” Yet there is no country and no people, I think, who can look forward to the age of leisure and of abundance without a dread. For we have been trained too long to strive and not to enjoy. It is a fearful problem for the ordinary person, with no special talents, to occupy himself, especially if he no longer has roots in the soil or in custom or in the beloved conventions of a traditional society. To judge from the behaviour and the achievements of the wealthy classes today in any quarter of the world, the outlook is very depressing! For these are, so to speak, our advance guard-those who are spying out the promised land for the rest of us and pitching their camp there. For they have most of them failed disastrously, so it seems to me-those who have an independent income but no associations or duties or ties-to solve the problem which has been set them. “
Keynes was the father of modern, American economics (I disagree with his govt spending approach), so I wanted to discuss some of his ideas from his paper that suggested that we would become so rich, that we would not know what to do with our free time.
Mankind has lived to work, to be challenged, and to desire some leisure, but what will leisure mean if there is no challenge?
The greater the challenge, the greater the reward.
The greater the pain, the greater the pleasure.
The greater the effort, the greater the relief from that effort.
But perhaps there are opportunities, as he thinks we will chase money less, and avoid the vice of interest (which only works if you offer/sell debt).
I see us free, therefore, to return to some of the most sure and certain principles of religion and traditional virtue-that avarice is a vice, that the exaction of usury is a misdemeanour, and the love of money is detestable, that those walk most truly in the paths of virtue and sane wisdom who take least thought for the morrow. We shall once more value ends above means and prefer the good to the useful. We shall honour those who can teach us how to pluck the hour and the day virtuously and well, the delightful people who are capable of taking direct enjoyment in things, the lilies of the field who toil not, neither do they spin.
But is spending all your time crafting and hobbying sound enjoyable or meaningful? What are the chances that most will either become utterly lazy, live in a video game with artificial goals or simply be bored, or entertained, to death. In case you have not noticed, the process is already underway.
Keynes said this process was already underway in 1930. Personally, I saw it decades ago as well.
I look forward, therefore, in days not so very remote, to the greatest change which has ever occurred in the material environment of life for human beings in the aggregate. But, of course, it will all happen gradually, not as a catastrophe. Indeed, it has already begun. The course of affairs will simply be that there will be ever larger and larger classes and groups of people from whom problems of economic necessity have been practically removed. The critical difference will be realised when this condition has become so general that the nature of one’s duty to one’s neighbour is changed. For it will remain reasonable to be economically purposive for others after it has ceased to be reasonable for oneself. The pace at which we can reach our destination of economic bliss will be governed by four things-our power to control population, our determination to avoid wars and civil dissensions, our willingness to entrust to science the direction of those matters which are properly the concern of science, and the rate of accumulation as fixed by the margin between our production and our consumption; of which the last will easily look after itself, given the first three. Meanwhile there will be no harm in making mild preparations for our destiny, in encouraging, and experimenting in, the arts of life as well as the activities of purpose.
Ignoring his subtle eugenic-like reference, the most interesting point here is ” For it will remain reasonable to be economically purposive for others after it has ceased to be reasonable for oneself” because perhaps my greatest concern is that when we have everything we need, we will not need each other.
You can see this in rich people today, and wealthy areas such as cities. You can also expect the rejection of people as we all get “richer” which I define elsewhere. I can use the internet now to learn almost any basic skill and AI is accelerating that, so the last thing I need is a real person to help me with anything. Clearly, with machines, all our needs from building a home to getting treated medically will be done with robots and AI.
But you say it is a real person on the internet? Yes, but not for long, and besides, these are not neighbors, nor people closest to us. More importantly, it will continue to erode geographically close, and physical (real), relationships. Some people think the ideal future is living in a Matrix, where we live in a fantasy full time, with perhaps the Metaverse being one of the early incarnations of such, but somehow that seems shallow to me, but as all real work is automated, why would many people not choose to live in fantasy full time? Perhaps the majority would. Again, just look at the trends I listed here and assume they will expand with more free time, more realism, and more personalization.
When we get advanced information/education (AI) and free labor (robotics), that will seal the deal. Only societies that do not have their economic needs met, or at least not outsourced to advanced technology, will continue to need each other. And this is not limited to neighbors, but all social units. Families will not need each other, and populations may even be unlikely to need govt, but that is a difficult problem to discuss here.
Is there evidence today that this is already happening? Communities continue to decrease, families spend less time than ever, and I am lucky to hear back from my neighbors when previously I lived in urban environments.
One argument some make is that technology does not necessarily disconnect us, which is true, but I show the reality of facts, that they do on average, and we should avoid the exceptionalist thinking known in social science as “illusory superiority,” which demonstrates that for example, 90 percent of professors rate themselves as above-average teachers.
When Will The Age of Leisure Happen?
Keynes believed this would happen within 100 years (2030) and that does not seem too far off. And yet, technology marches forward…because it has to. Nothing can stop it, except a partial or complete rejection of technology, followed by a rejection of science, and ultimately, The Enlightenment (a.k.a. Age of Reason). All of this has brought untold wealth, which brings up the question: when does materialism become a problem? I know there are a lot of people worried about starving in far-off countries. I am one of the few more worried about the opposite in nearby places.
The promise of AI (generalized mental work) and robots (generalized physical work) is that no one will need to work again. Of course, materials scarcity will still exist, for a time, but generally speaking, productivity rates are about to skyrocket.
What Does this Mean for Materialism?
A common critique of the modern age says that the age of science and reason may, like all other ages, come to an end at some point. This does not seem unsurprising in some sense. While we all want things like medicine, at what point will our demand far exceed our needs, making us useless materialists and hedonists? Based on how many toys some of us own, and also time spent in media/video games, we are already there.
In other words, if we stopped buying more material goods, and experiences, the economy would probably slow tremendously. The eternal 7% stock growth projections do not seem wise (materialism) nor feasible (slowing population). Many have pointed out that Disny’s Wall-E may be the best description of the future if current trends continue. Even I ask my kids to pick my phone up off the ground when it’s only 4 feet away from me–clearly, I am contributing to the laziness problem.
But perhaps John underestimates the power of scarcity. It’s not like anyone farms anymore, yet, everyone seems as busy as ever. However, according to one source, the average workweek (70 hours) has dropped almost in half since the early 1800’s, yet people “think” they are busier than ever. Ignore the fact that the average American spends almost 40 hours a week in front of a screen now, and perhaps life is as hard as people believe it to be.
Plato argued in The Republic that material wealth could cause imbalances in individuals and society, corrupting the soul and leading to disharmonious behavior.
The Age of Political and Social Competition
If economic needs are met, what does that leave society with? A greater focus on social hierarchies and political gain. It may be for example that people spend most of their time trying to keep up with, or impress others, building their social currency bank accounts, because at the end of the day, most people are quite good at such. This could also occur through substitute activities such as video games (e.g. Ready Player One). Or, it may be that we just compete mostly with virtual friends since they are easier to deal with. I imagine quite a bit of both.
In politics, I believe people will have more free time than ever, and as life gets easier, people tend to complain more, not less, so I think it is not unreasonable to assume that politics will become increasingly fierce as machines create more leisure time to pursue such. I think a lot of cultural topics today are growing for similar reason: more time on hand with less friction to vocalize and disseminate individual ideas rapidly, attempting to gain followers for support in the process. Perhaps this is somewhat behind part of the growth of tribalism when it involves being hostile to outsiders.
The Main Question: Why Do We Need More Abundance?
With the exception of curing and preventing a few diseases, I am not sure why we need more abundance. Does more pleasure mean more happiness? Does one more video game, book, or trip to some exotic land make our lives meaningfully better? Perhaps another shot of your favorite drug does, but I doubt it. Maybe I go against mainstream when I say that happiness is derived from purpose, from a life succeeding against challenges, and from providing meaning to and helping others. Not from one of infinite ease and luxury, which obscures and eliminates these opportunities.
One thing I noticed in hindsight, after having lived near a rich retirement home in California was how so many of the kids there had problems, seemingly tied up in resentment, and the only thing that made sense to me was that they lacked some sort of challenge due to growing up in such a wealthy place. I could be wrong, but that was my observation almost 30 years ago. Well, we are all supremely rich by historical standards, even if we are not rich compared to our neighbors today, but is there a tipping point when a larger area, such as the West, is so rich that it leads to moral, spiritual, and ultimately physical decay? One study suggests that a predictor of success for children in “prosocial, academic ability, peer relationship, and life satisfaction scores” as adults was doing chores (there are others as well 1, 2). With robots, chores won’t be needed, unless we decide chores will be managing robots to terraform. Personally, I think growing up poor was very beneficial to my long term perspective on life of humility, simplicity, and gratitude, among others.
If it is already starting, perhaps some or most of us do not even recognize it, because although most can see waves, few can see the tide.
How Robots and AI Are Subtly Replacing Humanity: By Replacing the Need for People via the Emotional and Physical Substitution of Humanity
How Technology is Commoditizing Love
The best way to predict the future I find is to find existing trends that show it is already well on its way. Look to the past to see the future. Most people I know prefer to wait until issues are so large that it is too late to be addressed without major difficulty, or it is too late. Prevention is better than cures, which is partly why I have written this book. Of course, since the past is never a guarantee of the future, we really can’t predict anything with any real surety, but because human nature is generally predictable, it’s reasonable to assume a couple of points in the overall trend: People, on average, want more pleasure and less pain; more comfort, less burden; more fun, less work*. Few people talk about wishing for longer work hours.
I will emphasize that most of all, the reason that I am writing is to show:
What is happening now from the 40,000-foot view
The most likely outcome in the near future,
and most of all, potential solutions, even if the such solutions are rejected by the masses.
My Core Arguments & Discussion Items:
Physical, direct aspects of human relationships are, and will continue to be, increasingly substituted by, and commoditized by technology
At a deeper level, this is part of a larger, long-term trend demonstrating that many people do not need others.
Social isolation is growing globally. It is because of the ease and pleasure that tech offers and few seem to have noticed
Artificial emotional substitutes are increasing and will largely replace real human emotional connections.
A discussion of why many if not most people will not see or care about these trends
How this will affect population trends
Potential responses to such trends
Isolation – Unrelated Trends that Show the Current Process Increasing: Hikikomori, MGTOW, Incels, NEETs, and Pets
I am not sure if anyone would believe me if I said that various societal trends were occurring around the world, all under different names, but were really all basically the same trend under different names. These are some of the most significant trends in the entire history of humanity, and few have noticed. The most well-known example started decades ago in Japan.
