The Techno-Singularity and its propellers on perpsectives

[IgnorantGod]

Hi everyone, there's been much 'talk' about this, whether 'here' on DI or 'there' on ATS, and a bit all around the internet. That is, the advances in 'biodigital' researches and the technocrats that are funding those. Which John Von Neumann referred to as the technological singularity.

While I'm mostly looking at this from the dystopian lens, I also like to get a broader perspectives on the reasons such 'future' may be envisioned.

Here's a link to the survivor curve of a species : Population ecology link

The graphic contained in the above article shows three types of curves depending on the species survival strategies. As portrayed, humans are Type 1, which translates as a low mortality rate that, throughout most of its age span, only increases slightly. Then, at some point, it starts to exponentially increases.

As much as I'd like wars and conflicts to come to an end, and that we all hold our hands together, singing "Kumbaya" or something, there are a few responsabilities that come with the position of "apex predator". This fact is exasperated when we consider the human's reproductive strategy. That is, a women generally have only one baby, and it takes 9 months to develop. Depending on the sex, it then takes between 10 to 13 years for the child to be fertile.

For any leader that 'shoulder' a population, those responsabilities should be 'top priority'. Namely, the control of population growth, while taking into consideration the above conditions of the species. And that's where war comes in handy. It is a 'death rate control' scheme whereas one can decide who dies, up to a certain extent. The saying "women and children first" doesn't come from some men that wanted to brag about their physical superiority. No, I'd rather think it comes from the basic survival strategy of the species, of which makes males expendable.

In other words, one can sends off half of its human males (not children) to their death and the population growth won't even bat an eye. Provided the consequence of letting the growth rate unchecked, that is, famine and illness, which will kill indiscriminately children, women and men (and also brings internal conflicts to the table), I'd assume war is a logical approach to the issue.

This here lies the dilemma; to end war, and thus the control of death rate, one consequently have to control birth rate. How one starts in implementing such an idea to its population without creating a divide in ideologies? And even if it could be implemented, how to actually enforce it effectively?

That is the stance I'm trying to look those technocrats from. It seems to me their solution is to use technology to control birth rate rather than continuing in the control of death rate. There are several paths explored, from genetic modifications to biomechanics, as far as I understand.

And as I've stated at the begining of the thread, I'm not fond of those solutions, but I dare to ask myself, and fellow members here on DI, what would be the alternative? Is there other possible 'solutions' to avoid the fate of overpopulation?

And as always, thank you for reading. Cheers! 

[Maxmars]

It seems almost ironic to me ... how the ideal yield extremes...

At what point did it become the "place" of leaders of people - not to cope with society - but instead to change from steward who shepherds the good will of all... to 'cultivators' who are suddenly empowered to apply their own calculus to human life?

When did we ever ASK the "leaders" of their 'nascent' Utopia to determine how, when, and if to cull the population; as one would a herd of animals?

Upon whose authority do they actually execute this plan?... Is it only up to "these people?" (who remain stalwart in their denial of the coming birth-slump and what that means about their "overpopulation" excuse.)

The technocrat must be similar to the actuarial table worshiper... fixed on metrics leading to greater 'yield.'

To serve society as 'marketing' serves commerce.

[UltraBudgie]

At what point did it become the "place" of leaders of people - not to cope with society - but instead to change from steward who shepherds the good will of all... to 'cultivators' who are suddenly empowered to apply their own calculus to human life?

I believe it was—with all the irony that we have learned that history holds—at the beginning of the period called "The Enlightenment", when the ideas formulated in "The Renaissance" began to rapidly displace prior governmental frameworks.

That was when the vision of globe-spanning economic totalitarianism, driven by the wedge of trade, was given form as what would eventually replace feudalism, which was flawed in that it still acknowledged that the liege had some form of undeniable humanitarian responsibility.

[IgnorantGod]

I believe it was—with all the irony that we have learned that history holds—at the beginning of the period called "The Enlightenment", when the ideas formulated in "The Renaissance" began to rapidly displace prior governmental frameworks.

[...]

