Reinventing Humanity

Printable Version

Reinventing Humanity
The Future of Human-Machine Intelligence

by	Ray Kurzweil

Ray Kurzweil sees a radical evolution of the human species in the next 40 years. The merger of man and machine, coupled with the sudden explosion in machine intelligence and rapid innovation in gene research and nanotechnology, will result in a world where there is no distinction between the biological and the mechanical, or between physical and virtual reality.

Originally published in The Futurist March-April 2006. Reprinted on KurzweilAI.net February 3, 2006.

You can also read responses to this article by Terry Grossman, John Smart, J. Storrs Hall, Damien Broderick, and Richard Eckersley. Ray Kurzweil's response to Eckersley's comments can be found here.

Click here to read a PDF of the full feature.

We stand on the threshold of the most profound and transformative event in the history of humanity, the “Singularity.”

What is the Singularity? From my perspective, the Singularity is a future period during which the pace of technological change will be so fast and far-reaching that human existence on this planet will be irreversibly altered. We will combine our brain power—the knowledge, skills, and personality quirks that make us human—with our computer power in order to think, reason, communicate, and create in ways we can scarcely even contemplate today.

This merger of man and machine, coupled with the sudden explosion in machine intelligence and rapid innovation in the fields of gene research as well as nanotechnology, will result in a world where there is no distinction between the biological and the mechanical, or between physical and virtual reality. These technological revolutions will allow us to transcend our frail bodies with all their limitations. Illness, as we know it, will be eradicated. Through the use of nanotechnology, we will be able to manufacture almost any physical product upon demand, world hunger and poverty will be solved, and pollution will vanish. Human existence will undergo a quantum leap in evolution. We will be able to live as long as we choose. The coming into being of such a world is, in essence, the Singularity.

How is it possible we could be so close to this enormous change and not see it? The answer is the quickening nature of technological innovation. In thinking about the future, few people take into consideration the fact that human scientific progress is exponential: It expands by repeatedly multiplying by a constant (10 to times 10 times 10 and so on) rather than linear; that is, expanding by repeatedly adding a constant (10 plus 10 plus 10, and so on). I emphasize the exponential-versus-linear perspective because it’s the most important failure that prognosticators make in considering future trends.

Our forebears expected what lay ahead of them to resemble what they had already experienced, with few exceptions. Because they lived during a time when the rate of technological innovation was so slow as to be unnoticeable, their expectations of an unchanged future were continually fulfilled. Today, we have witnessed the acceleration of the curve. Therefore, we anticipate continuous technological progress and the social repercussions that follow. We see the future as being different from the present. But the future will be far more surprising than most people realize, because few observers have truly internalized the implications of the fact that the rate of change is itself accelerating.

Exponential growth starts out slowly and virtually unnoticeably, but beyond the knee of the curve it turns explosive and profoundly transformative. My models show that we are doubling the paradigm-shift rate for technology innovation every decade. In other words, the twentieth century was gradually speeding up to today’s rate of progress; its achievements, therefore, were equivalent to about 20 years of progress at the rate of 2000. We’ll make another “20 years” of progress in just 14 years (by 2014), and then do the same again in only seven years. To express this another way, we won’t experience 100 years of technological advance in the twenty-first century; we will witness on the order of 20,000 years of progress (again, when measured by today’s progress rate), or progress on a level of about 1,000 times greater than what was achieved in the twentieth century.

How Will We Know the Singularity is Upon Us?

The first half of the twenty-first century will be characterized by three overlapping revolutions—in genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics. These will usher in the beginning of this period of tremendous change I refer to as the Singularity. We are in the early stages of the genetics revolution today. By understanding the information processes underlying life, we are learning to reprogram our biology to achieve the virtual elimination of disease, dramatic expansion of human potential, and radical life extension. However, Hans Moravec of Carnegie Mellon University’s Robotics Institute points out that no matter how successfully we fine-tune our DNA-based biology, biology will never be able to match what we will be able to engineer once we fully understand life’s principles of operation. In other words, we will always be “second-class robots.”

The nanotechnology revolution will enable us to redesign and rebuild—molecule by molecule—our bodies and brains and the world with which we interact, going far beyond the limitations of biology.

But the most powerful impending revolution is the robotic revolution. By robotic, I am not referring exclusively—or even primarily—to humanoid-looking droids that take up physical space, but rather to artificial intelligence in all its variations.

Following, I have laid out the principal components underlying each of these coming technological revolutions. While each new wave of progress will solve the problems from earlier transformations, each will also introduce new perils, but each, operating both separately and in concert, underpins the Singularity.

The Genetic Revolution

Genetic and molecular science will extend biology and correct its obvious flaws (such as our vulnerability to disease). By the year 2020, the full effects of the genetic revolution will be felt across society. We are rapidly gaining the knowledge and the tools to drastically extend the usability of the “house” each of us calls his body and brain.

Nanomedicine researcher Robert Freitas estimates that eliminating 50% of medically preventable conditions would extend human life expectancy 150 years. If we were able to prevent 90% of naturally occurring medical problems, we’d live to be more than 1,000 years old.

We can see the beginnings of this awesome medical revolution today. The field of genetic biotechnology is fueled by the growing arsenal of tools. Drug discovery was once a matter of finding substrates (chemicals) that produced some beneficial result without excessive side effects, a research method similar to early humans’ seeking out rocks and other natural implements that could be used for helpful purposes. Today we are discovering the precise biochemical pathways that underlie both disease and aging processes. We are able to design drugs to carry out precise missions at the molecular level. With recently developed gene technologies, we’re on the verge of being able to control how genes express themselves. Gene expression is the process by which cellular components (specifically RNA and the ribosomes) produce proteins according to a precise genetic blueprint. While every human cell contains a complete DNA sample, and thus the full complement of the body’s genes, a specific cell, such as a skin cell or a pancreatic islet cell, gets its characteristics from only the fraction of genetic information relevant to that particular cell type.

Gene expression is controlled by peptides (molecules made up of sequences of up to 100 amino acids) and short RNA strands. We are now beginning to learn how these processes work. Many new therapies currently in development and testing are based on manipulating peptides either to turn off the expression of disease-causing genes or to turn on desirable genes that may otherwise not be expressed in a particular type of cell. A new technique called RNA interference is able to destroy the messenger RNA expressing a gene and thereby effectively turn that gene off.

Accelerating progress in biotechnology will enable us to reprogram our genes and metabolic processes to propel the fields of genomics (influencing genes), proteomics (understanding and influencing the role of proteins), gene therapy (suppressing gene expression as well as adding new genetic information), rational drug design (formulating drugs that target precise changes in disease and aging processes), as well as the therapeutic cloning of rejuvenated cells, tissues, and organs.