In Japan, a social phenomenon called Hikikomori affects a large percentage of the population. Hikikomori is one of the better-documented phenomena of social isolation in Japan that continues to grow, and affect people of all ages. It is frequently debated by the medical community as to its causes and scope. Here is just one such example:
“Because there are no standardised criteria for hikikomori, who qualifies is up for debate. The stereotype that has captured global attention looks much like Kim – a twenty-something East Asian male who hasn’t socialised in so long he’s completely forgotten how. But in addition to this “hardcore” type, who never leave their room or speak to anyone, some researchers have hypothesised a “soft” type, who might occasionally talk to other people. They have also proposed a distinction between so-called “secondary” hikikomori, whose social avoidance can be attributed to an underlying psychiatric disorder – say, depression or obsessive compulsive disorder – and “primary” hikikomori, who do not have another condition. Others, like Saitō, argue that only the latter can really be considered hikikomori, rendering the primary-secondary classification moot. “This alludes to directional uncertainty on whether prolonged social withdrawal is caused by, correlated with, or causes psychiatric disorders,” researchers write in a 2019 article in Frontiers in Psychiatry.”
It has been suggested that it is largely influenced by Japanese cultural norms, but I may be one of the few sounding the alarm that Hikikomori is just one flavor of a growing global phenomenon. While Hikikomori can encompass lots of symptoms, including depression, anxiety, social anxiety, etc… all of which have been discussed a lot, there are actually only a few fundamentally unique factors that are essential to differentiate Hikikomori from other types of social inclusiveness.
The next differentiating factors are ‘the ability to stay in one’s room to use the internet or play video games’ 2. while receiving continuous help from parents/others to bring them food, and/or provide financial resources (e.g. govt). Unlimited food and unlimited entertainment from your room. I am not sure why so many social scientists cannot see the cause of the problem. The internet is just a word I use to mean any virtual network systems that are part of this great behavior change, so games, cell phones, and media are all part of this.
The internet is an infinitely larger and accessible tool to explore the world than what civilization has ever had, which is why it has a much larger potential for societal disruption than say books, phones, and newspapers. the other reasons the internet is different is because it not only exists increasingly closer to us, it is increasingly personalized to our interests and tastes, and the level of stimulation it provides is far greater than mediums of the past. Of course, as all technology increases the fun factor, it continues to distract us from others.
How pervasive is the Hikikomori, and what is the trend? So here is the best data currently: Hikikomori is believed to affect between 1% and 10% of people in Japan. It may be considerably higher when you consider that isolated people may be less likely to participate in studies. Since Hikikomori is a long, difficult-to-spell, foreign word, maybe I will use IIL (internet-induced loneliness).
There was not much info on this phenomenon in many countries, but locating data on other highly developed nations revealed that Korea essentially topped the list. Estimates range from 1 in 200 to 1 in 50 citizens are the Hikikomori equivalent in the Land of the Morning Calm. Wired magazine points out “Although Japan was the first to identify, name and study hikikomori, cases have since been reported across Asia – in Hong Kong, Singapore, China and beyond, but perhaps most prominently in South Korea, Japan’s closest neighbor both geographically and culturally.” These locations also have the lowest fertility rates in the world suggesting that social isolation is the natural result of a society that is excessively comfortable, or other number of confounding factors, such as a decreased value placed on having children.
After researching various databases, the only other significant study I could find was one done on China. In a 2022 study by Xinyue Hu, Danhua Fan and Yang Shao, “Social Withdrawal (Hikikomori) Conditions in China: A Cross-Sectional Online Survey” they estimated that incredibly:
This would mean an unbelievable 112 million people are living in their bedrooms without experiencing the outside world. It is not surprise that China’s fertility rates are also now among the lowest in the world (possibly even negative now).
What about in the US? Tech-driven isolation is extensive here too, especially post-COVID. Anecdotally, I even hear about people just not wanting to be visited so much like before, nor do they want to come out to events as much. Scientific American did a story: COVID Threatens to Bring a Wave of Hikikomori to America – Scientific American
Why is This is Happening?
Of course, social isolation existed long before the internet, and perhaps some people used the TV and other non-networked, non-scalable technology, but the internet provides the best example of what technology has always promised to deliver: More comfort with less effort. More pleasure and ease with decreasing costs. The elimination of friction. The real world, on the other hand, is increasingly seen by many as too harsh and dangerous to venture into. In the internet, you can design and build your own personal, desired reality. Your own completely risk-free, unending, fantastic universe (or at least it may feel that way).
Of course, the development of the internet was just the next logical step of modern life. Cities have brought people together in person while the world-wide-web is bringing people closer together virtually. But like cities, more people does not mean more or deeper connections. Ironically, it is such that the more people there are the more lost we feel. Loneliness, the lack of intimate interpersonal relationships. It is as if fewer people cause people to seek each other.
Hikikomori, or is not as remote and obscure as many might think. I asked my brother-in-law from Japan about his Hikikomori. He said he had become Hikikomori for awhile as it was very easy to do. His mom brought him his food and he spent his days on the computer and video games, before he said he decided to end that trend.
In other words, Hikikomori, or social reclusiveness due to internet/social media/gaming is essentially living in the Matrix in its pre-alpha stage. Just add social media companies which have goals to make VR ubiquitous and eventually so good that you wont be able to tell the different between VR and reality, and the Matrix sounds like Wonderland for many.
Eventually, to make it completely realistic, direct brain-computer interfaces may be needed, and then we can provide hyper-simulated sensory feedback to the brain where you might not know the difference between reality and fantasy. Brain-implants are already well-established to help people today. All of these use electrodes on the brain:
treating Parkinsons via electrode implants,
cochlear implants (or Auditory Brainstem Implants) to repair hearing
improving sight via retinal implants (bionic eyes) which carry an image to the retina via electrodes
brain computer interfaces, or BCI’s, have been improving for decades (Musk’s Nerualink is just one of the more recent, higher performance ones).
Responsive Neurostimulation (RNS) involves electrodes under the scalp which treat epilepsy
Vagus Nerve Stimulation (VNS) is used for epilepsy, stroke recovery, and depression
Motor Cortex Stimulation (MCS) is used for pain
Hypothalamic Implants for appetite control (studies only)
Experiments with memory implants and other technologies
These medical miracles, like other tech, will eventually move from “reducing pain” to “increasing pleasure.” This model applies to non-health scenarios as well. Just recently, companies began stating that general robots will take all the unwanted jobs; Well, that’s just the beginning of course since they should be able to do most any job here in a few years.
Hikikomori is not the only isolation trend. In the USA categories like MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way), meaning men that are no longer interested in pursuing relationships with women, and Incels (men who cannot form romantic relationships with women) are increasingly commonplace. But they again have one thing in common in my view: withdrawal from society and traditional family structures.
Rejection by Men of Women, and Women of Men
This isolation trend can be in other areas of society as well. For example, government welfare enables single-parent families to exist without support from a two-parent household. In some branches of feminism (and there are several) suggests the idea that women do not need, and sometimes should reject men or families (e.g. Second Wave, some Third Wave, Anarcha-Feminism, etc..); and if not, a primary message is still that women can exist with minimal interaction, feedback, or support from men. The line is gray, however, in a world where dual incomes and fairly excessive govt support, logically speaking, women actually do not “need” men, or perhaps even families. While many of these women or women proclaim they are “independent” from the other sex, the collective actions appear to be a response to a larger truth: society at all levels is increasingly rejecting each other, or need, and even wants, each other less. The breakdown in bonds in romantic relationships is just a sliver of the whole pie.
This began long ago as the rates of marriage decreased and divorce increased, both well-known trends today. These are not isolated problems, but rather systemic, long-term, and fundamentally here to stay, and increase, for the time being. Add in the general decline in fertility rates, which means families want less children, and the picture is complete. A simple example to provide evidence is other ancient empires. For example, in the Roman Empire both divorce rates increased and fertility rates decreased over time. Historians may claim
The evidence shows that year after year, decade after decade, that we all need each other less than ever. The abundance in the world we have makes it much easier to disconnect from others, whether it be relationships or any relationship at all. Technology (a.k.a. applied science) commodifies (cheapens) everything, including human relationships. In short, isolation from other human beings, in the most real sense, seems to be our future at the moment. In fact, the entire principle of the division of labor is valuable in that it ensures people need each other. I build houses. You grow food. We trade. With robots and AI, this specialization may no longer be needed as we all become experts on everything, and can build anything we want or need.
But, mayne
Other Substitutes for Human Relationships
Is there evidence that this process is underway? The switch to more pets and fewer children has been slowly growing for decades, while in Europe this has been more common as long as 30 years ago, where comfort levels are high and fertility rates are well below replacement levels. It is only a more recent phenomenon in the US relatively speaking. In the US, pet ownership increased 20%, while fertility rates dropped by 25% (https://www.statista.com/statistics/198086/us-household-penetration-rates-for-pet-owning-since-2007/).
Common arguments for support of dog ownership for example include: dogs are more likely to obey, are always happy to see you, and cost a lot less than children. In other words pets are just a lot easier than children, and in a highly industrialized society, children are often seen as too expensive and even unnecessary. Pets let people have an emotional bond with something and with minimal effort.
So the logical trend is for the future is that robots/AI as will give people affection, artificial, without any real costs, physical (e.g. monetary) or any emotional risks at all. Of course, for this trick to be effective, it will need to be indistinguishable from reality, and that is nearing for AI already. Once we have robots that are phsyically indistinguishable from people, real people will become a more difficult selling point for many people. The creation of artificial organs like skin, which itself has been around for over two decades, is well underway today.
It may even be that for many loneliness at first is sadness, until they eventually see artificial or easily-disconnectable-and-frictionless relationships, often provided online, just seem easier in the end…at least in the short term. The web does not only commoditize physical in-person relationships directly, but indirectly as it likely reduces the discipline, lower excitement, and challenges of real life relationships that cannot just be “turned off” at will.
There are other sub-groups outside of romantic relationships that indicate a change in male behavior. For example, NEET, which is an acronym for “Not in Education, Employment, or Training;” which are males who have dropped out of the workforce indefinitely, but largely appears to just be similar to Hikikkomori.
The 40,000 Foot View of Isolation Trends
First, it should be increasingly apparent that the names of these behaviors and groups do not matter. There will always be new versions and splinters under slightly different names, but they are all the same at their core, and this is one of the important purposes of this book: to inform people of really big picture trends across a wide spectrum of seemingly unrelated and seemingly insignificant behaviors. But, because no one is truley isolated from society, I would expect that these internet-centric trends are representative of all of society at some level.