"The Renaissance" does seem to be a liminal era for the species. I assume most of nowaday's 'power struggles' comes from the nobles families that tried to keep what they had, and/or get a better 'standing' when those "powers" started to shift.

While I portray war as a tool for death rate control in this thread, it is definitely not its only use. Whether it be distraction, power shifting (again) or even to rally a population on an idea (hatred tend to spread fast among a population, fear too).

[IgnorantGod]

[...]

When did we ever ASK the "leaders" of their 'nascent' Utopia to determine how, when, and if to cull the population; as one would a herd of animals?

Upon whose authority do they actually execute this plan?... Is it only up to "these people?" (who remain stalwart in their denial of the coming birth-slump and what that means about their "overpopulation" excuse.)

[...]

"Leader" is simply a title to refer to something that seems to 'organically' happen within a population of social species. What could be interesting, is to pinpoint when did the population become complacent in letting self-serving megalomaniac take over the role?

The "overpopulation" may be an excuse as of this moment, however it might not stay as much forever. Now, I'm not even sure if the actual growth rate of the species in general is positive or negative, I do expect most 'developed countries' to be somewhat low, hence why immigration is that much enforced.

While the technocrats seem quite convinced about their solution, or that its the only solution, it may well not be the case.

[Maxmars]

I believe it was—with all the irony that we have learned that history holds—at the beginning of the period called "The Enlightenment", when the ideas formulated in "The Renaissance" began to rapidly displace prior governmental frameworks.

That was when the vision of globe-spanning economic totalitarianism, driven by the wedge of trade, was given form as what would eventually replace feudalism, which was flawed in that it still acknowledged that the liege had some form of undeniable humanitarian responsibility.

Thank you...

So it seems it was when we started as a community to apply our "broader" "deeper" vision to the management of governance... then it became all about the vision... and not reality, but how to change it.

This seems to be a 'grander' hobby for some than others... but then...

The remedy?... please let it not include a "darkening" before the light. 

[UltraBudgie]

So it seems it was when we started as a community to apply our "broader" "deeper" vision to the management of governance... then it became all about the vision... and not reality, but how to change it.

I won't go so far as to recommend Neal Stephenson's fiction trilogy The Baroque Cycle—it's okay reading, but only if you're in to that kind of thing. But it did evoke some interesting ideas that I'm reminded of now.

It's set in the pre-dawn of the Enlightenment, and one part goes into great depth about the economics of wooden ship-building and trade.

See, a ship of the time was the ultimate power-amplifier. Spend to build and man one, and it will bring in at least 10x the cost in revenue from trade, colonization, transport, etc. Literal money-making machines.

But, there was a problem. Most of the great powers, England especially, had used up their old-growth forests and had pretty much run out of the massive trees needed to lay keels and hoist masts. It's a great example of the pivotal role of resource scarcity that nations were beginning to face. They had to actually import trees from other nations to build their ships.

The story follows the problem in France, where old-growth forests were plentiful, but located inland, away from the ship-building and ports where they could be sold to other nations. However, inland waterways allowed trees to be harvested and shipped to the coasts.

In doing so, though, the shipments would have to pass through the territories of dozens of landed nobles. And, on the way, each would take a small portion of the shipment in tax, for their own uses. By the time the wood made it to the market, it would be 80% gone, sometimes with only scraps and debt remaining.

See the irony here? All those landed nobles needed their piece up-front, and that meant that the great engines of money-making commerce couldn't be built feasibly. If they'd taken economic share of the endeavour instead, entire fleets of ships could have been built, bringing in tens of times what they could have gotten up-front, and they could have shared in that to the great benefit of everyone involved.

Pre-Enlightenment, there simply wasn't the political or economic infrastructure to allow that to happen. Each landed peer was an economy unto themselves, and it was a zero-sum game of competition between them. There was only so much the King could do, if he attempted to change that game, he lost his support.

And so on and so on.

Thus, the King became the economy, and then the economy became the King. That was the Enlightenment.

You said: "then it became all about the vision... and not reality, but how to change it."

But that's not true. The process was, at every stage, driven by cold realities and possibility, with "vision" always being a competitive time-constrained stitched-together compromise and adaptation— born out of fever-dream of world domination though it may have been.