The Nanotechnology Revolution

Nanotechnology promises the tools to rebuild the physical world—our bodies and brains included—molecular fragment by molecular fragment and potentially atom by atom. We are shrinking the key features (working parts), in accordance with the law of accelerating returns, at an exponential rate (over four per linear dimension per decade or about 100 per 3-D volume.) At this rate the key feature sizes for most electronic and many mechanical technologies will be in the nanotechnology range—generally considered to be less than 100 nanometers (one billionth of one meter)—by the 2020s. Electronics has already dipped below this threshold, although not yet in three-dimensional structures and not yet in structures that are capable of assembling other similar structures—an essential step before nanotechnology can reach its promised potential. Meanwhile, rapid progress has been made recently in preparing the conceptual framework and design ideas for the coming age of nanotechnology.

Nanotechnology has expanded to include any technology in which a machine’s key features are measured by fewer than 100 nanometers. Just as contemporary electronics has already quietly slipped into this nano realm, the area of biological and medical applications has already entered the era of nanoparticles, in which nanoscale objects are being developed to create more-effective tests and treatments.

In the area of testing and diagnosis, nanoparticles are already being employed in experimental biological tests as tags and labels to greatly enhance sensitivity in detecting substances such as proteins. Magnetic nanotags can be used to bind with antibodies that can then be read using magnetic probes while still inside the body. Successful experiments have been conducted with gold nanoparticles that are bound to DNA segments and can rapidly test for specific DNA sequences in a sample. Small nanoscale beads called quantum dots can be programmed with specific codes combining multiple colors, similar to a color bar code, that can facilitate tracking of substances through the body.

In the future, nanoscale devices will run hundreds of tests simultaneously on tiny samples of a given substance. These devices will allow extensive tests to be conducted on nearly invisible samples of blood.

In the area of treatment, a particularly exciting application of this technology is the harnessing of nanoparticles to deliver medication to specific sites in the body. Nanoparticles can guide drugs into cell walls and through the blood-brain barrier. Nanoscale packages can be designed to hold drugs, protect them through the gastrointestinal tract, ferry them to specific locations, and then release them in sophisticated ways that can be influenced and controlled, wirelessly, from outside the body.

Nanotherapeutics in Alachua, Florida has developed a biodegradable polymer only several nanometers thick that uses this approach. Meanwhile, scientists at McGill University in Montreal have demonstrated a nanopill with structures in the 25 to 45 nanometer range. The nanopill is small enough to pass through the cell wall and deliver medications directly to targeted structures inside the cell.

MicroCHIPS of Bedford, Massachusetts, has developed a computerized device that is implanted under the skin and delivers precise mixtures of medicines from hundreds of nanoscale wells inside the device. Future versions of the device are expected to be able to measure blood levels of substances such as glucose. The system could be used as an artificial pancreas, releasing precise amounts of insulin based on the blood glucose response. The system would also be capable of simulating any other hormone-producing organ, and if trials go smoothly, the system could be on the market by 2008. Another innovative proposal is to guide nanoparticles (probably composed of gold) to a tumor site and then heat them with infrared beams to destroy the cancer cells.

The revolution in nanotechnology will allow us to do a great deal more than simply treat disease. Ultimately, nanotech will enable us to redesign and rebuild not only our bodies and brains, but also the world with which we interact. The full realization of nanotechnology, however, will lag behind the biotechnology revolution by about one decade. But by the mid to late 2020s, the effects of the nanotech revolution will be wide spread and obvious.

Nanotechnology and the Human Brain

The most important and radical application particularly of circa-2030 nanobots will be to expand our minds through the merger of biological and nonbiological, or “machine,” intelligence. In the next 25 years, we will learn how to augment our 100 trillion very slow interneuronal connections with high-speed virtual connections via nanorobotics. This will allow us to greatly boost our pattern-recognition abilities, memories, and overall thinking capacity, as well as to directly interface with powerful forms of computer intelligence. The technology will also provide wireless communication from one brain to another.

In other words, the age of telepathic communication is almost upon us.

Our brains today are relatively fixed in design. Although we do add patterns of interneuronal connections and neurotransmitter concentrations as a normal part of the learning process, the current overall capacity of the human brain is highly constrained. As humanity’s artificial-intelligence (AI) capabilities begin to upstage our human intelligence at the end of the 2030s, we will be able to move beyond the basic architecture of the brain’s neural regions.

Brain implants based on massively distributed intelligent nanobots will greatly expand our memories and otherwise vastly improve all of our sensory, pattern-recognition, and cognitive abilities. Since the nanobots will be communicating with one another, they will be able to create any set of new neural connections, break existing connections (by suppressing neural firing), create new hybrid biological and computer networks, and add completely mechanical networks, as well as interface intimately with new computer programs and artificial intelligences.

The implementation of artificial intelligence in our biological systems will mark an evolutionary leap forward for humanity, but it also implies we will indeed become more “machine” than “human.” Billions of nanobots will travel through the bloodstream in our bodies and brains. In our bodies, they will destroy pathogens, correct DNA errors, eliminate toxins, and perform many other tasks to enhance our physical well-being. As a result, we will be able to live indefinitely without aging.

In our brains, nanobots will interact with our biological neurons. This will provide full-immersion virtual reality incorporating all of the senses, as well as neurological correlates of our emotions, from within the nervous system. More importantly, this intimate connection between our biological thinking and the machine intelligence we are creating will profoundly expand human intelligence.

Warfare will move toward nanobot-based weapons, as well as cyber-weapons. Learning will first move online, but once our brains are fully online we will be able to download new knowledge and skills. The role of work will be to create knowledge of all kinds, from music and art to math and science. The role of play will also be to create knowledge. In the future, there won’t be a clear distinction between work and play.

The Robotic Revolution

Of the three technological revolutions underlying the Singularity (genetic, nano-mechanical, and robotic), the most profound is robotic or, as it is commonly called, the strong artificial intelligence revolution. This refers to the creation of computer thinking ability that exceeds the thinking ability of humans. We are very close to the day when fully biological humans (as we now know them today) cease to be the dominant intelligence on the planet. By the end of this century, computational or mechanical intelligence will be trillions of trillions of times more powerful than unaided human brain power. I argue that computer, or as I call it nonbiological intelligence, should still be considered human since it is fully derived from human-machine civilization and will be based, at least in part, on a human-made version of a fully functional human brain. The merger of these two worlds of intelligence is not merely a merger of biological and mechanical thinking mediums, but also and more importantly, a merger of method and organizational thinking that will expand our minds in virtually every imaginable way.

Biological human thinking is limited to 10 to the 16th power calculations per second (cps) per human brain (based on neuromorphic modeling of brain regions) and about 10 to the 26th power cps for all human brains. These figures will not appreciably change, even with bioengineering adjustments to our genome. The processing capacity of nonbiological intelligence or strong AI, in contrast, is growing at an exponential rate (with the rate itself increasing) and will vastly exceed biological intelligence by the mid-2040s.

Artificial intelligence will necessarily exceed human intelligence for several reasons.

First, machines can share knowledge and communicate with one another far more efficiently than can humans. As humans, we do not have the means to exchange the vast patterns of interneuronal connections and neurotransmitter-concentration levels that comprise our learning, knowledge, and skills, other than through slow, language-based communication.

