Will humanity survive past the year 2150?

[cat332]

Will humanity survive past the year 2150 despite the advent of technology such as Artificial intelligence, FDVR (Full Dive VR), Mind Uploading or Singularity/Cyborgs?

 

If the fore-mentioned technology doesn't kill humanity outright will the real world be abandoned/deserted for the virtual world i.e. Times Square will be a ghost town or physical travel driving/flying/catching a bus or train will be a thing of the past?

 

Maybe most humans (80%) will be resistant to change and these kind of technologies and 2150 will not be much different to today? 

 

 

Edited September 22, 2021 by cat332

[Aariq]

4 hours ago, cat332 said:

Will humanity survive past the year 2150 despite the advent of technology such as Artificial intelligence, FDVR (Full Dive VR), Mind Uploading or Singularity/Cyborgs?

 

If the fore-mentioned technology doesn't kill humanity outright will the real world be abandoned/deserted for the virtual world i.e. Times Square will be a ghost town or physical travel driving/flying/catching a bus or train will be a thing of the past?

 

Maybe most humans (80%) will be resistant to change and these kind of technologies and 2150 will not be much different to today? 

 

 

You forgot to consider that humanity probably won't survive a certain plague. . . or the fact that global warming is getting worse as we speak. If we take care of the former, the latter will possibly take the next hundred years to solve (or undo somewhat). We also have WW3 to think about. The most important thing we'll need to do in the next few decades is to stop using fossil fuels and switch to more nature friendly power production (i.e. Nuclear, Solar etc.).

 

AI's cant really do much rn except cause some commotion, since, unlike some other instances, humans have done a good job to not let them get out of hand but, if they do . . . I mean, am I supposed to know what happens?

 

FDVR Would be pretty expensive, but I can see it happening.

 

Mind uploading is a tricky one. Information is not really stored inside our brains, It's more of constant electrical signals inside flesh spaghetti. We'll need to mimic these signals a whole lot to copy and upload an entire 2.5 or so petabyte (2.5 million gigabytes) supercomputer to the web. 

 

Cyborgs most probably be much of a thing that early, but prosthetics will develop enough to be just like real limbs and organs.

 

Travel will be a thing as long as places like Niagara falls, Mt. Rushmore, Mt. Everest, The Bahamas etc. still exist and are not ravaged by war. And, people will get to these places with upgraded versions of cars, busses, trains and planes cuz there's nothing really wrong with these travel options and they've each been around atleast one hundred years, so more advanced versions seem more plausible.

 

I'm exhausted about thinking about the future so I'll stop now.

 

 

[Risakisa]

Yes and no. Yes, as a species we'll survive. No, as a society we will not.

 

Given current reproduction trends in the developed world, our intelligence in a few generations will not be high enough to maintain our societies; we'll literally be too dumb to operate the various machinery we use to keep the lights on.

 

Furthermore, as intelligence is heavily associated with things like impulse control, aggression, etc., the coming generations will be more violent and irresponsible. Which will further hamper the maintenance of civilization.

 

Optimistically, we might have an average IQ of 80. But it'll probably go lower.

 

This has happened to other civilizations in the past, and will happen to civilizations in the future.

 

Essentially, when life is hard and difficult, smarter people are more likely to successfully reproduce. This gradually increases average intelligence, as the smarter people replace the dumber people. Eventually, though, we become too smart; life becomes too easy, and smart people no longer feel the base instinct to reproduce (and have access to contraception, and know how to use them). The dumber people of society, being more instinctual and less able to use contraceptives, will start to become a bigger part of the society. And, eventually, the average intelligence will be too low to maintain the civilization created by the intelligent people, and so the society collapses. Life will again be difficult, and so we're back to selecting for intelligence. The cycle continues.

 

There are other factors, such as a good medical system means that more genetically unhealthy people successfully reproduce, which means that overall health declines once society is intelligent and wealthy enough to sustain it.

 

Mother nature really likes eugenics. She wants to kill off the weak and unhealthy. She's uncaring, brutal, and callous, but ultimately she improves species to better suit the environment. We humans, being relatively kind and compassionate, create for ourselves a dysgenic environment. We can only sustain sustain that for so long as we outsmart mother nature. And we don't outsmart her for long with the dysgenic environments we love to create.

 

It's kind of funny, to be honest; the only way to avoid nature's brutality is to do it to ourselves. Which kind of defeats the point: why live in an intelligent society if that society is brutal and uncaring? Sure, those who get to live and reproduce will be smarter, richer,  and healthier, but the moment we use our capabilities for the things we want (ie taking care of people) we're back on the road to disaster.

 

I could go on, but you get the point. And, yes, evolution applies to humans, and yes that includes the brain. Things are as they are, regardless of one's feelings on the matter.

[Dark Legend]

Ummm

[Risakisa]

2 minutes ago, Dark Champion said:

Ummm

 

Ummm what?

[Dark Legend]

3 minutes ago, Risakisa said:

 

Ummm what?

This discussion is so random. And also, no, humanity probably won't survive.

[Risakisa]

I just saw this topic and decided to respond with my thoughts. It's an interesting thing to talk about, if a tad gloomy.

 

Plus I think the idea of technology being what ends us to be very optimistic, and rather silly. IMO we're closer to the collapse than most people expect. Certainly closer than the development of functional AI or enhanced cyberwear.