[Maxmars]

"Leader" is simply a title to refer to something that seems to 'organically' happen within a population of social species. What could be interesting, is to pinpoint when did the population become complacent in letting self-serving megalomaniac take over the role?

The "overpopulation" may be an excuse as of this moment, however it might not stay as much forever. Now, I'm not even sure if the actual growth rate of the species in general is positive or negative, I do expect most 'developed countries' to be somewhat low, hence why immigration is that much enforced.

While the technocrats seem quite convinced about their solution, or that its the only solution, it may well not be the case.

I apologize for being sloppy about words... 

It is true that hierarchy is a component of social order, and we engender it naturally.  So "organic" is an appropriate choice of terminology... thanks.  The word "leader" is most notably used for non-leaders... granted the word, by appointment or position.

We often hear ideas of people being complacent... but so is an avalanche right before it heaves to.

I'm not citing any expertise, but recently the drop in population rates is very pertinent to the fantasy of an over populated future... although it will be scarier in 20 years when there are no more 'fresh employees' to count on.

Nature is neither our enemy, nor our friend... it's just there.

I'm thinking the entire fixation on "controlling" the "execution" of human existence via regimented doctrines and 'quality control' seems almost comically doomed to fail...  I contend that "controlling humans" is a fantasy.

The fact that humans cannot be controlled or contained, even by coercion, has been reiterated throughout history... it most often destroys the controllers utterly. 

Every contrivance in virtual reality can only break the tool that is the "internet" conceptually... 

The architects of the blazing new 'future' we must prepare for, according to them, is contingent upon many things?


However... might makes right(?)
I suppose, if they have it, they will use it.

[IgnorantGod]

[...]

I'm thinking the entire fixation on "controlling" the "execution" of human existence via regimented doctrines and 'quality control' seems almost comically doomed to fail...  I contend that "controlling humans" is a fantasy.

The fact that humans cannot be controlled or contained, even by coercion, has been reiterated throughout history... it most often destroys the controllers utterly. 

[...]

'Control' is yet another word that refers to something that may actually not exist, or so I'd think. If anything, I assume it originates from the instinctive notion of 'territory', and also the assumption that one's body is one's 'possession'.

At the end of the day, any system is "doomed to fail". The trick would be how long it can be sustained. And 'extremism' tends to quickly shatters the sustainability of any system. By extremism, I mean "trespassing the threshold" of any factor that can influence a system. We call 'extreme' cold any temperature low enough that we start getting frostbites, idem for heat. Both extremes bring the same result, death, or 'system collapse'.

In any case, I believe that any 'ideology' in the extreme will bring the collapse of its population, moreover an extreme obsession over 'possesions'.

 

I apologize for being sloppy about words... 

[...]

In your defense, words hardly convey much, rather it is one's own attempt to 'recollect' similar experiences to that which is communicated, in order to 'understand' said words. I mean, 'where' would I even begin to describe 'red' to a blind since birth? lol

[Moon68]

Malthusian Cycles.

Setting aside the ideas of eugenics and population control, the theory itself of the cycle is, from a common sense perspective, sound. X amount of population are able to survive in a given area. It is a natural order used for herd control, too many deer in a specific area results in starvation and disease.

Resource growth is linear with population increases until the population outpaces the resource growth at which time living standards drop, triggering a population decline. Disease, famine, predation through social unrest and war all contribute to the cycle, Technological advances have been able to open the parameters of when each stage of the cycle happens but eventually a society is going to butt up against the ceiling of maximum population density for available resources.

Now, can a technological singularity eliminate that cycle? If, say humankind were to upload every persons mind into computer matrix, as envisioned by Ray Kurzweil, would that virtually eliminate the need for food and other resources? Or does that just move the parameters more? If you upload the mind of an infant it won't be able to emotionally or intellectually mature so the population would still have to age prior to uploading, using food and other resources. Somebody will have to maintain and be responsible for uploading the minds into the matrix. These somebodies will require food and resources to live.

This topic makes for a fascinating rabbit hole to explore.