Second, humanity’s intellectual skills have developed in ways that have been evolutionarily encouraged in natural environments. Those skills, which are primarily based on our abilities to recognize and extract meaning from patterns, enable us to be highly proficient in certain tasks such as distinguishing faces, identifying objects, and recognizing language sounds. Unfortunately, our brains are less well-suited for dealing with more-complex patterns, such as those that exist in financial, scientific, or product data. The application of computer-based techniques will allow us to fully master pattern-recognition paradigms. Finally, as human knowledge migrates to the Web, machines will demonstrate increased proficiency in reading, understanding, and synthesizing all human-machine information.

The Chicken or the Egg

A key question regarding the Singularity is whether the “chicken” (strong AI) or the “egg” (nanotechnology) will come first. In other words, will strong AI lead to full nanotechnology (molecular-manufacturing assemblers that can turn information into physical products), or will full nanotechnology lead to strong AI?

The logic of the first premise is that strong AI would be in a position to solve any remaining design problems required to implement full nanotechnology. The second premise is based on the assumption that hardware requirements for strong AI will be met by nanotechnology-based computation. Likewise, the software requirements for engineering strong AI would be facilitated by nanobots. These microscopic machines will allow us to create highly detailed scans of human brains along with diagrams of how the human brain is able to do all the wonderful things that have long mystified us such as create meaning, contextualize information, and experience emotion. Once we fully understand how the brain functions, we will be able to recreate the phenomena of human thinking in machines. We will endow computers, already superior to us in the performance of mechanical tasks, with lifelike intelligence.

Progress in both areas (nano and robotic) will necessarily use our most-advanced tools, so advances in each field will simultaneously facilitate the other. However, I do expect that the most important nanotechnological breakthroughs will emerge prior to strong AI, but only by a few years (around 2025 for nanotechnology and 2029 for strong AI).

As revolutionary as nanotechnology will be, strong AI will have far more profound consequences. Nanotechnology is powerful but not necessarily intelligent. We can devise ways of at least trying to manage the enormous powers of nanotechnology, but superintelligence by its nature cannot be controlled.

The nano/robotic revolution will also force us to reconsider the very definition of human. Not only will we be surrounded by machines that will display distinctly human characteristics, but we will be less human from a literal standpoint.

Despite the wonderful future potential of medicine, real human longevity will only be attained when we move away from our biological bodies entirely. As we move toward a software-based existence, we will gain the means of “backing ourselves up” (storing the key patterns underlying our knowledge, skills, and personality in a digital setting) thereby enabling a virtual immortality. Thanks to nanotechnology, we will have bodies that we can not just modify but change into new forms at will. We will be able to quickly change our bodies in full-immersion virtual-reality environments incorporating all of the senses during the 2020s and in real reality in the 2040s.

Implications of the Singularity

What will be the nature of human experience once computer intelligence predominates? What are the implications for the human-machine civilization when strong AI and nanotechnology can create any product, any situation, any environment that we can imagine at will? I stress the role of imagination here because we will still be constrained in our creations to what we can imagine. But our tools for bringing imagination to life are growing exponentially more powerful.

People often go through three stages in considering the impact of future technology: awe and wonderment at its potential to overcome age-old problems, then a sense of dread at the new grave dangers that accompany these novel technologies, followed finally by the realization that the only viable and responsible path is to set a careful course that can realize the benefits while managing the dangers.

My own expectation is that the creative and constructive applications of these technologies will dominate, as I believe they do today. However, we need to vastly increase our investment in developing specific defensive technologies. We are at the critical stage where we need to directly implement defensive technologies for nanotechnology during the late teen years of this century.

I believe that a narrow relinquishment of the development of certain capabilities needs to be part of our ethical response to the dangers of twenty-first-century technological challenges. For example, Bill Joy and I wrote a joint op-ed piece in the New York Times recently criticizing the publication of the 1918 flu genome on the web as it constitutes a dangerous blueprint. Another constructive example of this are the ethical guidelines proposed by the Foresight Institute: namely, that nanotechnologists agree to relinquish the development of physical entities that can self-replicate in a natural environment free of any human control or override mechanism. However, deciding in favor of too many limitations and restrictions would undermine economic progress and is ethically unjustified given the opportunity to alleviate disease, overcome poverty, and clean up the environment.

We don’t have to look past today to see the intertwined promise and peril of technological advancement. Imagine describing the dangers (atomic and hydrogen bombs for one thing) that exist today to people who lived a couple of hundred years ago. They would think it mad to take such risks. But how many people in 2006 would really want to go back to the short, brutish, disease-filled, poverty-stricken, disaster-prone lives that 99% of the human race struggled through two centuries ago?

We may romanticize the past, but up until fairly recently most of humanity lived extremely fragile lives in which one all-too-common misfortune could spell disaster. Two hundred years ago, life expectancy for females in the record-holding country (Sweden) was roughly 35-five years, very brief compared with the longest life expectancy today-almost 85 years for Japanese women. Life expectancy for males was roughly 33 years, compared with the current 79 years. Half a day was often required to prepare an evening meal, and hard labor characterized most human activity. There were no social safety nets. Substantial portions of our species still live in this precarious way, which is at least one reason to continue technological progress and the economic improvement that accompanies it. Only technology, with its ability to provide orders of magnitude of advances in capability and affordability has the scale to confront problems such as poverty, disease, pollution, and the other overriding concerns of society today. The benefits of applying ourselves to these challenges cannot be overstated.

As the Singularity approaches, we will have to reconsider our ideas about the nature of human life and redesign our human institutions. Intelligence on and around Earth will continue to expand exponentially until we reach the limits of matter and energy to support intelligent computation. As we approach this limit in our corner of the galaxy, the intelligence of our civilization will expand outward into the rest of the universe, quickly reaching the fastest speed possible. We understand that speed to be the speed of light, but there are suggestions that we may be able to circumvent this apparent limit (conceivably by taking shortcuts through “wormholes,” or hypothetical shortcuts through space and time.)

A common view is that science has consistently been correcting our overly inflated view of our own significance. Stephen Jay Gould said, “The most important scientific revolutions all include, as their only common feature, the dethronement of human arrogance from one pedestal after another of previous convictions about our centrality in the cosmos.”

Instead, it turns out we are central. Our ability to create models virtual realities—in our brains, combined with our modest-looking thumbs, has been sufficient to usher in another form of evolution: technology. That development enabled the persistence of the accelerating pace that started with biological evolution. It will continue until the entire universe is at our fingertips.

© Ray Kurzweil 2006. Reprinted with permission.

[Post New Comment]
Mind·X Discussion About This Article:


	Kurzweil repeating himself...as usual. posted on 02/04/2006 7:12 PM by ~MysticMonkeyGuru~	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
I heard it all before and will continue to hear it ad nauseum, right until 2045, the year the Singularity is supposed to happen. By that time, Kurzweil will be rolling in his cryonic chamber, racked with disappointment about the Singularity not happening that year. All those graphs, those mathematical models, the data, all those copies of "TSiN"...all in vain. "We were promised nanobots in our bloodstream. It's 2045 already. Where are the nanobots? And the anti-aging treatments that were supposed to keep us forever young?! We were gypped! Again!"