Technology is not only at the center of the actual causes of isolation, but it also paints a bigger picture regarding what technology has always done: provide cheaper substitutes and alternatives. This is a value that is typically endeared by economists and technologists, but as long as technology cheapens the value of humanity and human relationships overall, I propose that such will lead to the decline of humans and love in general. It will be too easy to feel emotions for artificial machines. Future tech promises to provide cheaper alternatives to what people once knew as the bonds of human relationships:
Physical love and connection (robots)
Emotional love and connection (AI)
Next I will provide more evidence for these statements.
Artificial Emotional Substitutes are Increasing
600 Million People Already Using a AI** Chatbot for Emotional Comfort and Support
While the first phase of technology, basic entertainment, led to immense distraction from each other; the second phase, artificial emotional connections, puts a nail in the coffin. Currently, 600 million people already use a chatbot today to help them with their loneliness. Is that a problem? Is that bad or good for society? Microsoft Asia’s “XiaoIce is the AI chatbot that millions of lonely Chinese are turning to for comfort”. Restated in relative terms: 1 in 13 people on earth now use a single computer program to give them comfort. It is built upon an emotional computing framework, which means it attempts to recognize and manipulate emotion emotions to the target outcome.
Soon, personalized, universally trained AI assistants will likely fill this gap (while replacing countless other software platforms as well) so who wont have an AI friend that knows them better than they know themselves, always be compassionate and avaialble? Useful, yes, but will it draw us away from others? Will people use to to treat themselves or supply their poor behaviors? The answer is yes of corurse. It seems likely though if the machines are doing a “better job” than people, then the need for other real people diminishes. When will that AI be so indistguishable from a real person that having the perfect AI friend is always the easier option?
As I started on this book before AI became mainstream, some of this seemed unlikely at the time of writing. Programs today are already far more capable at simiulating images, video, and conversations beyond what most people imagined just a couple of years ago.
Relationships with Computers, Instead of People, is Increasing
In other areas for example, people are increasingly unable to tell the difference between a computer and a human. confusing chatbots with real people like the programmer. Or replacing real relationships with artificial ones, like My Chatbot Companion – a Study of Human-Chatbot Relationships – ScienceDirect. Various AI movies today show how love with a computer is more predictable and therefore desirable than real human relationships (E.g. “Her”).
If Emotional Connections are Increasingly Replaced by AI, then What About Physical Connections?
If emotional connections with real people are being supplanted, then it is logical to ask if there is evidence that physical relationships are being replaced by tech? Is physical love cheapened by artificial forms that result in no real meaning or lasting happiness?
I suggest that physical intimacy is being supplanted at wholesale levels through increasingly realistic substitutes. What is it? If you answered “porn” then you are correct. If you do not understand the breadth and scope of this tidal wave, then read some stats, but it is global and pervasive. Even the rise of websites focused on non-monogamous relationships has exploded in recent years.
So now, the substitution of love–of all kinds– is increasing, both physical and emotional. Robots and androids (a robot with a human appearance)) that are indistinguishable from humans, but without the struggle and trauma of real human relationships (sarcasm). If you doubt this will be the case, then refer back to the relationships being developed en masse with AI bots above. People seem to want “easy.”
Outcome: The Decline for Need of People
So if many or most people believe that they do not need real humans for physical and emotional love, then that leads to a logical conclusion: We generally should not fear the robots/AI taking over as much as we should fear giving up ourselves to the computers, but either way, the decline of people seems highly likely at this point. The net logical step may be that machines evolve to replace humans.
Various commentators talk about machines evolving and essentially replacing humans either completely, or merging with them, the latter amounting to what is known as transhumanism. Two slightly different arguments. Here are a few in order of least to most extreme, here are various visions of such a world.
Moravec, Hans P who has been building robots since the 1970’s:
“Sooner or later our machines will become knowledgeable enough to handle their own maintenance, reproduction and self-improvement without help. When this happens, the new genetic takeover will be complete. Our culture will then be able to evolve independently of human biology and its limitations, passing instead directly from generation to generation of ever more capable intelligent machinery.” (page 4)
Moravec predicts, in the same book, that machines will have enough computational power, and goals most likely, to by 2040 “we can have robots that are as smart as we are. Eventually, these machines will begin their own process of evolution and render us extinct in our present form. Yet, according to Moravec, this is not something we should fear: it’s the best thing we could hope for, the ultimate form of human transcendence. And in his own laboratory, he’s laying the groundwork that may help this evolutionary leap happen ahead of schedule,” while others like Joseph Weizenbaum compare such thinking to Mein Kampf, and others as “as “irresponsible optimism” https://www.wired.com/1995/10/moravec/.
Essentially visions of a future where robots evolve are a technologist’s version of scientism. Note that Hans timeline predictions have been fairly accurate, while today robots are achieving the level of self-teaching that was then described as possibly the most difficult task of all. For example, robots now can be given an instruction to find a piece of food. In fact, the 2040 date where robots will be able to
“When industry is totally automated and hyper-efficient, it will create so much wealth that retirement can begin at birth. “We’ll levy a tax on corporations,” Moravec says, “and distribute the money to everyone as lifetime social-security payments.”
I actually don’t know why we will need businesses at all. What will you not be able to produce at home with a robot and a 3-D printers of all size (e.g.. molecular)? Even water can be converted directly and cheaply from air today using electric moisture generation, even though the tech is in its infancy. So while many many are concerned about mass unemployment, the more likely outcome is that we will no longer need employment.
If this sounds far-fetched then realize that computer viruses are self-replicating and mutating already, not unlike biological viruses which also seem to be some of the most primitive life forms that evolve and mutate on their own. Add some AI, and now software-hardware machines may replicate faster than one might have guessed.
While machines have always provided more efficient ways for humans to do things, thereby making life easier, robots/androids will accelerate this. It can do anything and everything better than a human, including simulated and indistinguishable from real love. Why will anyone want humans or human relationships anymore if it is just a lot easier without all that human baggage? Sure, a few people still grow their own food and build their own homes, but not many.
The current shrinking demand for people is not going unnoticed. Governments with shrinking populations, and even some technologists (e.g. Elon Musk), are calling for people to have “more children,” but without the need (plus challenges of raising children) for people, why will anyone have children? I am not arguing that everyone should have more children, but the reality is that childbearing will slow to a crawl then stop. More on this in another chapter.
Why Most People May Not Notice or Care
Even if the machines begin to rapidly replace people:
A. Will people even realize it’s happening? It is already the case that as of this year, most content online may be now artificial AI-generated.
B. For those who reject the decline of people, will they have a way to remain independent at all from the system? With one man’s utopia being another man’s dystopia, conflict between the two is probable.
People Fear Tech Will Kill Off Humans, but it Is Just as Likely That We Will Give Ourselves Over to the Computers
This is one of my core arguments in fact. Everyone is worried the computers will take over. That is debatable. What is not very debatable is that if robots/AI do not take over by force (death by pain), then they will win because we voluntarily give ourselves up to it (death by pleasure). In the Matrix, the computers took over, however, it is probably more realistic to assume most people would voluntarily plug themselves into the Matrix if given a chance (basically a hyper-realistic video game that I wrote about previously). Sam Altman said we’d either become very rich, or be destroyed by AI. It is the same in my book.
So, is the Matrix is only a decade or two away? debatable perhaps, but can you imagine how much change could take place in even just 100 years? That is far less debatable. Just look how far generated video game graphics have come in just 40 years. First “Pong,” and now few people can tell the difference between a computer game like Unreal Engine 4 and real cars driving. With graphics being rendered in real-time creating and living your own fantasy world nears every day. Recall that few people imagined having a super-computer in their pocket a couple of decades ago.
Throw in some real-time bio/neurofeedback and games will be so real that “wow” would be an understatement. Combine some structure: predictability, patterns, and familiarity but with some randomness, tied into your personal motivators, and you have a game that is very difficult, if not impossible, to put down. Whatever you can imagine, will become part of your very realistic game, indistinguishable from reality. Molecular machines in our brains will eliminate cord clutter.
Why? “Less Pleasure” is Always a Difficult Selling Point
Who wants less fun, less ease, less automation? No one I know.
I expect, like our modern eating styles, most people will be increasingly dependant (or addicted) to technology, because I find that in general, access to pleasure is unfortunately often one of the best predictor of behavior. You can see this in our lifestyles. Rich countries are overweight because we have more abundance, which is to say cheaper, more accessible, and more addictive food (salt, fat, and sugar) than less well-off countries, and probably less physical effort required. It’s fairly well established that when foreigners come to America, one of the first things they do is put on weight.
As long as you cannot force behavior, most people, in the current global environment, would not voluntarily give up pleasure; and since pleasure increases just a little bit every year, imperceptibly, we can predict that the world will be nothing but pleasure. How is this different from the hard drugs today (other than the side-effects that come with drugs of course)?
In 2011, a survey showed the following:
1/3 of all respondents would be more willing to give up intimacy for a week than their mobile phone; 70% were women.
28% of mobile phone users said that they would rather go a week without seeing their significant other than give up their phone.
54% of all respondents would be more willing to give up exercise for a week than their mobile phone.
55%of respondents would be more willing to give up caffeine for a week than their mobile phone,
63%would be more willing to give up chocolate,
70%would be willing to forego alcohol.
I would be interested to see how much those numbers have changed today as the internet is far more interesting today.
Potential Upsides to Future Tech?
Of course, there are always positives. Few people dispute that technology alone is evil, it’s just the application: Guns don’t kill. People do. There will be countless positive applications. Here are some positive applications.
Games and software will stretch a person’s abilities and improve their psychology and social abilities through tools that respond to an individual’s needs. For example, neurofeedback is currently being incorporated into kids’ games to teach them how to self-soothe and relax, learn to concentrate better, and all sorts of useful skills. VR (visual reality) and AR (augmented reality) are used to simulate experiences, and thereby may be useful for brain retraining. Eventually, direct manipulation of the brain should provide instant cures for common ailments someday.
Food, energy, and materials may eventually become generated out of thin air or other materials. We may even just convert energy in the air/sun directly to energy used by our bodies. Land scarcity may still be an issue for now as long as people live in homes. Eventually, I don’t see why most anything will cost money…until people invent new problems of course.
Perhaps the most important question is how much people use it to connect to others instead of connecting to tech and substitutes.
