(February 15, 2016 at 1:28 pm)pool the great Wrote: I disagree with AIs undergoing huge advancements. Human brain is EXTREMELY difficult to emulate due to technological as well as algorithmic limitations.

Like any other technological advance, it's just a matter of time. I echo what others have said also. There is no need to match the human brain or even anything close to that to advance AI - at least the kind I'm talking about. I'm not talking about artificial sentience here, just progressively more complex AI of the type we have now. Self-driving cars is the latest example.

(February 14, 2016 at 10:46 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Donald Trump is elected president and the country vanishes under a gigantic turd.

I was thinking more of a mushroom cloud.

(February 15, 2016 at 2:59 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(February 14, 2016 at 10:46 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Donald Trump is elected president and the country vanishes under a gigantic turd.

I was thinking more of a mushroom cloud.

Mushrooms are grown in shit, therefore it's possible.

Well, let me direct you to this link:

http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial...ion-1.html

According to Ray Kurzweil, Artificial Superintelligence will likely be achieved before 2050. And that will mean a lot of really cool things will happen, like the human species attaining immortality and no more diseases and suffering.

According to Nick Bostrom, however, the outcome may not be so optimistic and in fact may be the exact opposite. Great thinkers like Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk are warning about future AI for good reasons. All expounded on in the link above.

(February 15, 2016 at 12:37 am)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(February 14, 2016 at 11:31 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: Oh no, we'd be committing infanticide at record rates, or there would not be sufficient resources to sustain those who just stubbornly refuse to die and make way for new generations. This in turn would cause stagnation of our culture with stalled intellectual progress, art would become lifeless and boring, and then why would anyone want to go on living anyway?

The only way of avoiding the above scenario, short of sending billions of people to colonize the planet, or board a generation ship to the stars (a one-way journey in any case since there's no safe return to Earth gravity after a few years, so who wants to volunteer?) is to impose an arbitrary and mandatory cap on the human life-span. Ever see this movie?

---

---

Your argument is irrational. The whole point of reproduction is so that a species can survive. Ensuring indefinite lifespans would be the best way to do that.

As for your stagnation scenario, I find it ridiculous and baseless.

Ha.  Logan's Run!  I loved that movie, I wish they would re-do it - and do it BETTER.

But can we revisit this population/immortality (or extended life span) question one more time?
OP, as of right now, the World Population stands at 7.5 billion - or just under.  During the 20th century alone, the population in the world has grown from 1.65 billion to 6 billion.   That is a HUGE increase.  We really don't have the resources to handle our current population, and if it keeps rising, we're in trouble.  You propose extended life-spans (and greater levels of health, and more efficient healthcare, I'm assuming), which sounds quite lovely.  But Hanky is right.  With current population growth and extended life-spans, that population increase becomes a terrible problem.  
    A much, much . . . much! . . . lower birth rate would be absolutely required.  Or, as Hanky said . . . colonization.  Neither sound like a bad idea to me.  What are YOUR suggestions to solve the problem?

And ah, stagnation.  You're making me feel old, EP.  I'm not at the senior-citizen point yet, but I have seen so many friends die.  The world is so very different from the one I knew as a child.  (Better, but different.)  I fight to keep up with scientific and technological advances.  It is very easy for me to understand, now . . . what my older family members meant when they said "this isn't my world anymore".  I find technological advance exciting - - I would like to see the world of 2095, for example - - but would I be able to happily live in it?  People who live to be 95 often say that they are "tired".  I have often wondered how much of that is physical and how much is mental - because it definitely is both.

(February 14, 2016 at 10:36 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: Imagine people will live extremely long lives, centuries at least. Do you think this would change the way humans behave?

Yes, I do. Because only people being able to afford it will live extremely long lives. The majority will be expendable trash. Kind of exchangeable slaves for the rich and beautiful.

I think it's both physical and mental, but if we're able to provide both mental and physical optimum health, the problem would disappear.

As for the population problem, it's a problem either way. I hardly think we can say people need to die so that there's enough resources for other people to live. How is that any different from saying we should kill large amounts of people right now so the rest can lead better lives? It's not really, except for the fact that in one case you're advocating killing them directly, and in the other indirectly. We've got to come up with solutions to the problem of increasing population/diminishing resources, but advocating not preventing death if we can is not the way to go about it.

(February 15, 2016 at 5:20 pm)abaris Wrote:

(February 14, 2016 at 10:36 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: Imagine people will live extremely long lives, centuries at least. Do you think this would change the way humans behave?

Yes, I do. Because only people being able to afford it will live extremely long lives. The majority will be expendable trash. Kind of exchangeable slaves for the rich and beautiful.

I'm sure given enough time everyone will be able to afford it if the technology is invented. It's the same with every other kind of technology/medicine, there's no reason to think this is any different.

(February 15, 2016 at 5:14 pm)drfuzzy Wrote: But can we revisit this population/immortality (or extended life span) question one more time?
OP, as of right now, the World Population stands at 7.5 billion - or just under.  During the 20th century alone, the population in the world has grown from 1.65 billion to 6 billion.   That is a HUGE increase.  We really don't have the resources to handle our current population, and if it keeps rising, we're in trouble.  You propose extended life-spans (and greater levels of health, and more efficient healthcare, I'm assuming), which sounds quite lovely.  But Hanky is right.  With current population growth and extended life-spans, that population increase becomes a terrible problem.  
    A much, much . . . much! . . . lower birth rate would be absolutely required.  Or, as Hanky said . . . colonization.  Neither sound like a bad idea to me.  What are YOUR suggestions to solve the problem?

Space colonization would definitely be needed. A very low birthrate would sure be nice too. I don't know how a nearly limitless lifespan would affect people's drive to reproduce. I don't have that drive at all (I can't stand kids) so I can't empathize with those who do. Maybe with the time pressure gone, the urgency would be gone too. What's the rush when you'll always have time to do it later if you really want to.

If I lived forever I would isolate myself after amassing a fortune. I wouldn't bother with people. I would purchase alot of land. Somewhere with a forest. I would spend alot of money to make sure I had all I needed, that I had internet and so a lens to view the outside world from but I would not participate in it. I would fund the development of an AI that would eventually be responsible for governing Earth. Occasionally I would exert my influence if I felt it necessary. Keep the wheels turning. Make sure viable space travel is created so when the time comes I can evacuate this shit heap of a planet. I would meld with a specially developed spacecraft becoming a seamless combination of flesh and machine, fusing my brain with devices specially designed to expand my consciousness.
I would scatter humanity into the cosmos and then separate from it. I would get lost in the stars. The dark void of deep space would become my home. Eventually I would forget Earth, humanity, everything from before. I would simply be a wanderer exploring the cosmos for all eternity, forever searching for some measure of freedom. From space, from time, from myself.

Given the choice I would pursue the same life whether I were mortal, immortal or anywhere inbetween; a travelers life.
The only difference would be scope.