	Re: Kurzweil repeating himself...as usual. posted on 02/06/2006 10:53 AM by dagonweb	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
I see a steady increase in all pesimism in statistical analysis. It'll probably peak exponentially into infinity just before the singularity, as technology allows us to entertain an infinity of morose ideas. Probably a process akin to leaving the birth canal.


	Re: Kurzweil repeating himself...as usual. posted on 02/06/2006 9:55 PM by boatman	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
We need thoughtful discussion about the rapid rate of technological change we are experiencing. There are definately downsides to the exponential growth brilliantly described and documented by Kurzweil. Ray is the first to admit this and freely discusses these issues. I would have preferred you to have attacked his Law of accelerating returns, his factual data or his logic. To simply attack Ray personally is to demonstrate a lack of understanding. Do I detect jealousy in your tone? I am skeptical of the time line Kurzweil has outlined for the amazing transformations which lie ahead. The only question in my mind is when we can expect these advances to be realized. After a careful review of Ray's law of accelerating returns and his past track record of forcasting, I cannot help but be persuaded that he is probably more right than wrong. The sooner I can improve this inefficient meat brain and body I'm saddled with, the better. I am preparing for either eventuality but obviously hope Ray is right on course. Even if he is off by 20 years, my children and grandchildren will evolve into the trans human and post human era.


	Re: Kurzweil repeating himself...as usual. posted on 02/28/2006 4:26 PM by ZodiacEnhanced	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Remember in the movie back to the future we were supposed to have flying cars with Mr. fusion reactors by now!!!


	Re: Kurzweil repeating himself...as usual. posted on 03/18/2007 6:37 AM by extrasense	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Well said. The most questionable is the estimate of brain abilities through number of neuron connections. It is like estimating speed of the multiple CPU system by number of CPUs. 10^30 is more likely than 10^16, assumed by Ray. es


	Re: Kurzweil repeating himself...as usual. posted on 03/18/2007 9:47 AM by godchaser	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Maybe es, but what do we care.. we're gonna live forever. :)


	Re: Kurzweil repeating himself...as usual. posted on 03/18/2007 1:05 PM by extrasense	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Can not wait for those replicated cookies :) es


	Re: Reinventing Humanity posted on 02/06/2006 11:38 AM by jefferee	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
It seems that, as far as planning for the future goes, we human beings think in a very linear manner. For instance, NASA is currently in the planning stages for a manned trip to Mars. If memory serves, I believe they're planning for the Mars trip to take place sometime in the 2030s. However, by this time (according to Ray Kurzweil) we will have technologies like full immersion virtual reality, nanobots in our blood stream, etc. My question is this: should we as human beings continue planning for the future as we always have...that is, linearly? Or, should we alter our planning methods to somehow (and I don't know how) incorporate exponential progress? Or, should we cease planning for the future, at least as far as major project go (i.e. a manned mission to Mars)? It just seems foolish to me for us to be planning such endeavors when, (again, according to Ray) our plan calls for full implementation in, say, 30 years, we will have achieved a technology that will make said plan look like child�s play. I guess another way to pose the question is this: Should we take the billions or trillions of dollars and resources needed to put a man on Mars in 30 years and, instead, use the money and resources strictly on genetics, robotics, and nanotechnology?


	Re: Reinventing Humanity posted on 02/20/2006 5:29 AM by Anti-Luddite	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
I guess another way to pose the question is this: Should we take the billions or trillions of dollars and resources needed to put a man on Mars in 30 years and, instead, use the money and resources strictly on genetics, robotics, and nanotechnology? Absolutely. Wasting money on manned space missions at this stage is a tragedy. Speeding up the achievement of medical immortality by just a year will save 50,000,000 lives. Paradoxically, I think highly advanced military technology might - depending on the technology used - even save lives by reducing collateral damage. AL


	Re: Reinventing Humanity posted on 02/06/2006 2:12 PM by thyland	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
There is a serious weakness in the concept that prohibiting a thing is sufficient to keep it from happening. In fact, it�s probably the best way to ensure that it will happen. �Relinquishing� the development of certain capabilities is impossible. How do you propose to police this prohibition? Furthermore, the creation of self-replicating entities (nanobots) will by its very nature almost guarantee that they will be subject to the process of evolution � further undermining the idea of control. A new paradigm is required. Technology must be out in front with defensive measures. Not sitting on their hands assuming that some Pollyanna-like rule is protecting the future.


	Re: Reinventing Humanity posted on 02/06/2006 10:01 PM by daviest	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
i wonder if we are re inventing us, after all human life has only gone up about 10 years this past 100 years. this is true for expected age at death when you remove the infant birth rate.. the bigest deal was the creation of sewers which reduced infant death. if we cure cancer we gain a few days , on average for the planet. we will need a huge push in age of death, not life expectancy that is allways quoted tim


	Re: Reinventing Humanity posted on 02/19/2006 6:37 PM by David666	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
I find this article very amusing. Kurzweil displays an enthusiasm for sci-fi inspired revolutions embedded with naivete and optimistic idealism only found by those who are completely ignorant of world events. The fact is that the world we live in is so deeply entrenched in multiple wars, economic challenges, wide spread diseases, increasingly devastating natural disasters, and religious fanaticism that to read this article one might think Kurzweil lives in a remote cave. I have news for Kurzweil and his believers: over 50% of the world has never made a phone call, let alone ever heard of this radical technological agenda that he claims will change the world in 40 years. I doubt that in 40 years vital issues like the war on terror, fuel alternatives, and AIDS will have been solved, let alone this Asimov inspired tale coming to fruition. I think you should read some economics, and international politics. The world's population is due explode in the next 30-40 years. Global terror coupled with ethnic strife and religious fanaticism will be plenty challenging for the next generation of world leaders. Your robotic utopia is far beyond reality. Another thing: according to the NYT a recent drug meant to curb cancer runs an average of 100K a year. Let us now imagine the costs of your vision? How many people, if these technologies are true, will be able to realistically implement them in their lives? Less then .5% of the world's population, if that. Return to earth, my friend.


	The Law of Unintended Consequences posted on 02/19/2006 8:51 PM by ~MysticMonkeyGuru~	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
What the Rev. Kurzweil doesn't know is that there is, in fact, a Law of Unintended Consequences running parallel to his beloved Law of Accelerating Returns. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequenc e "The Law of Unintended Consequences holds that almost all human actions have at least one unintended consequence. In other words, each cause has more than one effect including unforeseen effects. The idea dates to the Scottish Enlightenment, which influenced people such as Thomas Jefferson. In the twentieth century, sociologist Robert K. Merton once again popularized it, sometimes referred to as the Law of Unforeseen Consequences." To put it this way, unforeseen roadblocks and setbacks (like the War on Terror, religious fundamentalism and bad decisions) appear out of nowhere and slow things down (but it's known that human stupidity has been around since, well, human beings). This results in the Law of Accelerating Returns being dented and potholed along the way to Singularity. It's time to confess, Ray. The world doesn't work the way you describe in your books. In fact, things are getting worse.