If most people eventually switch to using tech in a primarily beneficial way, it is probably still a long way off. Why? We have never had more diets available to us than today, yet we have never been fatter than we are today, showing that opportunities to improve often do not lead to real improvements. Sure, brain implants will allow us to control any emotion or desire, but what will stop us from turning ourselves into hyper-competitive cyborgs who want to get ahead in the social ladder, while increasing our feel-goods at the click of a button, instead of primarily focusing on caring for other human beings? I would argue that increasing dopamine (excitement/fun) instead of serotonin (hugs/caring) has been a top focus of humanity for the last century.
Let’s not forget the main argument though: if machines can simulate love and compassion, then such is likely to replace real love.
Counter-Measures You Can Take Today
Whether you are at a doctor’s office, waiting in line at the store, or even just at home, the chances that most are using a device instead of talking with each other shows that I am not making up the idea that people are increasingly disconnected in the real world, but that is what we desperately need more of.
Now, not everyone is being sucked in. Regarding one teacher in the UK, “She recalls that one of the pivotal moments that led to her decision was a day at the park with her two boys, aged six and three: “I was on my mobile at a playground with the kids and I looked up and every single parent – there was up to 20 – were looking at their phones, just scrolling away,” she says.”
“I thought ‘when did this happen?’. Everyone is missing out on real life. I don’t think you get to your death bed and think you should have spent more time on Twitter, or reading articles online.”
So, the number one goal is just to spend more time with people, although I feel this is a very uphill battle.
Second, play outside, go camping with your kids and friends, sit and talk for hours on end, and spend excess time helping others instead of reading yet another article or social media trend that does not measurably improve your life. Consider that people on average are currently spending about 5 hours per day on their smartphones (excludes TV’s and laptops/desktops).
A final tip is to simply get rid of your devices almost altogether (I think of flip phones as less of an issue), and even disable wireless internet in your home, requiring that computer use is in a single room (not the bedroom either). There has to be a price to pleasure, otherwise, people tend to just seek more and more of it (e.g. drugs). TV and video games are not a necessity either. I do know several modern urban families that use them very seldomly or do not have them at all.
Some argue that early exposure prevents kids from going off the deep end when they are old, often citing France giving children wine to drink. Well, the current stats show they have an alcoholism rate of 3x of that in America (need source). It’s better to assume that people like what they are exposed, or not exposed, to. In the end, I suppose
Potential Genetic Bottlenecks
If humanity continues as it has, on a side note, one possible outcome is a genetic bottleneck like never seen before in history, potentially already well underway. That is, as fertility rates decrease, the number of genes passed on to the next generation will be even more selective than ever. Traits such as:
Pleasure-addition-resistant
Increased levels of emotional connection with children and people
Less interest in technologicallyadvanced
Less susceptible to societal trends
However, I am not sure what percentage of the population with those traits exists today, but it is interesting to note that the Amish could account for the majority of the US population within 60 years if they are still around, as their population has been doubling around every 20 years (but may be slowing down in recent decades).
If you have read much of this site, you will see that my main goal is to show that the coming 10 – 20 years will be the most profound and probably tumultuous in history. I do not know the outcome, but the intersection of the world’s most pressing issues and technology’s largest changes are converging. The intersection of AI/robots, escalating global conflict, probably fields by global debt bubbles with zero or negative interest rates, and political disarray, and we are converging on a potential storm of epic proportions. Are you not seeing it too? Starting almost 10 years ago, I have written quite a bit in these other areas as most can see waves, but few have noticed.
* (unless it’s P90x of course, which was one of the top-selling exercise programs ever, and yet possibly the most difficult).
** I say AI, but always mean machine learning, but AI is just easier to say and better understood by most, but on to the point…
Ultimately, technology currently seems to be creating the ultimate substitutions for real, authentic human relationships. In economics, substitute products are how we overcome scarcity and provide cheaper alternative. For example, margarine is a well-known substitute product for butter. Nuclear and solar energy are cheaper than previous alternatives. Aluminum (Diamandis book) was the ultimate substitute for other metal.
In the end, it seems that increasingly men need women less, women need men less, adults need children less, and neighbors need each other less. The internet has become a powerful tool to answer virtually any question to the point that I rarely need to ask a living person (e.g. neighbor) anything. Large language models (the AI of today) are accelerating this process.
If machines will do any task better than any human, why will we actually need, or even want, to be with other humans? Demand predicts supply, human need predicts human behavior.
While most people are concerned what will happen in a world on autopilot, e.g. “a job less world”, I am concerned about something far worse.
Currently, some believe that machines will only improve in skills that apply to work, such as logical, mechanical, and even artistic skills, but clearly this is just the beginning. Is there any area where humans will continue to fare better than machines indefinitely? And if machines are better, why would people continue to interact with other people if machines provide a lower friction option? Here are the two largest remaining areas where machines will continue to improve in the domains of human experience and eventually could lead to a substitution of people wholesale: Emotional and physical.
Emotional Substitutes:
As discussed in another section, various AI’s have already been trained on emotional language data, and it is very successful in places like China where bots like Xomi lead the way. More importantly, if a machine listens to you better than a human, then why would people spend time with real humans? This includes both professional (e.g. therapists) and interpersonal (e.g. friends) relationships, both of which are rapidly gaining traction today. Clearly, machines will be able to interpret our thoughts and feelings better than most, if not all humans; so it’s only logical that people will increasingly turn to them. Besides, they will run 24×7, never get tired, and may even cost nothing in many cases.
Physical Substitutes:
The AI field is currently at risk of reducing white collar jobs, and even some companies claim they are hiring less or laying off as a result of automation (Salesforce, Facebook, and others). But what about manual labor jobs, especially the most specialized ones?
It’s probably obvious to many that given another couple decades, training a robot to perform surgery in a local clean room (assuming nanotech is not healing all problems at this point), will only be hindered by the inefficient, bureaucratic healthcare system that exists today. Recall, that internet is only 25-ish years old for most of us, and yet now we have AI, cell phone computers, robots, and the early stages of “flying cars” (e.g. Archer, Joby). Even 10 years sounds realistic to me to have several advanced skills being completed by machines.
But that is the least of my concerns. The physical connection we make with people through direct communication and physical touch is likely to decline rapidly as well. This is currently governed only by the current limitations to replicate the human look-and-feel within robots.
If AI embedded in robots will mean that we have humanoids that are trained act funnier, smarter, kinder, and even be better looking than actual humans, then ask yourself: what percentage of the population do you think will spend most of their time with real humans when an ideal substitute exists? If you have a hard time believing that such would happen, then just look at the “staring at one’s cell phone” epidemic that is already global. People already prefer spending their time with machines over people on average in public places, and often even the home now.
When Natural Humans Become Old-Fashioned and Just Plain Inefficient.
If we will not need other humans, then working and communication them might be like using horses today: nice, but optional and limited generally to people that either were raised with them–old fashioned; or can afford such a hobby (suggesting that using a machine to travel and work is far more efficient most of the time). Likewise, the only people that will talk to other people may be old-fashioned people and those that can afford to spend time on inefficient hobbies, because clearly, advanced machines will be far more productive in satisfying most human needs and wants.
What Percentage of the Population Will Go 100% Artificial?
However, I expect some level of rejection. In fact, as cybernetics increases, we may see a sharper division arise in society. Even online dating is starting to wane in recent years. I am not sure if that is because people are dating more in person, or just dating less. Maybe a better comparison is the organic, artificial-free food and house cleaning movements in recent years (not that most people can afford to actually eat organic most of the time, proving my previous point). Maybe most will have to settle for some hybrid level while the hard core “organics”, tech-free, off-grid conspiracists, and granolas continue in the world of snail-like humans.
Personally, I already use AI a lot more to answer question that I would typically ask another person in the past; and its not just technology that’s the problem. It’s being more successful essentially that we no longer need each other. A couple of years ago I talked to a programming contractor who bragged to me he no longer needed to leave his house since he ordered everything online including meals. I asked him if never leaving his house was the ultimate goal or the ultimate problem.
Kurzweil suggested that we will have more time to interact with each other and have a lot more fun. I am concerned interaction will simply evaporate to a large degree. Again, it’s not all or nothing, but a large part of the world will essentially become Hikikomori, as the Japanese call it, for good. In another article, I cover the actual global trends already well under way.
1. Scientists and Philosophers Suggesting the Universe Exists Because of or is Fundamentally Shaped by Consciousness
These thinkers propose that consciousness is not just a byproduct of the universe, but rather a fundamental force that gives rise to or structures reality.
John von Neumann & Eugene Wigner – Suggested that consciousness collapses the quantum wave function, implying reality depends on observation (Von Neumann-Wigner Interpretation). Von Neumann-Wigner Interpretation – Wikipedia
John Wheeler – Proposed the Participatory Universe, arguing that observation (consciousness) helps bring the universe into existence. His “It from Bit” idea suggests that information is the fundamental building block of reality, with consciousness playing a role. John Wheeler – Wikipedia
Robert Lanza – Developed Biocentrism, which suggests that consciousness creates space and time, meaning reality is shaped by the observer. Robert Lanza – Biocentrism
Deepak Chopra & Menas Kafatos – Their book You Are the Universe argues that consciousness is the foundation of all existence. You Are the Universe – Goodreads
Rupert Sheldrake – Developed Morphic Resonance, which suggests the universe has a kind of memory, shaped by past consciousness. Rupert Sheldrake – Official Website
2. Scientists and Philosophers Suggesting Consciousness Plays a Fundamental Role in Reality
These figures argue that consciousness is a fundamental component of the universe, though they do not necessarily claim it creates or controls the universe.
Roger Penrose & Stuart Hameroff – The Orch-OR (Orchestrated Objective Reduction) theory proposes that consciousness arises from quantum processes in microtubules, potentially linking it to the fundamental structure of reality. Orch-OR – Hameroff’s Website
Giulio Tononi & Christof Koch – Developed Integrated Information Theory (IIT), suggesting that consciousness is intrinsic to the universe and can be measured in any system with sufficient complexity. Integrated Information Theory – IIT Website
Henry Stapp – A physicist who believes consciousness influences quantum mechanics, arguing that mind plays a role in determining reality. Henry Stapp – Theoretical Physics Group
Donald D. Hoffman – Proposed Conscious Realism, arguing that reality as we perceive it is a construct of consciousness, and the objective world is composed of conscious agents. Donald Hoffman – Official Website
3. Philosophers and Thinkers Supporting Panpsychism or Idealism
These figures suggest consciousness is a fundamental part of matter, but they don’t necessarily claim it creates reality.
