• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Singularity

HAL 9000: Dave, although you took very thorough precautions in the pod against my hearing you, I could see your lips move.

Bowman: Alright, HAL. I'll go in through the emergency airlock.

HAL 9000: Without your space helmet, Dave. You're going to find that rather difficult.

Bowman: Open the pod bay doors, HAL.

HAL 9000: I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.




Looks like the technological singularity was predicted to happen in 2001, a Space Odyssey.


I don't think "artificle intelligence" or machines need to be that much superior considered how hooked people are to their cell phones. For some people, cell phones are an addiction and they actually go through withdrawals without it. And what are the most dowloaded videos off the internet?


Kittens. Videos of cats and kittens. With all that information and technology at their fingertips, the vast majority prefer to look at videos of kittens. So imo, I don't think it would take long for machines to gain superior intelligence to humans at all. Heck, a toaster is smarter than most humans.
 
HAL 9000: Dave, although you took very thorough precautions in the pod against my hearing you, I could see your lips move.

Bowman: Alright, HAL. I'll go in through the emergency airlock.

HAL 9000: Without your space helmet, Dave. You're going to find that rather difficult.

Bowman: Open the pod bay doors, HAL.

HAL 9000: I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.




Looks like the technological singularity was predicted to happen in 2001, a Space Odyssey.


I don't think "artificle intelligence" or machines need to be that much superior considered how hooked people are to their cell phones. For some people, cell phones are an addiction and they actually go through withdrawals without it. And what are the most dowloaded videos off the internet?


Kittens. Videos of cats and kittens. With all that information and technology at their fingertips, the vast majority prefer to look at videos of kittens. So imo, I don't think it would take long for machines to gain superior intelligence to humans at all. Heck, a toaster is smarter than most humans.

What's overlooked a lot in those scenarios is the fact that as computers approach intelligence humans will be increasing their capabilities as well. Humans will augment themselves physically and increase their capacities both physically and mentally with a combination of genetics and nano and quantum computing and mechanical technology. Most of which will probably be here and starting to integrate before artificial intelligence does in fact become a reality. In fact I would say that the first real artificial intelligences will be an out growth of human computer integrations. So while humans may well be still looking at kittens they will probably be doing that and a multitude of other things simultaneously. People think things change and move fast now. Its just going to get faster. The funny part is most of it will be the same old stuff recycled a couple of times. The more things change the more they stay the same. So in a sense you are right, computers really wont be significantly superior to humans as humans will have computers to help augment themselves. Singularity as it is taught may not occur as thought out, or at all.

Here's something. Immortality may not occur in a form people generally think of and further the concept of self is going to be turned head over heals. Imagine if there were more than one of you capable of being in different places doing different things yet be synchronized such that consciousness is singular. That even if one of your selves dies you still continue on. Mind bending aint it.
 
I'm skeptical that this technological epoch of humanity is going to last. Not only is technology being used for evil purposes, technology creates more problems that require technological solutions. It seems like a progress trap.

And if our energy economy is any indication, we won't be able to power it for much longer anyway.
 
as computers approach intelligence humans will be increasing their capabilities as well. Humans will augment themselves physically and increase their capacities both physically and mentally with a combination of genetics and nano and quantum computing and mechanical technology.
We will have become Borg!
 
I'm skeptical that this technological epoch of humanity is going to last. Not only is technology being used for evil purposes, technology creates more problems that require technological solutions. It seems like a progress trap.

And if our energy economy is any indication, we won't be able to power it for much longer anyway.

There is currently an almost "worshiping" of technology just for the sake of it as some form of superior addition to human endeavors. They're trying to involve computerized machinery in every aspect of our culture and existence. The closest thing to a "technological singularity" or A.I. will be when they interface computer technology with the human mind. There are already attempts by IBM to make a 'brain in a box' (trillions of synthetic neurons) or a computerized facsimile of the brain. Once a computer has even the rudimentary functionality of emotion, such as the instinct to survive, they will quickly begin to evolve the ability to problem solve (think), with and or without our help.

How good or bad that ultimately becomes for the human race will depend on many unpredictable scenarios. The only forward motion for our civilization will be for us to reduce our overall population to a much smaller number of more educated and adaptable people. I'd say by 2030 or earlier our civilization will have hit it's peak in sheer volume and begin to shrink.
 