	Re: The Law of Unintended Consequences posted on 02/19/2006 9:43 PM by eldras	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
I think Kurzweil is too conservative. I expect the singularity this year specificaly because we've a working definition of consciousness and it is programmable. Also there is the law of leaping scientists. i wouldn't confuse unrestricted thinking and undeformed thinking with nievity


	Re: The Law of Unintended Consequences posted on 02/19/2006 10:57 PM by ~MysticMonkeyGuru~	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Nonsense. Kurzweil is too optimistic, as I explained previously. Those who believe in a near-term Singularity should have their heads checked, and that includes Kurzweil. As you didn't know, humanity is on the brink of a new Dark Age, albeit temporary. http://www.darkage.fsnet.co.uk/ Read it. Things are going to get very ugly, very soon.


	Re: The Law of Unintended Consequences posted on 02/19/2006 11:03 PM by ~MysticMonkeyGuru~	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Even Paul Hughes from Future Hi, who has been extremely Kurzweilian and optimistic about the future for more than ten years, recently faced the harsh reality and has relinqushed his optimism. http://www.futurehi.net/ "Further Spilling the Beans". "Is this "apocalypse" inevitable? I don't know. Can some out-of-left field thing happen that could totally turn the world around toward the light? Sure. But all I have to go on is what I AM seeing, and what I sm seeing doesn't look very good. Again, there is a way to find peace in all this - peace with myself. This peace can only be achieved if I can finally admit to myself that all this Future-Hi claptrap, as inspiring as it is, ain't going to do it. Transhumanism ain't going to do it. Nanotech or Super-AI ain't going to do it. Sorry Eli. I have no idea what is going to do it, but at the very least I will have to start within myself (again)."


	Re: The Law of Unintended Consequences posted on 02/20/2006 1:20 AM by Reductase	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Nonsense. Kurzweil is too optimistic, as I explained previously. Those who believe in a near-term Singularity should have their heads checked, and that includes Kurzweil. As you didn't know, humanity is on the brink of a new Dark Age, albeit temporary. http://www.darkage.fsnet.co.uk/ Read it. Things are going to get very ugly, very soon. LOL that website is bunk. Really I do believe you have just lost all credibility. Haha


	Re: The Law of Unintended Consequences posted on 02/20/2006 1:30 AM by ~MysticMonkeyGuru~	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Kurzweil has lost all credibility with this "Singularity is Near" nonsense. Now THAT is bunk.


	Re: The Law of Unintended Consequences posted on 02/20/2006 4:38 AM by Extropia	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Why are so many of Kurzweil's critics so obviously clueless to his arguments? I find it very hard to believe they have seriously studied his essays and books. Why is he portrayed as overly utopian when he makes it quite clear that GNR technologies have potentially lethal capabilities? Why say 'well Moore's Law won't last forever, Ray,' when Kurzweil has explained that Moore's Law will falter within 2 decades? Why say , 'mere increases in computer power will not in itself achieve machines that are conscious' when Kurzweil has admited as much time and time again? Why take Drexler's idea of molecular manufacturing to be impossible when every single argument opposing the notion misunderstands the concept and nature has provided PROOF OF PRINCIPLE? The fact of the matter is that these people are selfish. They want the benefits of technology for themselves and consider it a waste of time to debate the Singularity because they believe they will be dead by the time it arrives so why bother debating it? 'If it can't do anything for me, what use is it'? But the biggest change this planet has seen since life first evolved really should be debated and taken seriously. We have our children to think of. We owe it to the trillions of organisms that struggled to gave us our technological capability, to the milions who pushed that capability to the levels it is at today, to create a future free of disease, unjustice, death. So you've given up trying to fix the world and are just gonna sit back and let it all go to hell. Great, be a pessimist. Just don't expect us all to follow your way. Please stop wasting our times with arguments that have been debunked time and time again. We have better things to do.


	Re: The Law of Unintended Consequences posted on 02/20/2006 4:51 AM by Extropia	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
I was quite ammused to read that, 'Mysticmonkeyguru has just lost all creditability'. Surely, he lost it when he called quantum mechanics (the most successful theory ever and the bedrock for all modern technology) 'a load of hype that is good for nothing'. And before that there was his claim that 'nobody is working on nanotechnology'. Or hows about when he said, 'all book critics are saying Singularity Is Near is Bunk', when a websearch I conducted revealed nothing but praise for Kurzweil's vision? It kind of pisses me off that people like this assume we take the singularity seriously because of the arguments of ONE MAN. I sure don't. I have read every book on the subject ranging from 'it can't happen' like Penrose claims, 'it mustn't happen', like Cass and Mckibben claim, 'it will inevitably happen and soon' like Kurzweil and Moravec claim, 'it might happen but it's not a near-term prospect', like Brooks and Lanier claim'. On the other hand, we have Mystic whose background research seems to consist of putting 'Kurzweil's arguments are bunk' into google and reading the flat-Earth wing of Ludditism as if it were received wisdom! Not that I'm saying you should take my opinions as Gospel. My arguments may well turn out pretty hopeless. Just PLEASE, Mystic, CEASE this constant supply of non-arguments and petty name calling. You are, and will remain, no match for us until you do a bit of varied background research!


	Re: The Law of Unintended Consequences posted on 03/31/2006 6:27 PM by JEB 2390	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
I know this much: I am going to educate myself as much as I possibly can about this Singularity and about genetics, nanotechnology and robotics. Even if I never get to experience the Singularity, I will work my biological fingers to the bone doing what I can to bring it about for everyone else. :) -JEB 2390


	Re: The Law of Unintended Consequences posted on 03/31/2006 6:37 PM by JEB 2390	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
I just wanted to say to Ray Kurzweil, I love your work. :) I bought your book, The Singularity is Near, and I am loving it so much. I read each page of your excellent work with anticipation and with building excitement. It has gotten to the point where I can easily spend hours doing nothing but thinking over what I have read in your book while playing songs that remind me of all my happiness and anticipation of the developing biotechnology, nanotechnological and robotic medical revolutions and their implications for our well-being. I am going to buy ALL your excellent books and read 'em thousands of times!!! I am developing my very own Singularity Wiki, and everyone is welcome to help me develop it. Thank you Ray Kurzweil for all your hard work and research, you have given me a brand-new passion for life!!!!!!!!!!!


	Re: Reinventing Humanity posted on 02/20/2006 2:24 PM by jefferee	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
I hate to be the one to tell you this, but since the dawn of humanity the world has been entrenched in war, economic challenges, disease, natural disasters, fanatics, and the like. These are not challenges that just crept up on us in the last decade or so. Things looked pretty dire during WWI, WW2, the cold war, and yes-even now. That being said, what have human beings accomplished technologically over just the last century? Well, we went from horse and buggy to the automobile. From gliders and hot air balloons to transcontinental flight and space travel. From slide rules to computers that calculate millions of times faster than any person could ever hope to. In just the past decade the computers have at least quadrupled in processing power, while their cost has decreased significantly. My first PC I bought back in the mid '90s had a 14kbps modem...speedy at the time, or so I thought. Now cable modems hum away at 6 to 8 mbps. I make long distance phone calls over the Internet for a quarter of what it used to cost with Ma Bell. It's hard to find a person in the United States that doesn't own a cell phone. Who owned a cell phone back in 1990? Do yourself a favor. Read Kurzweil's book "The Singularity is Near" before you dismiss his ideas outright. It's obvious you have not, since your pessimism is addressed head on in the book.