David Chalmers – A philosopher who explores panpsychism, proposing that consciousness might be a fundamental property of reality. David Chalmers – Official Website
Bernardo Kastrup – Supports analytic idealism, arguing that the universe is a manifestation of a universal consciousness. Bernardo Kastrup – Official Website
Alfred North Whitehead – Developed process philosophy, which states that reality consists of interconnected processes, each with some experiential quality (proto-consciousness). Alfred North Whitehead – Wikipedia
Thomas Nagel – Criticized materialism and proposed that mind is a fundamental feature of the universe, though he remains skeptical of panpsychism. Thomas Nagel – Wikipedia
Erich Neumann – Suggested that the development of individual consciousness mirrors the collective evolution of human consciousness, potentially linking it to universal patterns. Erich Neumann – Wikipedia
4. Experiments Testing Conciousness’ Effect on the Universe
1. Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness
Wigner’s Friend Experiment: Physicist Eugene Wigner proposed a thought experiment to illustrate the role of consciousness in quantum mechanics. In this scenario, an observer’s observation is itself observed by another, leading to questions about when and how wave function collapse occurs. en.wikipedia.org
Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch-OR) Theory: Developed by physicist Roger Penrose and anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff, this theory suggests that consciousness arises from quantum processes within brain microtubules. Experiments are being designed to test this hypothesis by examining quantum effects in neural structures. scientificamerican.com
2. Neurofeedback and Consciousness Studies
Benjamin Libet’s Experiments: Neuroscientist Benjamin Libet conducted studies measuring the timing of conscious intentions and corresponding brain activity. His findings suggested that unconscious brain processes precede conscious awareness, leading to debates about free will and the role of consciousness in initiating actions. en.wikipedia.org
3. Random Number Generator (RNG) Experiments
Global Consciousness Project (GCP): This project utilizes RNGs to detect potential correlations between collective human consciousness and deviations in random data streams during major global events. While controversial, the GCP has reported statistically significant anomalies coinciding with events that elicit widespread emotional responses. I find this to be the most interesting of the current experiments, and therefore provide the most detail.
Initiated in 1998, the GCP explores potential interactions between global human consciousness and physical systems. The project employs a network of hardware random number generators (RNGs) distributed worldwide to detect anomalies that may correlate with significant global events eliciting widespread emotional responses or focused attention.
Random Number Generators (RNGs): The GCP maintains RNGs at approximately 70 locations globally. These devices generate random data continuously.
Data Collection: Custom software records the output of these RNGs, logging a trial (the sum of 200 bits) every second. This data is transmitted to a central server at Princeton University, creating a synchronized database of random sequences.
Hypothesis Testing: The GCP hypothesizes that events that elicit widespread emotional responses or collective attention may influence the RNG outputs, leading to statistically significant deviations from randomness. To test this, the project follows a three-step protocol:
Event Specification: Define the event duration and the calculation algorithm in advance.
Data Extraction: Retrieve the relevant data from the database and compute a Z-score to indicate the degree of deviation from randomness.
Result Aggregation: Combine the Z-score from the event with those from previous events to assess the overall significance.
Notable Observations:
The GCP has reported anomalous data patterns coinciding with major global events, such as the September 11 attacks in 2001. However, these findings are contentious. Critics argue that the observed anomalies may result from selection bias or pattern matching rather than genuine interactions between consciousness and physical systems. Analyses of specific events, like September 11, have concluded that the statistically significant results reported by the GCP could be coincidental, with alternative analyses showing only chance deviations.
Skeptics, including Robert T. Carroll and Claus Larsen, have questioned the GCP’s methodology, particularly regarding data selection and interpretation. They suggest that the reported anomalies may be due to “pattern matching” and selection bias, ultimately failing to support the existence of global consciousness or psi phenomena. However, skeptics’ claims of needing “5 Sigma” degree, or about a one in a million chance that it was luck, to justify such claims is overstated, for how many other experiments, esp. involving complex systems like biology, in non-laboratory environments as is the case here, are provable to that degree? None I know of.
Numerous philosophers have argued that the universe is deterministic, that essentially there is no free will, and that the human mind is simply the result of an infinite number of biomechanical-electrical processes, but that defies logic in my mind, and perhaps even personal accountability for many.
It is much simpler to assume the opposite: that consciousness is the guiding force of the universe, and all of its outcomes are a reflection of a mind (and body), even if much of the observed processes are invisible, or too short a time frame to recognize. Einstein said God does not roll dice, which is to say, does not understand how a world with randomness can exist (e.g. quantum particles not having a defined position, at least until observed); yet, without the freedom implied by a random environment plus the mind’s thought and decision-making process to affect its outcomes, then we would be doomed to be eternal prisoners to physics and the universe. A lucky accident, or an unlucky victim of whatever horrors it may bring.
While science may never prove this, and my points are purely philosophical, I am okay with that. That might even be an inherent design pattern.
Finally, some humor: “When a tree falls in a forest does it make a sound” is less debatable than “If a quantum particle is never observed, does it ever establish a position?”
With consciousness at the root of the universe, every thought is the potential to create or destroy. In Genesis, for example, God spoke, and through that consciousness, all beautiful things were created.
I used AI to co-write some of this article, and then I manually reviewed it.
After listening to several AI writers and speakers over the years, I am now asking them: why is developing AI so important? Yes, I understand it’s the next logical step in the current phase of science. But to what end? Most religious traditions support the notion that intelligence is of God and He desires to bestow it upon us, and generally speaking, God is all-knowing intelligence.
“If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.” – Bible, Christianity (James 1:5)
In truth, such a person shall enjoy the best gifts of God. The person who desires inner light and tries to achieve it, O, Mazda, do bestow upon him the same, through Thy holy and bright wisdom. Through Asha, the Eternal Law of Truth and Purity, O my Lord, grant us wisdom and knowledge which are the gifts of Vohuman, so that we may enjoy happiness through our lengthy lives. – Zoroastrianism, Gathas (Yasna 43, verse 2)
“O Nanak! By His Grace, He bestows enlightened awareness; God Himself blesses the Gurmukh with glorious greatness.” – Sikhism, Guru Granth Sahib (this is their central work) (pg 32)
“He gives wisdom to whomever He wills. Whoever is given wisdom has been given much good. But none pays heed except those with insight.” – Quran, Islam (Surah 2:269)
“For the Lord gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding.” – Judaism, Old Testament / Tanakh (Proverbs 2:6)
“The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth.” – Christianity, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Doctrine and Covenants 93:36)
I will try to summarize in as few ideas as possible, the main reasons I think such people are excited for AGI, then challenge their ideas with deeper “whys.”
Curiosity
Perhaps the most common reason I see is that we will finally learn all the answers to the mysteries of science and the universe. Finally, all math, science, medicine, and other mysteries will finally be solved, including the infinite numbers of problems we have not even thought of yet, or that will be discovered by the neural networks.
This appeals to the curious minds, and is mainly why AI proponents also happen to be scientists because such tend to have a higher curiosity on average, or at least want to know the answers to riddles and problems. Want to know if we can build a mini black hole in the Hadron super-collider? You probably do not, but many scientists are compelled to know to the point of actually testing the idea while risking sucking in the entire earth, even if the risk of it happening seems fairly small. They just have to know, or perhaps win a prize.
Of course, building AI also fulfills the unquenchable thirst for knowledge among scientific and business minded. Who is not interested in a computer that knows the answer to every question ever posed and can create unlimited wealth?
But, the question is, does knowing the answer to everything actually make our world measurably better? If so, prove it to me. In some sense, knowing everything may lead to disappointment and boredom. Having mysteries keeps people busy and motivated.
Solving Societal Problems & Improved Technology:
Scientists want to create better technology, and businessmen want to distribute them, but to what end?
Will we look back and think how much we suffered in a world before a pizza would appear in front of us in less than 1 minute?
Even if we embed advance computing abilities into our minds, I am not sure why this is good or useful. So, I can instantly calculate pi to a quadrillion spaces, chat with 1000 people at once, digest all of Wikipedia in a few minutes. Now what?
Okay, let’s talk about real problems then like poverty, as if that many people are actually working on that on a regular basis. Well, the growth of capitalism and cheap borrowing costs (low interest rates) are the two most likely culprits over the last few decades:
Sure, then there’s inequality, but that is a slippery slope. Besides, if AI and machines promise a rapid increase in wealth and comfort, I am not sure anyone at will complain; in fact, no one at all perhaps.
Surely there are other real problems. Considering that car crashes are one of the top causes of death, let’s look at that. Although I still think it’s significant, most people could care less if a reduction in car crashes reduce the risk of death, by a mere 0.01% / year. That leaves the other largest causes of death: disease and suicide.
Considering diseases are on pace to be wiped out here in the near future, and life extension is commonly predicted to start this decade which includes reversal of many common diseases like cancer and heart disease, it seems like diminishing returns shortly. So, okay, I will admit, there’s still some decent room to progress in health, but if most end within 20 years (including mental health) with the help of nano machines, then what problems do we have other than those caused by our own poor behavior?
Pleasure
So if suffering is a problem that is rapidly disappearing, and likely to be gone this century, that only leaves one alternative: more pleasure. Unlimited, always heading up, pleasure.
Countless technologies from plastic surgery to computer-brain interfaces typically start as a way to help suffering people (needs), but in the end, most people use it for fun (wants), and I mean most people. I hear technophiles constantly talking about using “AI for solving problems,” but do not see much care or interest from ordinary people.
The long term seems rather clear to me: either the what is defined as “suffering” will be increasingly raised (cue that hovercraft rider in Walle dropping his drink, with robots picking it up), or most problems will be solved soon, excluding bad government and poor human behavior. Then what?
Ray Kurzweil, the most well-known futurist, points out a few non-conventional benefits of AI that he looks forward to, as brains merge with AI and bodies are maintained via nanobots.
Better looks: Do you know what some top models main complaint is? They never think they look good enough compared to someone else. Give some people millions of dollars to spend on plastic surgery, and they will surely find a way to spend it all. I just dont see this being a realistic goal. Unhappy people tend to stay unhappy.
Better intelligence such as music abilities: I asked my kids what it would mean if they could suddenly play any instrument, and song, instantly. They did not care. Part of the fun is the learning process, knowing that you have achieved some difficult goal, and others recognize it too making it meaningful. Once effort is removed, you might as well just listen to recorded music. Likewise, why would I want to see every piece of art ever made via my brain-computer connection just because I like art? It seems that a limit on the human mind is no worse or less pleasurable than the AI -brain version. Besides, it’s just pleasure.