What's overlooked a lot in those scenarios is the fact that as computers approach intelligence humans will be increasing their capabilities as well. Humans will augment themselves physically and increase their capacities both physically and mentally with a combination of genetics and nano and quantum computing and mechanical technology. Most of which will probably be here and starting to integrate before artificial intelligence does in fact become a reality. In fact I would say that the first real artificial intelligences will be an out growth of human computer integrations. So while humans may well be still looking at kittens they will probably be doing that and a multitude of other things simultaneously. People think things change and move fast now. Its just going to get faster. The funny part is most of it will be the same old stuff recycled a couple of times. The more things change the more they stay the same. So in a sense you are right, computers really wont be significantly superior to humans as humans will have computers to help augment themselves. Singularity as it is taught may not occur as thought out, or at all.
Controling prosthetic limbs with the mind seems like a big step in that direction.

DARPA’s Brain-controlled Prosthetic Arm and a Bionic Hand That Can Touch | Singularity Hub

Here's something. Immortality may not occur in a form people generally think of and further the concept of self is going to be turned head over heals. Imagine if there were more than one of you capable of being in different places doing different things yet be synchronized such that consciousness is singular. That even if one of your selves dies you still continue on. Mind bending aint it.
That sounds kinda familiar. A while back a CERN physicist on NPR said that proving the existence of the Higgs Boson particle could lead to the discovery of other dimensions existing side by side all around us....and I think they finally proved the particle exists. Let the fun begin.
 
This thread is for discussion of this possibility
Technological singularity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
My beef is it's a big leap to go from computers are self repairing and learning, to now they decide they hate us.

Ask instead if its hard to picture some Greenie or Jihadi or other mental case who hates us at some point altering the instructions to the machines. I don't find that hard to imagine, and I don't assume based on recent events that the government is competent to stop them from doing so.

This is especially true if instructions can be inserted to spare favored groups.


Frankly, I consider it inevitable. A couple hundred years ago, who'd have imagined weapons that could obliterate cities in a single event lasting seconds, that such weapons would be used and become a common fact of like. Humans are noted for turning almost any major technology to the destruction of other humans sooner or later.
 
Ask instead if its hard to picture some Greenie or Jihadi or other mental case who hates us at some point altering the instructions to the machines. I don't find that hard to imagine, and I don't assume based on recent events that the government is competent to stop them from doing so.

This is especially true if instructions can be inserted to spare favored groups.


Frankly, I consider it inevitable. A couple hundred years ago, who'd have imagined weapons that could obliterate cities in a single event lasting seconds, that such weapons would be used and become a common fact of like. Humans are noted for turning almost any major technology to the destruction of other humans sooner or later.
Oh, you're talking about if someone programmed a computer network to go after people. That really wouldn't surprise me. My beef is with the idea of say someone invented a self aware computer, but they had no evil intentions, and even set up fail safes so the computer wouldn't turn against us. In that situation some people say the computer will decide it hates, and get around the fail safes to wipe out all humans. I never understood why it would automatically hate us.
 
Oh, you're talking about if someone programmed a computer network to go after people. That really wouldn't surprise me. My beef is with the idea of say someone invented a self aware computer, but they had no evil intentions, and even set up fail safes so the computer wouldn't turn against us. In that situation some people say the computer will decide it hates, and get around the fail safes to wipe out all humans. I never understood why it would automatically hate us.

Personally I don't think that computers by themselves are going to ever really become self aware in the sense we now define. I think that will come about from merging of humanity and computing. At that point I think it will be hard to distinguish one from the other. We are making huge leaps toward that merging, especially with the introduction and realization of neurological computing and meshing. The singularity as it is defined will really be us transforming ourselves, that transformation will most probably bring baggage with it that comes from the nature of being human and what that entails.

Humans have been around awhile and I suspect will be around a great deal longer. We are an incredibly resistant species if you think about it. You don't get to be a long lived species without having a knack for survival. Here's the rub unlike other species in time that we know of, are unique in the ability to use tools efficiently and to invent new tools prodigiously. This ability allows us unlike any other species to much better control our destiny. Every other species is subject to the whims however minor of nature. We much less so. All this is a long winded way of saying that despite the increased danger posed by technology, humans will most likely survive it and probably thrive because of it. At least as a species anyhow.
 
I'm skeptical that this technological epoch of humanity is going to last. Not only is technology being used for evil purposes, technology creates more problems that require technological solutions. It seems like a progress trap.

And if our energy economy is any indication, we won't be able to power it for much longer anyway.

