🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1996Jan13.210601.111812@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>,
hoopes@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (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. 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.  

 I. E.  "progress", technological "advancement", and economic "growth" are
not equivalent to "increased intelligence".  The latter is quite another
matter, and whether it is consistent with the foregoing is far from clear.

> 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

   As another anthropologist cum archy, I will second 99% of Mr. Hoopes
insightful commentary.  The extent to which we are uncertain of whether
human culture will survive for the next century--let alone the next
millenia--is the only question I would raise on the relevance of
archaeology's long term  knowledge of cultural trends to predictions of
the FUTURE of humanity.

------------------------------Regards--------------------------------
Roy C. Dudgeon, York University, Department of Social Anthropology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
  A THING IS RIGHT WHEN IT TENDS TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY, STABILITY
AND BEAUTY OF THE BIOTIC COMMUNITY.  IT IS WRONG WHEN IT TENDS OTHER-
WISE.
                                --ALDO LEOPOLD, "THE LAND ETHIC".                  ---------------------------------------------------------------------