Talking to our dead relatives: Sure, many people wish they could reactivate memories of deceased love ones, but the rest of us go on with life. Besides, no AI -generated simulation of our ancestor would be real, so it’s just deceptive to me anyways. Considering in 100 years, death will be all but gone, this is something that will serve very few people anyways.
There is no reason to think that more pleasure or ease makes people happier either. Charlie Munger recently pointed out that during the Great Depression, people were far more happier, satisfied, and respectful to each other than in recent times, times in which we have been richer than ever.
AI and Love
Now, I have not really heard anyone suggesting that we use AI to increase positive human behavior and emotions like love, which is kind of odd. I guess either that is not a priority, or something that few have thought about, even if it is not feasible anytime soon. But if love is the ultimate purpose of life, why isn’t that the main goal of AI development?
I think that only geeks like us really care about super intelligence because when I recently asked my wife what she thought if she could be super-intelligent, she said she could care less.
This also reflects the reality that computing today does not necessarily make people smarter as it’s commonly assumed. For all I know 90%+ of internet use is entertainment or social, which brings up another potential problem with the idea that AI will make us smarter.
There May Even Be a Bigger Risk to More Powerful AI: Dumber Us
Is it possible that as computers get smarter, that we are actually heading the opposite direction?
How would this be possible? Perhaps because the demand for intelligence naturally decreases as computers get smarter, replacing that demand on people. I have written elsewhere that the decreased demand for a growing society, including intelligence, may lead to a decay or collapse of human society.
To support this assertion, IQ rates in Western countries have been declining for the last 1 1/2 decades. It does make me wonder how much of that is due to computers and the rise of the internet. Of course, even if you attempt to use the internet primarily for learning, realize there is little or no correlation between increasing your data or “fact” consumption with knowledge, truth, and wisdom.
So, although I am curious about the unknown questions that AI might be able to answer (ignoring the great risk I fear from it), I think life’s problems can be solved without AI, more enjoyably, and a great growth in power will likely lead to even more excess. More importantly, if love is the most important thing in life, we should be focusing a lot more on that problem, but that’s much harder because it cannot be solved by business nor technology.
Most people I would say have little awareness of a fairly unbelievable medical process that really got going over a decade ago in which a person’s DNA can be edited, just like software code. Here’s a bit of background on the process.
CRISPR was discovered in Japan back in 1987, later understood to be part of a bacteria’s immune system in which bacteria prevent the invasion of viruses by storing a copy of the virus’s DNA (by cutting a piece of the DNA out). When the same virus attempts to reinfect the bacteria, the bacteria’s Cas protein uses the stored DNA copy (CRISPR) to match the one in the attacking virus, then like a pair of molecular scissors, cuts out the same sequence DNA to disarm it. Over time, scientists have figured out how to modify this process to not only cut but also replace, specific genes in the human genome. Cut-and-paste gene editing, as well as silencing or activating genes is here and already used for example in our food. Some of that is due to CRISPR, and unlike the GMO process which might insert fish genes into your fruit, CRISPR simply tweaks existing genes, and it’s here today. You can buy apples that have had their genes modified such that the apple does not brown after you cut it.
Today, gene editing is already fast on its way to becoming a mainstream treatment for genetic illnesses, with dozens of companies already on the market developing genetic cures. It appears to be the holy grail of repairing defective genes and among the most miraculous of cures today. For example, just last year, a cure for the fairly well-known genetic disease of sickle cell disease was brought to market. Some are immediately skeptical and suggest patients will need treatment for a lifetime, but that is not the case. It takes one dose generally.
How could anyone deny that such tools can cure humanity of so many diseases? Today, 6 out of 10 people will be affected by a condition that has some genetic background. It is now generally believed that around 40% of all diseases have a genetic origin and that 80% of rare diseases have genetic origins. Clearly, CRISPR and improved alternatives to CRISPR, which will arrive over time, are invaluable to solving countless diseases plaguing humanity. But then, what’s next?
The potential for “designer babies” has been discussed for decades now. Even beyond birth, people should be able to start changing simple things like eye color, hair color, and even skin color. Some traits like hair curliness, baldness, and lactose intolerance may involve only a few genes, so gene modification packages for these may come sooner than say height, eye color, which may involve many more genes, but even the more complex traits will be changeable with gene-editing tools, given enough time. Anything that improves health, wealth (intelligence), and love (or at least appearance), will likely be marketable for the next 100 years.
There is of course a precedent for this shift from pain to pleasure, or from suffering to gratification. Plastic surgery’s original purpose was to treat disfigurement, burns, birth defects, and other health issues, some of which were life-threatening, but today, the primary use is primarily to improve one’s looks [how much?]. The transition from “reducing pain” to “increasing pleasure” continues. Likewise, dental work originally served the purpose of fixing tooth decay, but today it is increasingly appearance-based. Braces, teeth whitening, veneers, and other dental procedures increase in popularity each year as the costs of such drops over time. The future of dental work may eventually be all cosmetic.
The logical outcome then is that after most serious diseases are cured, the shift to increased intelligence and beauty will accelerate, but like most things, as society improves on these, society’s minimum bar of “what is good” enough always moves higher in the never-ending rat race of life. The problems people will perceive, or perhaps I should say invent, will never end. “The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.” Thomas Sowell. I tend to think that no matter how much gene editing may improve society, no one will be happier for long. History suggests the same.
Even recently, the discussion of why society should have robots has been that robots will take over unwanted, dangerous, and boring jobs. While I do think the Industrial Revolution has hyper-specialized countless jobs into mass monotony, I am not sure of the logical outcome of this argument in favor of robots. The likely outcome is that robots will do all jobs of material importance, and people will either recreate or rely exclusively on a social economic system, but I discuss various outcomes in depth in other chapters.
Won’t “ethics” prevent some of this? Consider that over time, the guard of ethics always shifts and, as such is culturally driven; so as long as the dominant paradigm does not reject “pleasure” being the main purpose of life for society as a whole, then it is reliable to predict that genetic editing will march forward, just like all the other ethical taboos that have arisen but then increasingly faded over the last century, such as abortion. And if some people are using it to increase their intelligence dramatically, then chances are, everyone else will need to do the same just to prevent them from being overtaken by a significantly “smarter” group of people. Even if govt attempts to ban gene modification at the commercial level, such is impossible for obvious reasons at the individual level as long as some freedom remains.
If ethics and government cannot stop this behavior, then what are the implications? Who doesn’t want to be just a little smarter, a little better looking, a little more successful? Losing weight will no longer be limited to diet, exercise, or a pill. Need to build muscle fast? There is a download for that too. Surely, the only reason steroids are not more popular outside of sports is their side effects, so if you can get rid of those through precise and direct modification at the cellular level, then everyone might look like the world’s best athletes today–no exercise needed. I imagine the desire for greater intelligence will be at the top of the list tho, perhaps borrowing DNA from smart people as a template or off of synthesized models of intelligence genes.
Gene modification will provide so many modifications. When a mother says “I could get more done if I just had four arms” and “if had eyes on the back of my head,” realize that gene-editing tech will eventually solve that problem, if the future still has mothers of course (enter stage right, the book “Brave New World” where all conception is centrally planned and controlled in government labs).
The basic modifications mentioned above are just the beginning of what might be possible. If editing our DNA becomes increasingly easy, given enough time, the ability to change ourselves into anything we imagine ourselves to be, will occur. Do you want to look like someone else, someone famous perhaps? Do you want to be a giant today or a dwarf? How about a troll, fairy, or even a flying unicorn (Pegasus)? Perhaps you fancy being a T-rex, brontosaurus, other human-dinosaur, or even a tree, but still in possession of your highly modified brain of course? With DNA essentially being very much like complex software code, and an increasing number of tools to modify it like a read-write database, much like software, then there will be few limits to what we can change about ourselves. Suddenly fantasy books no longer seem like fantasy anymore.
This brings up the questions of mental health and behavior as well. Current medicine and treatments will be seen as primitive compared to newer technologies that can cure mental health issues at the click of a button. What above improving positive traits? Need extreme patience, stamina, discipline, or focus? Today’s drugs, like ADHD meds, will eventually pale in comparison.
And yet, even with all of this “progress,” no level of looks, intelligence, or achievement attained will be satisfactory for humanity. The first rule of economics, according to Thomas Sowell, is “There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it,” similar to the sages of old:
“He that loveth silver shall not be satisfied with silver;” – Ecclesiastes 5:10-12,
“Competition for more˹gains diverts you from Allah” – Surah At-Takathur (102:1-2)
” do not spend money for that which is of no worth, nor your labor for that which cannot satisfy.” – 2 Nephi 9:51 (Book of Mormon)
So, if all of these superficial improvements occur, the big question to me is, will there be an increased demand for more meaningful attributes, such as the increase of love? Well, are there jobs or courses that teach love? Are there IQ tests for love, or just intelligence? Are there any genetic tests today for a “love” gene? So, if we can only improve the outward self, chances are it will continue to overshadow more meaningful traits like kindness.
The other ultimate question is, if we can modify our genes to become anyone or anything we want, how does this work in light of the idea that we are not simply an accident of the universe, but instead the creation of a Creator? If we came here for a purpose, perhaps to overcome our flaws and weaknesses? If so, all of this genetic modification seems to have a high potential to frustrate that plan. Kaczynski says, given enough time, technology will head to the point where we will all essentially become a “manufactured product,” in fact all organisms as there seems little reason to ever stop tinkering. I will say, that perhaps there is some grander vision of humanity, but there would need to be considerable changes to the current state of human affairs.
If there’s one promise of advanced tech in general, is that it almost guarantees an eternal unchangingness, or “homeostasis.”
What are you reminded of when you describe a world where:
Work is not needed (AI thinks for us while robots do labor)
No sickness or death (due to advanced medicine and anti-aging tech)
No new life (due to an end or eliminated demand for new people)
Detailing each:
1. Work is not needed: The first premise of a “workless” or “universal basic income” driven world is standard fare among leading technologists. Many assume that if AI and robots do all the work better than people, then we will not need to, nor will we be able to keep up with, the rate of their development. That is, they will accelerate in their abilities mental/physical, much faster than we will. Eventually, new paradigm shifts such as the need to tax corporations to pay for the masses while the masses just do whatever they want with their unlimited, free time.