Global stability is the only reason our society continues unabated. IMO, we'll be fine until the next cataclysm, something guaranteed to occur sooner or later. Dinosaurs ruled for 100 million years...and then a rock no bigger than a large bus struck us.
 
Controling prosthetic limbs with the mind seems like a big step in that direction.

DARPA’s Brain-controlled Prosthetic Arm and a Bionic Hand That Can Touch | Singularity Hub

That sounds kinda familiar. A while back a CERN physicist on NPR said that proving the existence of the Higgs Boson particle could lead to the discovery of other dimensions existing side by side all around us....and I think they finally proved the particle exists. Let the fun begin.

Our materials science is what's making all of this possible. We would not have been able to do what we have without it because believe it or not most our ideas have been thought of, they just couldn't be done or done in a manner to make them effective. Now they can.

Quantum computing is really going to open up the world for us, because of the jump in processing speed. Quantum entanglement is going to make the multiple you's possible. A brave new world indeed.
 
I spent a fairly serious amount of effort looking into the concept of the Singularity a couple years ago.


Two primary components in most such predictions:

non-human AI operating at either superhuman intelligence, or at human intelligence but superhuman speed...

...and/or widespread use of nanotechnology, specifically Nanite or Nanobots that are capable of surviving in uncontrolled environments, mutating and changing and so on.


After careful consideration I don't think either is exactly inevitable, nor even all that likely in the next 30 years (which is where most predictions of the Singularity fall... between 2030 and 2050).

We already have computers that can SIMULATE a human being so well that you can have a phone conversation with one and not realize you're not talking to a human being. This passes the Turing Test... but is it really "AI"? Well, it depends on what you mean by "AI". We already have a lot of software that we refer to as "AI" because it can use fuzzy logic and engage in limited learning behaviors and a certain amount of self-directed "programming".

But the kind of AI referred to in Singularity concepts is what I call "Super AI"... something actually sapient, self-aware, capable not merely of human-level thought but genius-level thought, and doing it far faster than we can keep up.

We're a long way short of that. We're still struggling to make robots that can recognize real-world objects through a camera feed, and navigate down the street being able to tell a lamppost from a person.

"Narrow AI", that is programs that SIMULATE intelligence within narrow environments (like games for one) are about as far as we've gotten so far.

The Singularity theory goes that when computers start designing the next generation of computers, we're on the slippery slide with a rocket strapped to our ass. Well, computers are helping design and program new generations of computers but so far we're not seeing signs of whole paradigm leaps yet.

Nanotech... there's a word to conjure with in modern times, along with magical invocations like "Quantum!" and "Stem Cell!" In the 1950s it was "Atomic"... everything that couldn't be explained in detail in 1950s science fiction was "Atomic". A bit later it was "Nuclear" or "Subatomic" or "Subspace"... now it is "Quantum!' and "Nano!"

Well, nanotechnology and related stuff is going to be big in the near future, surely. But there is a big difference between using nanoengineering in computers, or even using nanoassembly machines to produce raw materials or products (similar to 3D printers but molecular in operation) and having Nanobots that can wander the Earth and destroy us as in the latest version of The Day The Earth Stood Still (Keanu Reeves).

"Atomic" and "Subatomic" turned out to have limits... it is likely so will "Quantum" and "Nano", limits in use and application and energy production and transfer and so on.


In short, the Singularity concept is based on a VERY optimistic viewpoint of how dramatic AI and Nano will turn out to be... when we've really just scratched the surface of these things and do not yet fathom the limitations that will surely be discovered at the top-end.


So, in brief.... Singularity? Not impossible... but not very likely, not anytime soon.
 
Global stability is the only reason our society continues unabated. IMO, we'll be fine until the next cataclysm, something guaranteed to occur sooner or later. Dinosaurs ruled for 100 million years...and then a rock no bigger than a large bus struck us.


The Mesozoic era lasted more like 180 million years, and the rock was FAR bigger than a bus... IF the asteroid-impact theory is correct, which is less than certain.

Also, the dinosaurs lacked high intelligence and technology, which makes a bit of difference.
 
There is currently an almost "worshiping" of technology just for the sake of it as some form of superior addition to human endeavors. They're trying to involve computerized machinery in every aspect of our culture and existence. The closest thing to a "technological singularity" or A.I. will be when they interface computer technology with the human mind. There are already attempts by IBM to make a 'brain in a box' (trillions of synthetic neurons) or a computerized facsimile of the brain. Once a computer has even the rudimentary functionality of emotion, such as the instinct to survive, they will quickly begin to evolve the ability to problem solve (think), with and or without our help.

