🚀 go-pugleaf

> 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