 

I see now, though, that I was somewhat necroing the post, and I apologize to the mods. Even so, this was on the front page of this section of the forums, so I reckon it's fine.

[Corso]

I like the idea of an alternative "artificial" selection and I agree with most of it. I did imagine something like that some years ago, so it's nice reading it here. I was thinking of beauty standards being the major force behind the selection, but I like your thought process too.

 

As for the main topic, I believe (or hope) that a redefinition of our society on a global scale will eventually be needed. In my opinion, our best option to survive as a species is to overcome the concept of national governments and create one big (and actually useful) UN government. Even then, our energy problem could eventually force us to change our lifestyles entirely. We'll probably live in a more organized way like ants do, like making use of public transportation exclusively, which means adapting our entire daily routine on what other people do.

 

As an example, all students of a certain university could be required to live in a single building or city block, and have roughly the same schedule. Same for the workers of a factory and so on. Basically, we might have to adapt our life based on the collectivity's needs. That might also imply not being able to choose the career we'd like, because our city could need more firefighters than doctors.

[Leenu]

23 minutes ago, Corso said:

 

 

 

 

As an example, all students of a certain university could be required to live in a single building or city block, and have roughly the same schedule. Same for the workers of a factory and so on. Basically, we might have to adapt our life based on the collectivity's needs. That might also imply not being able to choose the career we'd like, because our city could need more firefighters than doctors.

Humans are very selfish creatures. We value joy,comfort and happiness to efficiency and long-term decisions. So undoubtedly if a system like this is ever enforced, it will be met with resistance. In addition to that, workers and students that have to live in one building and use public transport only might be dis-satisfied with their lives and routine. This unhappiness will certainly lead to lower productivity. As a university/college student myself, I can say that when I am in a bad mood, I can not focus on work/projects. 

So pursuit of Maximum efficiency or profit should not be the ultimate goal of humanity because lets face it, the Sun will explode eventually, heat death of the universe/big crunch will happen someday and I am 100% sure that not a single living, sentient, concious or intelligent being will witness that. We should live our lives whatever way we want because we will surely face the consequences.

 

TLDR: YOLO smell flower before you die. 

[Risakisa]

On 2/14/2022 at 6:55 PM, Corso said:

I like the idea of an alternative "artificial" selection and I agree with most of it. I did imagine something like that some years ago, so it's nice reading it here. I was thinking of beauty standards being the major force behind the selection, but I like your thought process too.

 

As for the main topic, I believe (or hope) that a redefinition of our society on a global scale will eventually be needed. In my opinion, our best option to survive as a species is to overcome the concept of national governments and create one big (and actually useful) UN government. Even then, our energy problem could eventually force us to change our lifestyles entirely. We'll probably live in a more organized way like ants do, like making use of public transportation exclusively, which means adapting our entire daily routine on what other people do.

 

As an example, all students of a certain university could be required to live in a single building or city block, and have roughly the same schedule. Same for the workers of a factory and so on. Basically, we might have to adapt our life based on the collectivity's needs. That might also imply not being able to choose the career we'd like, because our city could need more firefighters than doctors.

 

Why live in such a society of ants? Get up, work for some international, faceless cabal, return to your cube. Own nothing, do nothing, have no say in your life. This vision of the future is absolutely horrible, even though it looks it's on the horizon. Even then, such a dystopian nightmare is optimistic.

 

IMO there is no solution. You can go full hunter-gatherer and potentially have a society that lasts forever.. but you'd be at the mercy of societies that progress scientifically. Just as it is now, and has been for centuries, the only societies that last in perpetuity are the primitive ones that are entirely unchanging. But they are only allowed to exist as long as "we" allow them; they could be wiped out at any moment for any reason.

 

If you go, as we did, with technology and progress, you'll end up with disaster, as I said. People become comfortable, and aren't constantly reminded of their impending doom, and so don't have the same need to have children. The upper classes are hit first, and the dysgenic death spiral begins.

 

Of course, any attempt to force a solution will not work. Same with political ideologies: you're dealing with people, who are fickle, make mistakes, and are often corrupt. Even if you manage to find the GLORIOUS LEADER, the cabal of philosopher kings, or the committee of total goodness, there's always the next generation of leaders. Furthermore, having power means that certain types of people will seek it out, and those people are usually more concerned with power than with, y'know, doing good. So, eventually, however you organize society, it will be ruled by power-hungry jerks. I'm reminded of a wonderful quote by Douglas Adams:

 

Quote

“The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.

 

And that's not getting into the actual workability of any system, the competence required to manage it, how the people will accept it, its economic efficiency, and so on. And then there's the unintended consequences of any decree, and the consequences of trying to rectify those consequences, and so on.

 

In sum, any artificial society is doomed to fail. Natural societies are at the mercy of the artificial ones, since the artificial ones will, for a time, have the power to wipe out the natural societies. There is no solution in sight, especially not any ideological or unnatural ones.

 

I'd propose an experiment; abolish all international everything, and let every prefecture, town, city, municipality, etc. organize themselves in whatever manner they think works, and see what happens. But I know how this experiment will go, as it's what we did in the past: the strong & clever people will conquer their neighbors, expand, become rich, fall into decadence and collapse. Repeat until we've a similar system as we do now, a few steps away from a one-world-government of rich, immoral jerkwads, shepherding humanity off a cliff. Repeat until extinction.