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.

NOT DONE

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:

1. Divorce, the first clear step in family disintegration accelerated in the _________
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. If marriage is no longer a thing, then dating and moving out of one’s parent’s home seems optional/pointless to many. (chart).
5. 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)
6. 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.

Steve Jobs

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.

https://archive.org/details/obedience-to-authority-an-experimental-view-pdfdrive-1/page/114/mode/2up?view=theater

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.

TOKYO (Reuters)

4. Robots are expensive

5. Most people will not get a robot.

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:

https://www.standard.co.uk/tech/google-developing-aicontrolled-babysitter-system-to-protect-unattended-children-a3715706.html

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

1. If robots replace the need for physical human effort, and
2. 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.”

digitalpulse

Now all we need is a robot family to complete it.

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.

Mass Hedonism

The “more people leads to more answer” – maybe I need a name for this theory.

One thing that I am hopeful for is that we will find solutions to these problems brought about by technology, even if most people do not adopt them. The incredible reality that few people realize, esp. the Maltheusians, is that the number of problems may grow as population grows but so do the number of solutions (potentially).

The equation I came up with demonstrates that running out of material goods is almost impossible in the long run (and why we will actually have excess): 

Solutions = Total population x sharing ideas.

Need actual formula.

So if there are for example two people to solve a problem, then there are only two possible interactions. If there are three people, then there are three; but once you get to four people, you have six potential interactions. Here are some examples. I am rounding:

1,000 people = 500,000 relationships.

Number of People	Potential Interactions
10	50
100	5,000
1000	500,000
10000	50,000,000
100000	5,000,000,000

So with 10 billion people on earth, you could have 5×10¹⁹ interactions (50 quintillions). AI could accelerate this dramatically of course.

The internet is the great communication medium of course, giving everyone with access to it thee potential to reach almost anyone else on earth (today, 2/3 people on earth have internet access). This is why it is the most powerful tool we may have ever seen. Books gave unidirectional communications; the phone gave voice and real-time communication globally; the internet added visual, data sharing, and asynchronous communications at rates far surpassing traditional communications, and at a much lower cost.

Another version of this would be: Answers to problems are the result of the total number of people working on problems, multiplied by the speed and reach of sharing those ideas.

Another version would be: the Malthusieans are always wrong.

This is why the Industrial Revolution, a mystery to many, coincided with rapid population growth. History demonstrates that scientific progress, like the Enlightenment, is far more likely to occur when populations are growing, although causality is intertwined. Are there more people because of better technology or better tech because there are more people. Yes. Logically, other factors were at play as well. For example, previous to this time, the freedom to solve problems and share them, or capitalism, was prohibited.

The trend should be pretty exponential, which is what we see, both in general population growth, and technological progress (e.g. Moore’s Law)

This is why voices, like Peter Diamandis, are generally correct in that the future is full of abundance (too much), not scarcity (too little).

If you take a problem that one person is working on and give it to a million people to work on, the chances of solving it just went up a million times, generally speaking.

Assume then that one person solves the problem. Who benefits?

If the solution, or information for the solution, is shared with the remaining 999,999 people, then all have benefited from the 1 person. This sharing once limited to the face-to-face world, accelerated with the telegraph, phone, and now in hyperspeed via the internet.

Another way to look at it is if each person is working on a separate problem, and everyone shares the answer to their own problems, then everyone benefits from the answers of 1,000,000 people.

Of course, the actual benefit probably lies somewhere in the middle as the problems we face today are increasingly complex and require more people to solve them.

This is why Malthusian mindsets have always existed, and are currently popular. They fail to understand how economics actually work (e.g. unintended consequences). I also find it interesting that people fall into one camp or the other. E.g. You think free markets, less regulation, and large populations are the problem. Others believe the opposite to be generally true.

This is Why Technology has Accelerated for so Long: Growing Populations.

Conversely, some suggest that large human populations are a problem, yet, that is why we have the quality of life that we do.

If such people get their wish, and there is a massive reduction in population (e.g. war, fertility rates, societal collapse, or destruction of other kinds), if large enough, then the quality of life could go back to the Dark Ages.

If people decline, technology may decelerate with it, generally speaking, although with AI and robots, this could change as such replacing the need for people entirely.

Will the Future Decouple These Two Trends?

It is possible that as technology begins to develop on its own, those populations either:

• Increase
• Stay the same
• Decrease (which defies history at the basic level)

If no one dies, however, a likely scenario here shortly, the population may continue to grow slowly, but surely, indefinitely, as death rates lower, and fertility continues to slow, the net effect is that all existing models of population growth are completely wrong.

To me, however, implosion seems the most likely though, as it fits the general thesis of this site, although it’s hard to say “this time is different.” But, even if the population increases, the benefits of being human may evaporate regardless.

To summarize:

Most people think the future is scarce, running out of resources, and depleting the environment, while most of the world starves.

Then second-level thinkers realize that infinite wealth is the most likely outcome, regardless of the socio-political-economic problem side of things.

Then I think at an even deeper realization: Accelerating, even unlimited abundance is probably a larger problem.

Either way, there are several possible outcomes of the future, and most do not seem positive. Whether it’s intentional damage or destruction of population growth through pleasure, it doesn’t matter.

I am probably wrong though because I expect the number of people thinking and working on the same problems I discuss here is increasing rapidly as I write this, and a primary reason I want to share my ideas with others (to network with likeminded problem solvers).

So, even if most people succumb to decline due to unimaginable success, perhaps a few will succeed extraordinarily. At least that seems evolutionary in principle. The Amish/Mennonites may be living proof of that to some degree. Perhaps the 1% idea will apply to fertility. 1% of the population will be responsible for 99% of its future growth.