🚀 go-pugleaf

John Hoopes wrote:
> 
> > The creation of sentient computers and/or human computer
> > interfaces which are substantially (ie several orders of magnitude)
> > more intelligent than modern humans will mean we simply can't
> > predict the future past a certain point (in my view 50-100 years
> > from now).  What could we do if some fraction of the population
> > was 100 times smarter than anyone now?  I doubt we can
> > imagine it.  I try to keep any predictions I make within 50 years,
> > beyond that it's likely to be an amazingly odd world.
> 
> As an archaeologist who regularly deals with human cultural
> phenomena over broad spans of time (500 years is not a daunting
> chunk), I am far more optimistic about our ability to formulate a
> pretty good idea of what things will be like a thousand years in the
> future.  In fact, anyone with a genuine interest in the distant future
> would do well to consult an archaeologist.  We are among the only
> scientists seriously concerned with social and cultural trends that
> extend over periods of as long as a thousand, five thousand, or even
> a hundred thousand years.  While our models are based primarily
> on evidence of what has happened in the past, they apply equally
> well to what may happen in the future.
> 
> I think that it is a big mistake to confuse access to information with
> "intelligence" (despite its newspeak C.I.A. definition).  People in
> the future will be no "smarter" than they are today, or than they were
> 10,000 years ago, unless reproductive fitness becomes more tightly
> linked to the genetic components of I.Q.  So far, that has probably
> occurred only in small and isolated instances which we still don't
> understand.  (Is there a Darwinian selection of people smart enough
> to escape pogroms, concentration camps, "ethnic cleansing" and
> other genocidal situations, or are intelligent individuals the ones
> more likely to have been killed?  Historical circumstances may have
> made these balance out, since genocide generally begins with the
> intellectuals.)  Given the many different factors at work, trends in
> intelligence will remain random and nondirectional.  How much
> does reproductive success in humans have to do with intelligence?
> It depends on what one defines as "intelligence".  Improved access
> to information, which will be the biggest contribution of
> cybernetics, will always have to pass through the bottleneck of  the
> human brain.  That is unlikely to change much given that biological
> evolution has been pretty much halted by access to modern
> medicine.
> 
> It is important to realize that improved computer technology will be
> used by only a tiny fraction of the world's population.  Even today, a
> surprisingly large number of people make their living with
> technologies that are at least a thousand years old.  The telephone
> was invented in 1876, yet more than a hundred years later it is
> nonexistent in most households on this planet.  It's true that one
> finds radios and cassette players even in the poorest villages.
> However, the infrastructure to provide massive information
> bandwith (and the energy sources that provide it) will always be
> accessible to only a small and wealthy minority.  The one trend that
> we can be certain will continue for the next thousand years is that of
> social differentiation--an increasing distance between the richest
> and the poorest individuals.  High-end technology is now, and will
> continue to be, completely beyond the imagination of the majority of
> humans.  Writing first appeared over 5000 years ago, but many
> people still wonder what it means to be able to read.
> 
> People with high-end access to information flow will not be more
> intelligent, or even more enlightened.  In fact, a substantial number
> of the wealthy techno-elite are likely to use it for leisure activities
> that give positive pleasure feedback to the ancient limbic sectors of
> the human brain.  That is, for non-reproductive sex and recreation.
> The majority of people will continue to satisfy these needs with
> simple solutions that have been around since the beginning of
> humanity.  They will remain primarily concerned with food, shelter,
> and social  interaction, not information.  Their happiness will
> depend more upon trends in values and ideology ("the opiate of the
> masses") than trends in high-end technology (the opiate of the
> elite?).  It's really not so odd at all.
> 
>                                                 John Hoopes

Very insightful John.  I think you have a better grasp than most.

Stever.