Interesting pov and it does sound grim. Even so, I am inclined to think that the greater threat to our Earth remains human-induced climate change. We can agree, though, that homo sapiens are too full of hubris to take either CC or AI as the serious threats they both are. Although I do not see AI as having the intelligence to take over. I might be lacking understanding...
The good news is that the Earth will survive and I have no doubt so will avians. As for limitless energy and fusion, this is a pipe dream. I can tell by all the hype.
Human-induced climate change is only possible with technology such as fossil-fuel burning vehicles. And a lot of that climate change is due to the continued advancement of technology making things more efficient.
Second, AI taking over is perhaps a simplification. AI already *is* taking over, only with the help of human input. Even if AI still needs human beings for additional decision-making/neural input, it still effectively is taking over. The idea of AI as completely autonomous is not necessary for it to make us subservient ... in a way we already are subservient and it's a matter of continuous degree.
That's the insidious nature of the technological "organism" to use a biological analogy. And even if we never make it all the way to limitless energy, we are currently making energy extraction more efficient so even if we never truly get to a stage of limitless energy (which would be a horrible thing), every increase in efficiency only accelerates the development of the system.
The elites of human societies have an interest in maintaining a habitable climate and mitigating climate change, just as they have an interest in preventing nuclear war; similarly, technological progress will be hampered by either extreme climate change or nuclear war.
However, the elites in any one place have no interest in avoiding A.G.I. development when any competitor elsewhere can develop it and benefit from it, making AGI more of a threat to humanity. And since Technology always erases Nature and erodes freedom, the advancement of Technology with A.I. and renewable energy and galactic colonization mean that Tech has a means to exist off-planet and after the death of humans and Nature, meaning it has lessened inventive to preserve Earth as a viable for humanity. This, too, makes it a greater threat than it is typically perceived to be (far more than a mere "jobs killer") and a greater threat to human existence than either climate change or nuclear war. (Note also that more technologies are being developed to respond to the problems of climate change, so the problems of Tech - which always replaces Nature - is only further perpetuated, amplifying it even if it may successfully diminish the climate change problems.)
True, though even if the elites do have an interest in maintaining a habitable climate, technology may not and thus the elites could be eradicated as well. Moreover, a climate sufficiently habitable for them does not imply a healthy climate, since the "sufficiently" in that sentence is mediated by their lives be augmented by the most advanced technology on the planet. Thus, they will always make a compromise between some habitat degradation and their power.
Interesting pov and it does sound grim. Even so, I am inclined to think that the greater threat to our Earth remains human-induced climate change. We can agree, though, that homo sapiens are too full of hubris to take either CC or AI as the serious threats they both are. Although I do not see AI as having the intelligence to take over. I might be lacking understanding...
The good news is that the Earth will survive and I have no doubt so will avians. As for limitless energy and fusion, this is a pipe dream. I can tell by all the hype.
Human-induced climate change is only possible with technology such as fossil-fuel burning vehicles. And a lot of that climate change is due to the continued advancement of technology making things more efficient.
Second, AI taking over is perhaps a simplification. AI already *is* taking over, only with the help of human input. Even if AI still needs human beings for additional decision-making/neural input, it still effectively is taking over. The idea of AI as completely autonomous is not necessary for it to make us subservient ... in a way we already are subservient and it's a matter of continuous degree.
That's the insidious nature of the technological "organism" to use a biological analogy. And even if we never make it all the way to limitless energy, we are currently making energy extraction more efficient so even if we never truly get to a stage of limitless energy (which would be a horrible thing), every increase in efficiency only accelerates the development of the system.
The elites of human societies have an interest in maintaining a habitable climate and mitigating climate change, just as they have an interest in preventing nuclear war; similarly, technological progress will be hampered by either extreme climate change or nuclear war.
However, the elites in any one place have no interest in avoiding A.G.I. development when any competitor elsewhere can develop it and benefit from it, making AGI more of a threat to humanity. And since Technology always erases Nature and erodes freedom, the advancement of Technology with A.I. and renewable energy and galactic colonization mean that Tech has a means to exist off-planet and after the death of humans and Nature, meaning it has lessened inventive to preserve Earth as a viable for humanity. This, too, makes it a greater threat than it is typically perceived to be (far more than a mere "jobs killer") and a greater threat to human existence than either climate change or nuclear war. (Note also that more technologies are being developed to respond to the problems of climate change, so the problems of Tech - which always replaces Nature - is only further perpetuated, amplifying it even if it may successfully diminish the climate change problems.)
True, though even if the elites do have an interest in maintaining a habitable climate, technology may not and thus the elites could be eradicated as well. Moreover, a climate sufficiently habitable for them does not imply a healthy climate, since the "sufficiently" in that sentence is mediated by their lives be augmented by the most advanced technology on the planet. Thus, they will always make a compromise between some habitat degradation and their power.
I am posting this around a bit at least.ty
Thank you, Sean. Please share widely! More people need to read David's words.
Did I ever invite you to our safety town hall?
Not sure, what is it?
I'll add you via email