	Re: Reinventing Humanity posted on 02/22/2006 9:16 PM by ~MysticMonkeyGuru~	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
"Things looked pretty dire during WWI, WW2, the cold war, and yes-even now." The great wars of the 20th Century will be like a walk in the park compared to what we are about to face. "That being said, what have human beings accomplished technologically over just the last century?" A lot. I'd say the 20th was the last "hurrah" for tech progress. The Bush admin have already slowed down crucial progress for the six years he's been in power. Prepare for 50 years of slow growth. "Well, we went from horse and buggy to the automobile. From gliders and hot air balloons to transcontinental flight and space travel." And they thought we would have family visits to the Moon by now. Ha. "Do yourself a favor. Read Kurzweil's book "The Singularity is Near" before you dismiss his ideas outright. It's obvious you have not, since your pessimism is addressed head on in the book." I own it, and have read it thoroughly. He totally underestimates government interference and economic roadblocks, and has NOT considered Peak Oil. Therefore, the Singularity will occur between 2075 and 2125. This 2045 date is fantastic nonsense. Kurzweil will be 97 that year, and has picked that date out of his own fear of death. Technological progress follows an exponential curve, but in NO WAY is it a smooth one.


	Re: Reinventing Humanity posted on 02/22/2006 10:57 PM by ~MysticMonkeyGuru~	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
"Singularity" is largely made up of dubious graphs, lies, damn lies, statistics, techno-gibberish, junk science, pop science, journalistic hype and rapture scenarios as a substitute for those who don't believe in a supreme supernatural being. There is little to no healthy skepticism or actual science featured. Blind futurists and actual scientists are two completely different things altogether. Ray should have stuck to inventing synthesizers and reading machines instead of peddling his vitamin shakes and writing unscientific technobabble. We are, plain and simple, at a time too early and little advanced to recognize true exponential growth in technology. At the moment we are still on the flat line of exponential progress. It will be several decades before we reach the "knee of the curve". There is NO evidence to suggest we are on the "knee".


	Re: Reinventing Humanity posted on 02/23/2006 12:47 AM by ~MysticMonkeyGuru~	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Kurzweil will be 97 in 2045...IF he lives that long, that is. He'll most likely be frozen at Alcor by then.


	Re: Reinventing Humanity posted on 02/23/2006 5:09 AM by Extropia	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
What we have here is a basic rerun of what happened in 1953, when the U.S air force charted the curves of speed. They took the progress from Wright brothers to jet fighters, and kept the curve running, letting it press forward. And what it predicted was beyond rational belief: That there would be machines that could achieve orbital speed...within four years. And they could get their payload right out of Earth's immediate gravity well just a little later, and if they wished- if they wanted to spend the money, and do the research and engineering, they could reach the Moon a little later. Well, so the curve said, but the curve was an illusion, created and warped by the partial, selected information that was put into it. The truth was, as any sensible man woman or child knew, that trips to the Moon would not be possible until at least the year 2000. But of course it was the curve that told the truth. Sputnick was in orbit by 1957, the precise date predicted by the curve, and man walked on the Moon less than 12 years later. We achieved spaceflight DEDADES ahead of the schedule predicted by common sense. Ok, the curve can be pushed too far, and as Mystic pointed out we do not, in fact, have family trips to the Moon. But, really, what economic and social incentive was there to build resorts on the Moon? Seriously, who would want to go spend two weeks in a tin can, staring out at a bleak environment totally hostile to life? On the other hand, the justification for pursuing genetics, robotics, nanotechnology and information technology, in terms of what they will do for the economy, for our needs to provide power, security, medicial treatments, are ENORMOUS. So to say that we are not living on the Moon (a total waste of time and money for a miserable and extremely dangerous 'holiday') somehow proves that the reliable curves of GNR will fail to provide what we KNOW is possible, because the natural world has given us PROOF OF PRINCIPLE, even though modern civilization DEPENDS upon the continued progression of these curves...well, it's the sort of argument you expect from someone who said,' quantum mechanics has no practical use'. What really gets on my nerves about Mysticmonkeyguru is that he truly believes he comes to this forum with arguments. He does not. He comes with mere guesses. Simply stating 'the singularity is impossible' is not an argument. He must show why the curve of computing technology, which has held true for 110 years, should suddenly fail just at the point where cummulative and convergent knowlege have never been more powerful. And any reasonably informed person can see there are multiple pathways to energy sources that will take over when fossil fuels can no longer contribute. But a person who gets all their information from the flat-Earth wing of ludditism is hardly an informed individual.


	Re: Reinventing Humanity posted on 02/23/2006 5:22 AM by Extropia	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
You have read it thouroughly? Then why do you insist on dragging up the same tired arguments that have all been addressed, both in Kurzweil's books and by the properly informed people on this forum? I have known the most passionate advocates of the Singularity give arguments for why it may not actually happen that were far more convincing than your arguments (actually, they are nothing but shots in the dark), and that is probably because they approach all evidence with an open mind. You, on the other hand, suffer more from confirmational bias than anyone I have ever known. Who here has heard of Richard Dawkins? He has a policy when it comes to engaging in debates about Intelligent Design. He won't. He believes it gives the argument false creditability to engage its ill-informed proponents. I think the Dawkins principle should be applied to Guru until he stops repeating the same old arguments that have been addressed time and again.


	Re: Reinventing Humanity posted on 02/23/2006 5:29 AM by Extropia	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
OMG have you LOOKED at the sites that MysticMonkeyGuru has provided as evidence for his guesswork? And he thinks he knows Psuedodcience when he sees at it.lol


	Re: Reinventing Humanity posted on 02/23/2006 9:46 AM by jefferee	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Mysticgurumonkey is reminiscent of the naysayers from the late 19th century who said that cars would never catch on and electricity is hockey pock and you'd probably die if you traveled faster than 30 mph. His arguments against the singularity amount to him putting his fingers in his ears while shouting LALALALALALA! Peak oil? I'm pretty sure the human race isn't just going to say, "Our oil ran out! Our oil ran out! Oh well, back to the middle ages we go." We have the technology now to wean ourselves off of oil, and technology around the corner will make oil look like, well, fossil fuel. Yes it will take a shift in infrastructure, and a lot of money. But what happens when money is spent? Jobs are created. After all, somebody needs to do the all that work of shifting that infrastructure. The fact of the matter is there are a lot of people making a lot of money in today's economy. I don't necessarily lump myself in that group, but even I can say that I'm living more comfortably than the vast majority of American's ever have in the past. It's kinda hard to make money, however, when the world's primary source of energy is dried up, plunging 98% of the world's population into poverty. It kinda provides a hell of an incentive to adapt other sources of energy to replace oil. Now Mysticmonkeyguru, calm yourself. I'm not saying the singularity is inevitable. We may very well destroy ourselves with our advanced technology before it ever happens. Ray Kurzweil admits as much. But if history is any indicator, we won't. After all, we haven't yet, though we've had the power to do so for some time. But again, I'm not saying it's not possible that that will happen. I think if you took a pole most advocates of Kurzweil's school of thought will admit to that very possibility. You, however, seem unwilling to admit to the singularity being a possibility at all. That doesn't seem to be very mysticmonkeyopenminded of you.