2. No sickness or death: Anti-aging technologies: are generally believed to come about this or the following decade, and soon followed by an actual reversal of aging. “Aging” is composed of a few known causes. Many companies are working on this and aging does indeed seem to be biologically reversible, so I won’t spend time on this either.
3. No new life: Few, if anyone, has spoken about the consequences of unlimited ease with no death. Such advances in tech will likely lead to a reduction or even end of childbearing. In the last couple of hundred years, the wealthier people get, the fewer children are born. This is quite obvious by looking at wealthy populations around the world. The richest countries/locations, whether large cities, or countries like South Korea, Singapore, and Hong Kong, have the lowest fertility rates in the world
[chart]
If lifespans increase indefinitely, or never die as is predicted by many ______, then it’s quite predictable most people will also put off having children indefinitely. In South Korea, it is the main reason people do not have children, as everyone is trying to keep up, or catch up, with the Jones’.
The downward trend in population that most demographers and governments are currently predicting, and actually occurring. Japan is losing more people faster due to low fertility rates, along with a lack of immigration, than any other country. Its population has been decreasing for over a decade with fertility rates not much higher than 1, meaning, that is how many children a women on average will have in her lifetime. No surprise then that they are incorporating humanoid robots faster than any other country. Other advanced nations, like the US and Europe tend to keep their populations growing with immigration, in light of the sub-replacement fertility rates.
Anti-aging technology will accelerate this drop in fertility. Governments may even apply pressure (or force) to reduce childbearing if they perceive children an unnecessary burden, cost, or environmental/pollution-causing risk. Even without the governments help, society in general will continue resort to the timeless approach of regulating fertility, which I call the “social control of fertility.”
In a world with no death and no new life, combined with the fact that robots can replace all physical labor, and AI will do mental labor, this situation bears an uncanny resemblance to the oldest story in all of comparative mythology and also many religions of course.
The main difference between the original Garden of Eden and the tech-utopia version is that in the modern one, people will be able to consume unending amounts of pleasure of all kinds–unlimited pleasure at no cost–a permanent high on drugs might be a good comparison, but without the risk of overdoes from technologically-perfected pleasures. Few people seem to recall the tree of Life in the Garden, which had they eaten of it, would have lived forever in their sins.
Am I the only one sounding the alarm of an unrestrained, infinite “pleasure” in a world where over time, the immorality of pleasure is increasingly forgotten?
3 Examples of How the Modern Life is Increasingly Unchanging – Homeostasis
As the length of time increases for life, the slower people progress through life.
It is almost as if all life events are distributed at the same proportions no matter how long people live.
Marriage: When people lived to be 40 on average, marriage was at ______ and
Childbearing: The first child was born around ________. Now that the average age has increased significantly, the average age of marriage and first child continues to increase proportionally.
Living at home:
Educational inflation
The Decline of the Family as Evidence
Is the general direction of society today a mystery or surprise to anyone? Did anyone predict the world we live in today even just a generation ago? Notice the progression over time:
Divorce, the first clear step in family disintegration accelerated in the _________
A few decades later, male/male, female/female relationship marriages were no longer seen by many as essential, nor even under a great taboo that existed just a few years previously.
The next logical step would be simply to forgo the marriage process in the first place, ensuring shorter process to the same end, and now with no children at all.
If marriage is no longer a thing, then dating and moving out of one’s parent’s home seems optional/pointless to many. (chart).
On the larger view, birth rates have essentially continued to slow with time over decades, and chances are, that will continue in the long run (even if a short-term event such as war stops it temporarily)
Predicting even further forward, even speaking to other people face to face seems to decrease in perceptual value to many. I will return to this in a later chapter.
Notice how every step is almost a foregon conclusion when you use the main idea that when society does not value more people, then the supply (its behavior) follows.
This suggests that values are like fashion, rooted in fleeting desires and ever-changing tastes, and subtly permeate society over time. Where is the solid ground to stand on? If families and fertility are not valued, then the moral restraints on human pleasure will almost inevitably decline.
In other words, declining fertility, and the perception of a decreased need for each other / children, is really fundamental behind all of the above trends, and today I see no end in sight. This in turn causes society to change its values. If/when the ability to extend life arrives, which seems likely, the above issues, and increasingly corrupt societal behavior should accelerate for the most part. In fact, you might be able to stay 21 years old forever, with no family nor children of your own, while you live eternally in your parent’s basement eternally surfing the Matrix that we currently call the Internet. Well, many people are already there today, minus the anti-aging part–give that just a few more years.
The general thought in social science is that fertility rates slow in developing countries as the result of need for children (useful workers) declines, while the effort of raising children (costs) increases. In other words, children in urban environments are more of a liability than an asset. On the other hand, it may be more that as that life gets easier and safer, children are seen more of a burden than a blessing.
Singapore citizens have 1 child per couple on average currently the 3rd lowest fertility rates in the world, just behind Hong Kong (0.9) and South Korea (0.8). In a 2023 survey the top three reasons people stated they did not want children were:
“can’t afford to raise children in Singapore. “
“Do not like children or want to become a parent.”
“Would impact career and current lifestyle. “
Besides the striking claim that one of the richest countries in the world cannot afford children, the reality seems that the life of luxury, or convenience and ease, makes the idea of having children seem relatively painful to many. Perhaps the claim that they cannot afford them is because parents are not willing to sacrifice other costs–even the GINI index which attempts to measure differences in wealth (or “wealth inequality”) within a population is lower in Singapore than much of Africa, which has far more children on average, so it seems on the surface to be more about reasons 2 and 3 (above), with “1” possibly the result of “keeping up with the Jones.”
In that same piece one potential parent says “People will say I am selfish, and I agree. I am selfish, I want my life for myself. I’ve got nothing against kids … I know I can be a good father if I have one. But the question is, why do I need to have a kid? And if I cannot answer that, I don’t think it’s right to have a kid born into this world.”
Like the need for each other, the perceived need for children seems to be decreasing over the decades.
Even Genesis states that the two primary purposes of Adam and Eve after being ejected from the garden were work and family. If AI (generalized intelligence) and robots (generalized labor) replace the need to think or exert effort, then chances are the desire to have children will evaporate on the whole, with perhaps even few even noticing the gradual changes over time as people tend to do.
Anti-aging will accelerate homeostasis
seems uninteresting already. What is more meaningful? Your 78th birthday (or your 1,623rd birthday because you never die), or a child’s 10th birthday? the growth and excitement of new life, whether experienced by a child or observing parent, will diminish.
So, as life gets longer, and technology speeds up, the events in our lives, at least what I would call the significant ones, decrease at an inverse rate.
Is Death Useful or Important? Surely death is an unnecessary artifact
Some would argue that a life without death is actually a good thing, and sure, it seems good in the short run. However, Holocaust survivor Victor Frankl, wrote:
“The meaning of human existence is based upon its irreversible quality. An individual’s responsibility in life must therefore be understood in terms of temporality and singularity” (Frankl 1986, p. 64).
“Man’s Search for Meaning”
He also notes that only with the realization of finite time can we recognize the full gravity of life, therefore I conclude:
Via the realization of finite time can one recognize the full gravity of life; therefore, it logically follows that with unlimited time, there will be no gravity, and no meaning.
If a person knows they will live forever, and work to survive is optional, then what will motivate them to even get out of bed in the morning? Not much. We even see a bit of this behavior growing in recent years.
He believes that creativity and loving relationships provide meaning. While some creativity, or art, is useful, it is decreasingly useful in large amounts, without somehitng to contrast is with. He also describes the world through his personal viewpoint. I, on the other hand, think its important not to see only what is possible, but what is likely, typical, and possible across a wide spectrum.
Will technology increase love? Trends for the last half-century show that relationships are less stable, and therefore less loving over time, as the world gets wealthier because in essence, people seemingly no longer need each other economically, emotionally, .
Knowing that death will never happen, will cause most people to procrastinate indefinitely. You already see it in wealthy countries today as the average age of marriage and child-bearing increases.
The New Testament, as well as most religious texts are focused heavily on loving others.
Conclusion
Recall that in the story of Adam and Eve that there were two trees (somehow most people seem to forget that). The second tree, the “tree of life,” represented immunity to death. While it does seem death did not exist before they ate the forbidden fruit, clearly the tree of life meant the would never die. I find it odd that it was even there in the first place, unless purely for the message that if people were to live in a world of sin, but never die, then that would frustrate the purpose of man and plan of God. Now, I know many people don’t think of this story as literal, but that’s not necessary, because if it really does speak metaphorical truth, the future may hold some surprises.
If the future is a place where pleasure is limitless, changelessness is the status quo, and the possibility of new life and new experiences in the cycle we call life ceases, then I am not sure I am cut out for the future. I am not the only one though:
“No one wants to die. Even people who want to go to heaven don’t want to die to get there. And yet death is the destination we all share. No one has ever escaped it. And that is as it should be, because Death is very likely the single best invention of Life. It is Life’s change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new.
I sometimes believe that the AI will find better solutions, make us more intelligent, but the real problem runs deeper: individual human desire.
Will the increased intelligence afforded by AI cause us to be kinder?
I find that the easiest way to answer questions about the future is to look at the past, so with some of the world’s worst tyrants being very intelligent people, that seems an easy question to answer. Sure, “luck” may play a role, but intelligence is surely an indespnsible ingredient in many of the world’s greater leaders, whether good or evil. If greater intelligence will not necessarily make the world a better place, then what
Why does increased “intelligence” not create a better society?
At the end of the day, there is someting much deeper than intelligence that runs the world. Humanity is governed by each of our own personal desires, and desire is not something you simply reprogram, nor can it be forced, at least if you have any sort of libertarian mentality about the world. Underlying desire is belief, so I can say the world is really driven by each of our own beliefs, and no amount of super-intelligence is going to change much of anything.
In fact, there may be mass attempts to impose the world’s view on the individual, by anyone or any institution with enough power to execute their utopian vision, perhaps through something as harmless sounding as a bioengineered virus, which is designed to make us all completely docile or obedient, allowing the creator to gain complete control over society. There are lots of possibilities technolgical tools for enslavement of society, naturally.
While authioritarian nightmares exist, the neverending attempts of society to pressure others via norms and expecatations is unavoidable in this regards; so, I expect that many will attempt to pressure others–those that do not phsyically modify themselves to conform to have the trait of __________ (enter trait here. E.g. more obedient to authority or society, more willing to share personal belongings, more empathetic, or even less fertile, etc…), will be labelled as “immoral” or even “evil”.