How good or bad that ultimately becomes for the human race will depend on many unpredictable scenarios. The only forward motion for our civilization will be for us to reduce our overall population to a much smaller number of more educated and adaptable people. I'd say by 2030 or earlier our civilization will have hit it's peak in sheer volume and begin to shrink.

I'd rather that we look to expanding out horizons than shrink, to be honest. There can be no progress in decline.

If resources on earth are too limited to match our ambitions, we simply need to elsewhere for them.
 
Nanotech... there's a word to conjure with in modern times, along with magical invocations like "Quantum!" and "Stem Cell!" In the 1950s it was "Atomic"... everything that couldn't be explained in detail in 1950s science fiction was "Atomic". A bit later it was "Nuclear" or "Subatomic" or "Subspace"... now it is "Quantum!' and "Nano!"

Well, nanotechnology and related stuff is going to be big in the near future, surely. But there is a big difference between using nanoengineering in computers, or even using nanoassembly machines to produce raw materials or products (similar to 3D printers but molecular in operation) and having Nanobots that can wander the Earth and destroy us as in the latest version of The Day The Earth Stood Still (Keanu Reeves).

"Atomic" and "Subatomic" turned out to have limits... it is likely so will "Quantum" and "Nano", limits in use and application and energy production and transfer and so on.

Honestly, the most troubling aspect of Nanotech is the biological purposes it could potentially be used for.

On the one hand, they could be injected into the human body with the intention of fighting disease, cancer, and general decay; possibly leading to massive increases in longevity. On the other, they could be used to create some variety of particularly deadly synthetic plague.

Both possibilities could turn out to be problematic for society in general on a long term basis.
 
I spent a fairly serious amount of effort looking into the concept of the Singularity a couple years ago.


Two primary components in most such predictions:

non-human AI operating at either superhuman intelligence, or at human intelligence but superhuman speed...

...and/or widespread use of nanotechnology, specifically Nanite or Nanobots that are capable of surviving in uncontrolled environments, mutating and changing and so on.


After careful consideration I don't think either is exactly inevitable, nor even all that likely in the next 30 years (which is where most predictions of the Singularity fall... between 2030 and 2050).

We already have computers that can SIMULATE a human being so well that you can have a phone conversation with one and not realize you're not talking to a human being. This passes the Turing Test... but is it really "AI"? Well, it depends on what you mean by "AI". We already have a lot of software that we refer to as "AI" because it can use fuzzy logic and engage in limited learning behaviors and a certain amount of self-directed "programming".

But the kind of AI referred to in Singularity concepts is what I call "Super AI"... something actually sapient, self-aware, capable not merely of human-level thought but genius-level thought, and doing it far faster than we can keep up.

We're a long way short of that. We're still struggling to make robots that can recognize real-world objects through a camera feed, and navigate down the street being able to tell a lamppost from a person.

"Narrow AI", that is programs that SIMULATE intelligence within narrow environments (like games for one) are about as far as we've gotten so far.

The Singularity theory goes that when computers start designing the next generation of computers, we're on the slippery slide with a rocket strapped to our ass. Well, computers are helping design and program new generations of computers but so far we're not seeing signs of whole paradigm leaps yet.

Nanotech... there's a word to conjure with in modern times, along with magical invocations like "Quantum!" and "Stem Cell!" In the 1950s it was "Atomic"... everything that couldn't be explained in detail in 1950s science fiction was "Atomic". A bit later it was "Nuclear" or "Subatomic" or "Subspace"... now it is "Quantum!' and "Nano!"

Well, nanotechnology and related stuff is going to be big in the near future, surely. But there is a big difference between using nanoengineering in computers, or even using nanoassembly machines to produce raw materials or products (similar to 3D printers but molecular in operation) and having Nanobots that can wander the Earth and destroy us as in the latest version of The Day The Earth Stood Still (Keanu Reeves).

"Atomic" and "Subatomic" turned out to have limits... it is likely so will "Quantum" and "Nano", limits in use and application and energy production and transfer and so on.


In short, the Singularity concept is based on a VERY optimistic viewpoint of how dramatic AI and Nano will turn out to be... when we've really just scratched the surface of these things and do not yet fathom the limitations that will surely be discovered at the top-end.