	Re: Reinventing Humanity posted on 02/23/2006 7:51 PM by Extropia	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Right. I mean, if we all caught MysticMonkeyGuru's memetic virus 'The world is going to hell and there is nothing we can do about it' we would all throw in the towel and just give up. And he would then be able to claim victory by default. I much prefer the meme 'for every problem, there is an idea that can help us prevail'.


	Re: Reinventing Humanity posted on 02/24/2006 1:44 AM by donaldcroswell	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
I'm just a newbie to all of this stuff and haven't done much research into the technical aspects of this topic, so I can�t really comment on WHEN these fantastic achievements will come about. However, I am of the opinion that both sides of the argument are probably correct. If you look back over time, right up until today, there are fantastic discoveries and achievements running in parallel to all of the misery in the world. Somehow, it appears to me that the two are not really connected, except for money. (Kerry Packer, with his billions, got a new kidney, which gave him 5 extra years, probably not an option for the millions of poor people dying of AIDS that could have indefinite life extension with the right drugs) The technology is here, just not available to everyone. Technology will continue to benefit many people and it will in no way stop corrupt people from hurting other or plotting destruction. There will be light AND darkness, as there always has been. I prefer to focus on the possibilities rather than the misery, but that doesn't mean the misery isn't there. Just my thoughts. Cheers Don


	Re: Reinventing Humanity posted on 06/16/2006 2:54 PM by Leydig	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
What about reason? As computational power increases there is no mechanism that I see to increase the ability to reason. If someone has a desire to destroy or dominate, then the singularity seems to give them the ability.


	Re: Reinventing Humanity posted on 03/01/2006 9:23 AM by ZodiacEnhanced	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
I remember hearing about how when speculating the nuclear fission technology scientists claimed nuclear power would be too cheap to meter. The world is poor and by and large technologically illeterate. How can the singularity be achieved when 50% of the world cant even call tech support? Just a thought... -ZE-


	Re: Reinventing Humanity posted on 06/16/2006 3:37 PM by czarstar	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Biological respiration (Krebs Cycle) is the electro-chemical process to create energy.


	Re: Reinventing Humanity posted on 06/16/2006 3:37 PM by czarstar	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Link to understanding the Krebs Cycle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citric_acid_cycle


	Re: Reinventing Humanity posted on 06/16/2006 3:31 PM by czarstar	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
A willing culture of free idea exchange is the only way to advance. There could be a million wrong ideas with a speck of truth in them. If these specks of truth are collected many solutions could be created.


	Re: Reinventing Humanity posted on 06/16/2006 7:09 PM by richiemobile	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Reportedly, Thomas Edison had to test thousands of substance to come up with the tungsten derivative that produced the light bulb No doubt the creation of Singularity will require as many tries to produce it. The point is that the tens of thousands of substances can be tested by a factor of fifty thousand to a million times faster with tools currently available,and being developed and so the solutions will be reached that much quicker. Even with that, we have been looking for a cure for Cancer since the 1930s, that is almost 80 years, and though there are improvements, new diseases keep popping up all the time (Polio, AIDS, SARS, looming Birdflu pandemics etc) Pure idealistic Science is always mitigated by its moral consequences, The reason Alfred Nobel created the Nobel Prize, although he had invented nitroglycerine the greatest explosive of his time,was because a Parisian newspaper called him the "merchant of death" for all the soldiers killed by his explosives in WWI. Oppenheimer and Einstein were haunted by the creation of thermonuclear devices. Science never exists in an moral vacuum.


	Re: Reinventing Humanity posted on 09/12/2006 3:39 PM by mindx back-on-track	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
back-on-track


	Re: Reinventing Humanity posted on 09/12/2006 3:51 PM by mindx back-on-track	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
back-on-track


	Re: Reinventing Humanity posted on 11/10/2006 1:49 PM by nonfatalexec	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
"Genetic and molecular science will extend biology and correct its obvious flaws (such as our vulnerability to disease). By the year 2020, the full effects of the genetic revolution will be felt across society." Genetic properties cannot be easily be classified as a flaw or a benefit. It would be difficult to label a genetic property that is a cause of a disease as an "obvious flaw" because it might be possible that you only found the flaw caused by the genetic property but not the benefits. It might be possible that the genetic property that causes an "obvious flaw" carries a benefit for a particular part of the body but we do not know what it is without the environment that demonstrates the usefulness of this genetic property or without study on that part of the body. This genetic property could be one of many genetic properties that appear to be an "obvious flaw" that diversify people's strength and weaknesses that allow some people with this genetic property to be prepared for and survive a future environmental extremity, or future virus outbreak, or some kind of future disaster that is not present today, which people without the genetic property might all die. By "correcting" an "obvious flaw" for everyone, you could benefit everyone in the short-term, but cause a disaster in the long-term. Instead of classifying a genetic property as either a flaw or a benefit, it should be classified as a flaw for (insert task or situation here) and a benefit for (insert task or situation here). - "Nanomedicine researcher Robert Freitas estimates that eliminating 50% of medically preventable conditions would extend human life expectancy 150 years. If we were able to prevent 90% of naturally occurring medical problems, we�d live to be more than 1,000 years old." A person's body can be viewed as an environment for medical conditions. By changing the environment, you may prevent some dangerous medical conditions, but promote other dangerous medical conditions. I would relate this to computer programming. If you were to compare a person's body to a complex computer program, you could view "eliminating" a "medically preventable condition" as fixing a bug in a computer program. It is possible that by fixing a bug, you introduce another bug; whereas "eliminating" a "medically preventable condition" might introduce another "medically preventable condition". Eliminating 50% of medically preventable conditions, might cause a 10% improvement or a 10% degradation in life expectancy. If you are lucky, all of the 50% medically preventable conditions are caused by one source and eliminating all 50% of the medically preventable conditions has no side-effects, but this is extremely unrealistic. - "The most important and radical application particularly of circa-2030 nanobots will be to expand our minds through the merger of biological and nonbiological, or "machine," intelligence. In the next 25 years, we will learn how to augment our 100 trillion very slow interneuronal connections with high-speed virtual connections via nanorobotics. This will allow us to greatly boost our pattern-recognition abilities, memories, and overall thinking capacity, as well as to directly interface with powerful forms of computer intelligence." For a particular country or subsection of a country, not every person will have this enhancement, just like how not everyone has a personal computer in their house. Some people with this enhancement will frequently have to communicate with people without this enhancement, but there will be communication problems caused by information that appear to be obvious to the person with the enhancement but not obvious the person without the enhancement. This is similar to how there are many students in University who do not understand what their professor is saying in class because the professor's high intelligence cause the teaching material to appear obvious, but not to the students; so an hour of talking by the professor may take a couple hours for the student to understand. This does not necessarily make this technology useless. When people with this enhancement are communicating with other people with this enhancement, they are able to take full advantage of their enhanced thinking ability. For countries that view people without this enhancement as a disability and have a hiring regulation for people with disabilities, they will require businesses to hire a number of people without this enhancement, and this will result in a mixed environment where people with this enhancement will communicate with people without this enhancement. People with the enhancement must learn to cooperate with people without the enhancement even if it means the people with the enhancement cannot operate at full speed. The issue here is whether people without the enhancement are viewed as having a disability and how they should be treated. Another possibility is that the enhancement will only be used for people who have certain illnesses that result in decreased cognitive ability, just like how steroids may be used when recovering from injury, but if used otherwise, maybe be considered cheating in certain areas such as sports where steroids give the athlete a considerable amount of advantage over other athletes who do not take steroids. If the enhancement is viewed like steroids, then it might be possible that businesses may accuse other businesses of using the enhancement to cheat. The issue here is what context should this enhancement be used (anytime or in special cases).