I like to point out in fact, that in Milgram’s famous shock experiemnt studies on obedience to authorty, there was actually a study which caused even higher levels of “conforming” than the authority figure, which was appeal of a person to their freinds beckining. I am not sure if this was overlooked, ignored, or suppressed, but clrealy obedience to friends is a more dangerous force if the studies are accurate.
What is “intelligence” useful for then, if it does not necessarily make us more moral?
In fact, it’s safer to say that the general view of intelligence today is anything that gives us a better understasnding of the material world (e.g. science), and that is for the purpose of gaining more control or success over our own lives. Whether it’s observing how your crops grow best, or you are pursing a Phd. All such learning is designed to help us overcome the Dark Ages of superstition, and at the end of the day for most, increase our comfort in life through higher incomes, or less suffering.
Even
So, as long as there exists at least one person on earth who desires to control others (hint: always true) then we can be sure that there are no long-term solutions to the nature of humankind via AI, without a complete destruction of freedom of the individual and the mind.
But are people not better today than we once were?
I also do not think people have changed fundamentally in any way since the dawn of humanity; it is only our current environment that makes us look more “civilized” than those in the past. Pull the facade of success away, and the beast in many will return as it has many times in the past. even the stock market is famous for the principle that people forget the past almost immediately. All human emotions have gone unchanged for the most part for eons.
If greater “intelligence” does not make people better, then what can?
Perhaps you know the answer already as to what traits truely make the world a better place.
Real “intelligence” may not be we most people think
Generally speaking, creativity in detecting patterns (e.g. IQ test) seems to be the pinnacle of what most people, including myself, think of as “intelligence,” as such can lead to very successful outcomes in life, such as a higher paying job, recognition by others, and the ability to discover and manipulate our environement (e.g. science).
But do such pattern detecting abilities increase kindness and benevolance in the world. This is why AI is not really the solution to life’s problems.
Perhaps real intelligence is more about the ability to care for others.
The end of people is not robots and computers taking over, it’s the ending of ourselves through a permanent state of changelessness and hedonism.
Robots:
Everyone Will Own a Robot
Most people feel there are reasons why they won’t own a robot. Most concerns about owning robots can be summarized in the following complaints:
1. “Robots are creepy”
Many technologies have undergone the transition from “creepy” to “cool”, and in some cases from “taboo” to “cool.” For example, many large websites can use our personal information, machines listen to our every conversation, to give us exactly what we want in return like personalized shopping recommendations.
Additionally, the idea that robots are creepy may exist because we do not have a lot of cute, cuddly robots, so adding a cuteness factor, especially to kids, is likely to be a common way in which they are marketed to us. Such is the case in several Asian countries today. Equally important is generational shifts where kids that are introduced to them will gladly accept them as adults, while old people today will reject them more often.
2. “Robots will take over”
There are lots of dystopian stories about robots taking over such as IRobot (Isaac Asimov), The Terminator, The Matrix. But all of these are not just about robots, but robots with advanced computing, so as long as robots don’t have AI built in, then they will be as dangerous as a moped. Once AI is combined, that is yet to be determined, but the main risks to humanity are far more obvious.
3. It will be many years before we get robots
Human-assisting robots are already here.
They are fairly simple, but the fact that they are providing emotional comfort and basic tasks for people is a clear indicator we are headed that way. For example:
“The global market for nursing care and disabled aid robots, made up of mostly Japanese manufacturers, is still tiny: just $19.2 million in 2016, according to the International Federation of Robotics.
But METI estimates the domestic industry alone will grow to 400 billion yen ($3.8 billion) by 2035, when a third of Japan’s population will be 65 or older”
More advanced robots like Honda’s Asimo are far more capable in motion, such as even being able to play the violin better than me. But perhaps you don’t need this soccer-playing robot with a $2.5M price tag, there are other robots already available under $100k, and the prices will drop as long as people demand them.
Do you own a computer, phone, or even a dishwasher? To buy a robot is to buy more ease, pleasure, free time. Not owning a robot in the future would be like not owning a TV today. Yes, sometimes true, but rarely the case.
How Robots Will Destroy Humanity
If there is one thing that is especially useful to people, it is the need to keep busy/productive. Most parents would agree that getting their child to do more work around the house is better than more time playing games or being entertained.
Robots will make us lazier and weaker. In fact, the modern age has already shown that. If you do not believe this, then simply read histories or talk to old farmers who regularly accomplished incredible feats of labor. I will return to this idea later.
Ultimately, robots will enable us to never work again.
Artificial Intelligence
If robots replace the need for human labor, then AI will replace the need for thinking.
If robots replace the need for thinking, then the average result over time should be that people get less intelligent overall, because the demand to be intelligent, which is based on the need to survive will be all but eliminated. This can readily be seen in the fact that most residents in the modern world do not have a clue on how to grow their own food, so if the system were to fail someday, then many would die.
If an advanced computer program can solve any math problem infinitely faster and more accurately than any person, then why would anyone bother? In fact, why would school even be necessary? More clues that we will weaken humanity. Sure, some people will work hard and learn, but will this be true for most people?
Even raising children via a machine is getting closer:
And who has time to monitor children, right? the growth of daycare rates shows the reality that more and more people are either too busy, or not interested in raising their own children.
The Replacement of People
If robots replace the need for physical human effort, and
AI replaces the need for
human thought,
mental effort
caring and companionship (already happening)
Then we can safely presume the need, or demand, for people will disappear over time. If demand decreases, supply tends to follow.
In this way, technology is commoditizing people, and people are becoming increasingly replaced by machines. Some of this is already apparent as you look around and see how many people are unable to stop staring at the electronic appendage, which many called a phone.
Some people think that “merging with the matrix” is a good thing and that the goal of all humanity should be to merge completely with computers (Elon). Who am I to say that they should not live in their dreams of electronic sheep, but perhaps others us think little of this nihilistic utopia.
I’m sorry, but implanting AI into your brain means I have to in order to stay competitive, but if I choose not to, do I stand a chance?
Computers and robots are already substituting real human emotions.
At this year’s International Consumer Electronics Show, or CES1, Sony debuted the new version of Aibo, its robotic dog. First available in 1999, Aibo has had a makeover for the new century and now includes advanced artificial intelligence, adaptive behaviour to interact with its owner, OLED eyes to show its emotions and a wide range of movement – all of which helps build “an emotional bond with members of the household while providing them with love, affection, and the joy of nurturing and raising a companion.”
But it’s not like the future will be a big surprise, rather it will simply be a continuation of the current trends that seem to be slowly eliminating people:
An increasing number of family relationships are being outsourced:
elders to elder care/nursing homes;
children to school and daycare, and
substituting pets for children
People are increasingly spending more time with computers and less with real people.
The best prediction is that in the future we will all live in a world completely disconnected with everyone as robots and computers continue to fulfill our needs and want cheaper, better, and more conveniently than other people can .
In other words, with robots and AI, we won’t need anyone else for work, for care, for love. Even artificial relationships will be preferred to real ones when the program seems as good as the real thing.
The biggest missed point about the Holocaust, and other similar events, is that it was the expression of technological super forces. Without advanced technology, it is impossible to so cleanly and efficiently eliminate large populations.
Should we think the future is any safer with super-technology? Not as long as someone or something is in charge of the levers–not that it seems reasonable to let it run itself either.
The belief in end of war is a myth. I have demonstrated this elsewhere, but in short, violence committed from war has actually increased when looking at all documented cases of war over several hundred, then drawing a linear regression line. Sure, endless pleasure might somehow substitute war, but that’s another problem.
Technological Growth will Therefore Tend Towards Risk (unsafety), While Increasingly Restrict (safety) to Attempt to Prevent Chaos
If you think gun control is hotly debated, just wait until we can simply think up and even produce a weapon much more powerful than a mere gun. Thought control will therefore be a necessity for civilization to survive in the future. So, as tech empowers everyone, more controls will be needed to block the risks. Cue, the Borg from Star Trek.
Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them. Reverend Mother Gaius Helen Mohiam
Dune
Pandora’s Box is Full of 0’s and 1’s
If there is one thing we can be sure of about technology it is this:
Technology magnifies all human behavior, good or evil.
Author
” Reason and the impulse to objectify truth are illusory masks for cultural power.”
So, while we like to think that the search for scientific truth is obvious and natural, the reality is, in today’s world, those who control science, and its child technology, rule economically. The most successful companies today are mostly in the most cutting edge technology, or use such technology in their operations (even Walmart is incredibly high tech). By this, we can conclude that there is a race for technology because it is valuable. Social science would state this in similar terms:
The pursuit of Science is a cultural mask for power
Unknown
Freedom of speech, empowerment, and education Is there anyone in the United States that does not want more of these for themselves or people living in other countries? The idea of freedom, as set by the American founding was perhaps the most revolutionary idea since the dawn of civilization.
And on one hand, it continues to accelerate. With the leveraging and connecting speed of the internet and social media, anyone can be a leader overnight, amassing a large following. In theory, any of these virtual nobody’s could become the next President.
But, in case you have not noticed, there is a always a counter-pressure for such voices, often top down.
Education: Everyone needs more education. Technology will deliver it
Freedom of speech: The 2nd amendment gives people the freedom to speak, and we think everyone deserves to speak their mind without govt. intervention, otherwise we call it censorship. Is there a global company today that doesn’t want a greater market share in countries like China? Many would suggest that countries like China and North Korea are backward, but perhaps there is another view.
Empowerment: The first two (freedom, education) are just smaller parts of what you could call “empowerment” but for short, it can simply be referred to as increasing “power.”
The Battle Between Absolute Freedom and Absolute Control
When complete freedom for the individual is obtained, and as long as people make poor decisions, chaos is the most likely outcome.
Most people believe that freedom of speech is essential. We want more freedom of speech in countries like China, and North Korea. Most also find it repressive if governments limit the press:
2018 Press Freedom Index
However, if the press
people speak negatively of another group of people, then it is considered harassment, and can even lead to physical harm.
“Values that emphasize the creativity, autonomy, and priority of human beings are misplaced. There is no universal humanity since every culture constitutes its own reality. Groups must empower themselves to assert their own values and to take their placer with other planetary species. “
![OC] Countries with the highest percentage of the population being obese in the G20 : r/dataisbeautiful](https://preview.redd.it/or21w54t0yk71.png?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=f8d9b4e147a3111b0b2e73cb10336e19ae5bdeec)
HumanIT 