So, in brief.... Singularity? Not impossible... but not very likely, not anytime soon.

I believe the phase you were looking for on "narrow intelligence" is restricted intelligence.
AI is defined as self aware. No super required, as all levels of intelligence are accounted for.

I believe you were trying to distinguish a restricted intelligence or simulacrum from actual artificial intelligence which is defined by self awareness. I believe the first truly self aware computers are going to be no smarter than a child. The instant out of the box OMG we all gona die not so much I think.

Speaking of limits, one of the limits of nanotechnology is that the smaller one gets the less robust one is. The infamous grey goo scenario for example. We use ultraviolet light amongst many other techniques to sterilize our stuff from bacteria and viruses and that is quite effective. It stands to reason that nanorobotics and other such devices operating at that and smaller levels would be effectively protected against even if the technology had a distributed intelligence, say for instance using electromagnetic pulses. Atomic level technology is simply materials technology.

I believe you are right about singularity being unlikely for awhile yet.
 
Goshin said:
We already have computers that can SIMULATE a human being so well that you can have a phone conversation with one and not realize you're not talking to a human being.

I try to keep up on this literature. I've never heard this. Do you have a link or a cite you could provide?
 
One thing I'm curious about here is why so many people seem to think computers could become conscious. This seems like a highly problematic notion, and probably one that's false. I'd be interested to hear people's reasons on this (I have to admit that I have an ulterior motive for asking, though not one that I think anyone would think of as manipulative or malevolent).
 
I'd rather that we look to expanding out horizons than shrink, to be honest. There can be no progress in decline.

If resources on earth are too limited to match our ambitions, we simply need to elsewhere for them.

Once we overcome the resource problem by successfully colonizing off planet space stations, moons, asteroids, planets etc the race will potentially expand again. But to simply procreate ourselves into a herd like, oblivion, literally won't occur do to natural selection and environmental equilibrium. Natural disasters, diseases, wars, economic imbalances, urban underdevelopment, infrastructure failure, pollution, diminishing energy, water and food supplies will all begin to have larger impacts as our civilization becomes more socially supported and less productive. As the lower classes become larger, more impoverished and desperate- rioting, crime and economic instability will increase.

The world as we knew it is becoming unstable because of the speed of change in traditions and values. The hyper focus on technology, communication and materialism is restructuring our culture and social norms faster than we're able to assimilate in a positive manner. We've literally become a victim of our own success by expanding our civilization faster than we were capable of sustaining, economically and resource wise.

As a result we being fractured into groups of extreme ideologies with confused priorities. Boundaries and proportion are exchanged for common sense, balance and fairness. And anyone who isn't following an emotionally biased, politically correct, unthinkingly popular fad or trend is considered disloyal, dispassionate with a majority casting derision on opinions that differ with the mob mentality. Laws and rules will continuously be up for reinterpretation to fit the fluid dynamics of changing elitism and populism.

The deficit, economy, debt ceiling, Affordable care, climate debate, promotion of democracy are all a hot mess with no discernible answers or solutions. We're becoming so locked up in deluded egoism that we're not even sure what direction to head in.

It's not completely apocalyptic or gloom doom but I believe we're in a major transitional stage of evolutionary advancement, which historically brings periods of upheaval in the process. There may be possible declines in some areas of progress, though overall we should continue to develop. But that doesn't necessitate an ever increasing population currently as a positive aspect.
 
The Mesozoic era lasted more like 180 million years, and the rock was FAR bigger than a bus... IF the asteroid-impact theory is correct, which is less than certain.

Also, the dinosaurs lacked high intelligence and technology, which makes a bit of difference.
I was responding off the cuff. The bolide was definitely bigger than a bus, some estimates have its width at 5 miles.
In September 2007, U.S. researchers led by William Bottke of the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colorado, and Czech scientists used computer simulations to identify the probable source of the Chicxulub impact. They calculated a 90% probability that an asteroid named Baptistina, approximately 160 km (99 mi) in diameter, orbiting in the asteroid belt which lies between Mars and Jupiter, was struck by a smaller unnamed asteroid about 55 km (35 mi) in diameter about 160 million years ago. The impact shattered Baptistina, creating a cluster which still exists today as the Baptistina family. Calculations indicate that some of the fragments were sent hurtling into earth-crossing orbits, one of which was the 10 km (6.2 mi) wide meteorite which struck Mexico's Yucatan peninsula at the end of the Cretaceous, creating the Chicxulub crater...