	Re: Reinventing Humanity posted on 11/13/2006 2:52 PM by a student	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Managing the Robotic Revolution The implications and possible side effects of �creation of computer thinking ability that exceeds the thinking ability of humans� on humanity are somewhat alarming. In the above essay there is a predominant focus on how everything will be wonderful as a result of such a �revolution�, but a certain lack of concern for possible bad side effects. Kurzweil�s predictions about raw computational power increases, which would superseed human raw computational power are plausible. However a general human-like thinking ability is a long step further from such an achievement. Kurzweil acknowleges that and argues that the another step would be understanding of the fundamental design of the human brain. He points out that the brain is a collection of many independent function-specialized centers working in parallel. The implication is that reverse engineering each center separately and also studying their relationships would eventually allow for recreating all of a brains �thinking� ability artificially following the same design. Again plausable. Further Kurzweil argues fairly convincingly that the rate at which the knowledge and technology needed for such a task are growing exponentially and thus such AI systems will be a reality in a matter of decades. Let�s assume this as the general direction of the future. The majority of the human population at present doesn�t have regular access to PCs or to the Internet due to poverty so it is safe to expect that the introduction and merger of the wealthier human demographics with AI systems with superhuman thinking ability will only push the present technological divide into a technological chasm. Surely such AIs along with advanced nanotechnology and genetic engineering, which will be greatly aided and probably created with the help of AIs, will solve a large number of health problems and goods manufacturing will be much cheaper and easier, but how will those benefits be distributed? Given the lack of historical examples of human solidarity on a large international scale and the present tendency of humans to share wealth and technology, it is as likely that poverty and famine will be �resolved� by ignoring those affected (i.e. the poor) and letting them die out as by elevating their standard of living. This is likely because a technological paradigm shift of such magnitude will cause a paradigm shift in the global economy as well as most other areas of human existence. In particular energy production, manufacturing, natural resource extraction, food production and general labor will be totally automated. So those on the �dark� side of the techno-chasm, the children of today�s poor people, will be obsolete with no hope of catching up or being able to offer anything of economic value and will only have the good will of the technocrats to hope for. The issue with healthcare, food, energy, and housing would probably not be one of whether it can be afforded but whether one would be given access to such goods as their costs would be substantially smaller than at present. In fact it would be an issue of whether those on the �dark� side of the techno-chasm are allowed and helped to cross it or not. On a less global scale it is also of concern how the emerging technocrat humanity will be changed. The economic paradigm shift in technocrat societies might be toward valuing individuals who can contribute more knowledge and help manage all the new problems introduced by the increased technological complexity and a purely information and service driven industry. Knowledge/information would be the main goods while basic goods like food, clothing, transportation and energy would have very low costs. Assuming that the majority of all work is essentially done by AIs it is not clear what humans would do. Even if one can live 1000s of years and has their brain enhanced to be equally powerful to the latest AI, with all their memories meticulously backed up and with backups of the backups what would one have left to do? Nothing really seems left for humans but arts, scientific research and the creation of new knowledge. Coincidentally at present most humans are rather below average at those and aren�t really very interested in them to begin with. So one of the major challenges would be in inventing �jobs� for people and how such �jobs� will be integrated in the new economy. Perhaps virtual realities would be involved providing more complex and richer versions of present-day Massively Multiplayer Online Games.


	Re: Reinventing Humanity posted on 03/14/2007 5:37 AM by scooticery	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
dont forget game-playing, storytelling, and social relationships...so many people just work shitty jobs for their entire lives cuz they have to in order to stay alive...they have never even considered what they would do if they had plenty of free time...let alone combining that with the ability to think a trillion times faster...


	Re: Reinventing Humanity posted on 03/18/2007 12:01 AM by ez ezz	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
The singularity sort've reminds me of one of those old school top-down shooters, where more and more enemies keep flooding the screen until you don't think you can evade and maneuver any longer, and then, BAM! You get a nuke and kill everything. I imagine economic, political and religious tension will continue to rise to a completely unmanageable point. But maybe, just maybe, we'll get that old school nuke just before the real nukes get us. Viva la Smash TV, baby.


	Forget Kurzweil, read Martin. posted on 03/18/2007 1:26 PM by Extropia	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
I thought I would recommend a book. It is called 'The Meaning Of The 21st Century' by James Martin. I think it is a more realistic outlook than Kurzweil's writing because it paints a picture in which incredible advances in technology for affluent countries go hand in hand with unimaginable levels of hardship in Third World countries due to depletions of natural resources. It is unflinching in its analysis of how catastrophic the outcome will be if we pollute the planet too much. It also paints a picture of hope in which we learn to manage those resources and remake civilization into a global community that respects cultural differences and enables each individual to reach their full potential. With immense hard work and determination it CAN be done.


	Re: Forget Kurzweil, read Martin. posted on 03/18/2007 1:40 PM by Extropia	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
'How can the singularity be achieved when 50% of the world cant even call tech support?'. Here is the definition of 'technological singularity' from the very person who coined the term, Vernor Vinge: 'It seems plausible that with technology we can, in the fairly near future, create (or become) creatures who surpass humans in every intellectual and creative dimension. Events beyond this event�call it the Technological Singularity�are as unimaginable to us as opera is to a flatworm.' Note that this definition has nothing to do with creating a paradise on Earth. It is simply an acknowledgement that human cognition has its limitations and that these might be surpassed by technology, just as the speed of the fastest animal is no match for supersonic jets. This technology (which could be totally artificial ie ultrasmart computers or robots, a combination of biology and technology IE cyborgs or all biology IE genetic modifications) merely has to exist and be able to understand concepts forever beyond the ken of unaugmented humans for the singularity to occur. It has nothing whatsoever to do with lifting Third World communities out of poverty and into the world of untold riches, though some people like Kurzweil like to imagine this will in fact be the very first thing post-singularity intelligences will set about doing:)