]entities[/ame] [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kudzu"]are[/ame] [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zebra_mussel"]always[/ame] [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_mitten_crab"]something[/ame] [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cane_toad"]to[/ame] [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbits_in_Australia"]handle[/ame] very carefully.

Sure, it starts off when people have a couple of cats on an island filled with rare seabirds and don't realise that one of the cats actually has testicles. Or perhaps it starts off with someone's ingenious idea to use a species of toad to control a cane pest problem. Sometimes some livestock escape and breed in the wild, or shipboard vermin find their way to a new land. Or sometimes the inhabitants of a colony believe, for some unfathomable reason, that their boring old biota from back home is more interesting than the endemic fauna and flora.

But the result is always the same. They get out of control, they 'seep into the cracks', they become a nuisance, and they start to get destructive.

Another issue to enhanced manufacturing is that a whole lot of people start to produce all sorts of nasty stuff (or just plain junk). Not that they don't already do that, of course. It just makes it easier.

 

[Sky Captain]

Agreed. I'm just inherently distrustful of anyone arguing for a return to a time before modern technology. It's a simple step from there to also arguing for rolling back social norms, because you would need to abolish modern social norms to function in a world without modern technology again.

These people just need to realise there's no going back. The only way is forwards and outwards. If pollution is a problem, it can be fixed with more technology, not less. If our 50000 years old brains are the problem, the solution is making better brains, not making our brains incapable of affecting the world, like they were 50000 years ago.

Exactly, returning to preindustrial society would mean 90% or more people would have to die in rather unpleasant ways because it would be plain impossible to feed the current number of people without modern agriculture. Not to mention the whole list of other fun stuff a collapse of modern society would cause.
Most people who complain about progress usually themselves live quite comfortable lifestyles. If they had to live like some third world subsistence farmer doing long hours of back breaking work every day they would be telling a different story.

 

[Ghostrider]

Exactly. So some of them can become feral and cause havoc to our ecosystem.

Well, I imagine some of us wouldn't mind moonlighting as Feral Factory Hunters.

"Hey, we're after a factory gone feral. Have you seen it? Well, if you do call us and do not approach it. It may bite!"

The most pressing question is, what part of the factory can I have stuffed & mounted on my wall?

 

[Jarvitä]

Self replicating, independant entities are always something to handle very carefully.

None of those self-replicating entities have been mathematically proven to be human-friendly, or even capable of deriving our coherent extrapolated volition. If that kind of intelligence ran superhuman technology, it'd probably kill us by indifference. I absolutely agree that we need a definitive theory, practice and law of friendly artificial general intelligence, and preferably a clear plan towards a matter operating system, before self-replicating nanotech.

 

[T.Neo]

None of those self-replicating entities have been mathematically proven to be human-friendly, or even capable of deriving our coherent extrapolated volition. If that kind of intelligence ran superhuman technology, it'd probably kill us by indifference. I absolutely agree that we need a definitive theory, practice and law of friendly artificial general intelligence, and preferably a clear plan towards a matter operating system, before self-replicating nanotech.

And how do you prove something to be human-friendly? How do you define human-friendly? What would the "theory, practice, and law" even be? What about the potential of something to evolve beyond its original parameters, or adapt in unforseen ways to as-yet unknown situations?

Why does 'self-replicating nanotech' even require "general artificial intelligence" in the first place? Why should specific technology be regarded as "superhuman"?

It's these kinds of issues and questions that make such science-fictional technology problematic. Not that such problems are necessarily limited to such technology; I'm sure the safeguards they had against cane toad invasion sounded like a good idea at the time, too.

 

[Jarvitä]

And how do you prove something to be human-friendly? How do you define human-friendly? What would the "theory, practice, and law" even be? What about the potential of something to evolve beyond its original parameters, or adapt in unforseen ways to as-yet unknown situations?

Yes, those are precisely the problems that need to be solved, preferably before we get to the point where everyone has the capability of cooking up gray goo or running an AI from their basement.

Why does 'self-replicating nanotech' even require "general artificial intelligence" in the first place? Why should specific technology be regarded as "superhuman"?

It doesn't, I'm saying it would be prudent to have friendly AGI and/or a matter OS before nanotech.

 

[T.Neo]

It doesn't, I'm saying it would be prudent to have friendly AGI and/or a matter OS before nanotech.

But why? That sounds like nothing more than particular affinity for a solution that that makes certain assumptions, and that may lose validity should different assumptions be taken.

I'm not sure of the meaning of a 'matter operating system'; it must be quite an arcane term, since I could not find any reference to the term on the internet (perhaps that's due to an overabundance of articles on operating systems ).

Also, grey goo? Seriously? :shifty:

 

[Jarvitä]

But why? That sounds like nothing more than particular affinity for a solution that that makes certain assumptions, and that may lose validity should different assumptions be taken.

Because a friendly AGI is, by definition, less likely to cause extinction through indifference than dumb nanotech.

I'm not sure of the meaning of a 'matter operating system'; it must be quite an arcane term, since I could not find any reference to the term on the internet (perhaps that's due to an overabundance of articles on operating systems ).

A matter OS is a not-necessarily sentient system that controls the regulation and distribution of matter and energy output between sophonts in a semi-post-scarcity (ie, abundant nanotech) environment.

Also, grey goo? Seriously? :shifty:

Purely hypothetical, replace with a more plausible basement-borne extinction event to taste.

 

[Suzy]

So obviously we should all run back to the caves and burn down some factories.:dry:

Where does it say that? Why do people always make that assumption in these sorts of discussions? All the book article seems to be saying is that we need to be more careful about how we use technology.

Things are moving so fast that inaction itself is one of the biggest mistakes. The 10,000-year experiment of the settled life will stand or fall by what we do, and don't do, now. The reform that is needed is not anti-capitalist, anti-American, or even deep environmentalist; it is simply the transition from short-term to long-term thinking. From recklessness and excess to moderation and the precautionary principle.

The great advantage we have, our best chance for avoiding the fate of past societies, is that we know about those past societies. We can see how and why they went wrong. Homo sapiens has the information to know itself for what it is: an Ice Age hunter only half-evolved towards intelligence; clever but seldom wise.


We are now at the stage when the Easter Islanders could still have halted the senseless cutting and carving, could have gathered the last trees' seeds to plant out of reach of the rats. We have the tools and the means to share resources, clean up pollution, dispense basic health care and birth control, set economic limits in line with natural ones. If we don't do these things now, while we prosper, we will never be able to do them when times get hard. Our fate will twist out of our hands.
​

 

[Ghostrider]

Where does it say that? Why do people always make that assumption in these sorts of discussions?

Now, please, don't let the facts interfere with our bias.

 

[Jarvitä]

We are now at the stage when the Easter Islanders could still have halted the senseless cutting and carving, could have gathered the last trees' seeds to plant out of reach of the rats. We have the tools and the means to share resources, clean up pollution, dispense basic health care and birth control, set economic limits in line with natural ones. If we don't do these things now, while we prosper, we will never be able to do them when times get hard. Our fate will twist out of our hands.

Way to mix up common sense with a political message few people will agree with. This is what I hate about the environmentalist movement. Common sense action that's actually needed should come first, without the ideological baggage. Let's separate into the population control party, the anti-nuclear party, the save cute megafauna party and the FIX AGW NOW party. I hate living on a planet where environmentalists are opposed to nuclear power and eradicating competing apex predators (and in favour of spending untold resources on saving pathetic wastes of oxygen like the panda).

 

[T.Neo]

Because a friendly AGI is, by definition, less likely to cause extinction through indifference than dumb nanotech.

Problem is that the definition of what a friendly AGI even is or should be isn't quite nailed down.

Also, why is extinction a theme that comes up so often with nanotechnology? There have been nano-scale phenomena residing on Earth for billions of years, and we're not extinct yet.

A matter OS is a not-necessarily sentient system that controls the regulation and distribution of matter and energy output between sophonts in a semi-post-scarcity (ie, abundant nanotech) environment.

Sounds interesting. But who would program this software? Who would control it? Who would adapt it to changing current events? By what guidelines would they do so?

And why would anyone want to make a sentient computer program for any practical purpose? It sounds like the genesis of a kind of slavery.

 

[Ghostrider]

I hate living on a planet where environmentalists are opposed to nuclear power and eradicating competing apex predators (and in favour of spending untold resources on saving pathetic wastes of oxygen like the panda).

Well, it's not like anybody is forcing you to stay...

I'm OK with nuclear power, but what's the deal with competing predators? Or the panda? Or the Tasmanian Devil for a less cute example?

 

[Jarvitä]

Problem is that the definition of what a friendly AGI even is or should be isn't quite nailed down.

This document is somewhat out of date, but short of hunting down thousands of posts on obscure mailing lists which have yet to be compiled into a presentable paper, it does a good enough job of explaining the problem.

Also, why is extinction a theme that comes up so often with nanotechnology? There have been nano-scale phenomena residing on Earth for billions of years, and we're not extinct yet.

Mostly as a way to starkly point out the least convenient possibility, even if the attention it gets is out of proportion with its actual probability. I'd hate to see nanotech used to make weapons of mass extinction as opposed to free molecular-scale fabricators. And I'd also hate to see free molecular-scale fabricators without enforceable rules in place to prevent destructive uses, and that's where either a friendly AGI or a matter OS comes in.

Sounds interesting. But who would program this software? Who would control it? Who would adapt it to changing current events? By what guidelines would they do so?

You don't appear to be familiar with the concept of Coherent Extrapolated Volition.

And why would anyone want to make a sentient computer program for any practical purpose? It sounds like the genesis of a kind of slavery.

The "AGI == slavery" cliche strikes me as far less likely than "advanced nanotech == extinction". Also, that's what the entire friendly AGI problem space is about.