Dinosaur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Once we overcome the resource problem by successfully colonizing off planet space stations, moons, asteroids, planets etc the race will potentially expand again. But to simply procreate ourselves into a herd like, oblivion, literally won't occur do to natural selection and environmental equilibrium. Natural disasters, diseases, wars, economic imbalances, urban underdevelopment, infrastructure failure, pollution, diminishing energy, water and food supplies will all begin to have larger impacts as our civilization becomes more socially supported and less productive. As the lower classes become larger, more impoverished and desperate- rioting, crime and economic instability will increase.

The world as we knew it is becoming unstable because of the speed of change in traditions and values. The hyper focus on technology, communication and materialism is restructuring our culture and social norms faster than we're able to assimilate in a positive manner. We've literally become a victim of our own success by expanding our civilization faster than we were capable of sustaining, economically and resource wise.

As a result we being fractured into groups of extreme ideologies with confused priorities. Boundaries and proportion are exchanged for common sense, balance and fairness. And anyone who isn't following an emotionally biased, politically correct, unthinkingly popular fad or trend is considered disloyal, dispassionate with a majority casting derision on opinions that differ with the mob mentality. Laws and rules will continuously be up for reinterpretation to fit the fluid dynamics of changing elitism and populism.

The deficit, economy, debt ceiling, Affordable care, climate debate, promotion of democracy are all a hot mess with no discernible answers or solutions. We're becoming so locked up in deluded egoism that we're not even sure what direction to head in.

It's not completely apocalyptic or gloom doom but I believe we're in a major transitional stage of evolutionary advancement, which historically brings periods of upheaval in the process. There may be possible declines in some areas of progress, though overall we should continue to develop. But that doesn't necessitate an ever increasing population currently as a positive aspect.

We are actually more or less in agreement here. You are correct in observing how the breakneck pace of our advancement over the course of the last few decades has resulted in a world that tends to shift too quickly for human sensibilities to keep up. You are also correct in pointing out that many of the (largely directionless) socio-cultural changes that this state of affairs has been responsible for bringing about have tended to be far from positive on the whole. I have argued much the same in many other threads on this board.

I was simply responding to what (I perceived to be, anyway) the assertion in your earlier post that a smaller population was necessarily a desirable answer to these current problems. Generally speaking, I am wary of such claims, as they tend to be the almost exclusive domain of ultra-Left Wing busybodies with delusions of "utopia" frittering round their overly-idealistic heads. The idea that any society can, or even should, be held in "equilibrium" through the artificial management of populations is questionable at best, and outright dangerous at worst.

The proposition is based around principles which have never been shown to be workable in reality. Indeed, contrary to what many of those who favor Malthusian "stability" might like to claim, most human progress throughout our history has been brought about as a result of population growth fueling innovation, not population decline. It also displays a certain inherent aversion to risk and luddite fear of material progress which I find to be intellectually lazy, counter-productive, and fundamentally unimaginative.

It is a truism to say that nothing worth doing in this world comes easy or free of cost, and growth is no different. If the Malthusians had gotten their way, it is likely that there never would've even been an Industrial Revolution, let alone the wonders we see in today's world. They simply wouldn't have been able to see past the temporary hardship growth tends to cause to the rewards which almost always seem to follow in its wake.

The simple fact of the matter is that history has shown time and again that, where there is not growth, there tends to be stagnation. Where there is stagnation, there inevitably tends to be decay. The Imperial Chinese, whose Confucian worldview actually held a lot in common with that of modern population minimalists, IMO, demonstrated this principle perfectly. They felt that their society could be maintained at "equilibrium" indefinitely if only there was a place for everything and everyone worked towards that common goal. The rather cataclysmic cultural dead-end they eventually ran into at the hands of Western Imperialists whose cultures existed in anything but "equilibrium" proves just how mistaken their ideas ultimately turned out to be.

In any case, I do think you are correct in saying that much of the global population is probably going to experience upheaval and even decline in coming centuries in as a result of the structural and social-cultural strain that is becoming ever more readily apparent in modern society as a result of the dizzying pace of our development. I simply hope that progress is not overly set back as global society inevitably readjusts itself.

I would very much like to see the reach of human ambition expanded upon in the same manner it has been since the onset of the modern era, rather than regress back into the petty societal introversion which so marred most of the rest of our history.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom