If you read old and ancient writings you will find that there have always been people claiming that mankind would reach utopia within a few hundred years. So far, they have been wrong for at least 3000 years.
I also don't believe that you have even considered the societal problems that are independent of technology.
Science and technology can only solve technical problems. They can not solve problems due to human nature... Elimination of jobs and greatly reducing starvation will not solve the human problems that have existed for thousands of years...
I doubt that humans will go extent for many thousands of years (unless some alien species wipes us out). But, I find it probably that the world population in 100+ years might only be a Billion or so, and it might be 10-20 Billion as well.
Your first point is more of a sleight-of-hand trick than an actual sound argument. While technically somewhat - though not fully - true, it's pretty clear that most of the utopias described historically were either ideological, and hence controversial (for example, I would bet most people would prefer today's society than Plato's "utopian" society), or religious, and hence not grounded in observation or logic, in nature. Of course, all of this is very different from my proposition, which is based exclusively on observation. In other words, there wasn't a single writing throughout history that wagered utopia was a few hundred years away that was based on verifiable data on the current rate of progress. Additionally, many "utopias" predicted by our ancestors have already been fulfilled or bettered, such as those depicted in early sci-fi novels and those relating to human rights and equality.
I have considered the societal problems, and most of them will have a solution as well. Do you have any specific problems in mind?
Also, why do you think world population will be that low? It's becoming increasingly likely that a cure for ageing will be developed in this century, and even if it isn't, consciousness simulation will essentially kill ageing anyway. What's your reasoning here?
1st. I don't think your so called "objective data" is all that objective or even close to complete. I used to think many of the same thoughts as you espouse about 40 years ago. Life has taught me how ignorant I was.
As far as your thinking that the societal problems have real solutions... Many millions (if not billions) of people have thought that since technology got to the point that it greatly improved life. Technological solutions do not work for societal issues. Societal issues stem from the fact that people are innately free to have different dreams, opinions, and thoughts along with the fact that some behaviors are "human" in nature. That's not something you can actually eliminate.
As for future world population. Major disease (Covid-19 is extremely minor MERS killed about 1/3 of people who got it), technological failures, climate change, and many things could dramatically alter the world population either quickly or over time. Up or down are equally possible.
Well, just saying "your data isn't objective" isn't that strong of an argument. I have real data from which falsifiable hypotheses can be made (and have been made in the past - almost all of them were correct). The data that I am referring to is, for example, computing power value (calculations per second per modern-day dollar) over time and key historical events over time. Both of these variables have followed an exponential trajectory long before Moore's Law was formulated (or was in effect). Feel free to explain what you feel is not objective about these data.
You having the same thoughts as me 40 years ago isn't really convincing, either. If I had to guess, I'd say you probably had these thoughts not because they were logical but because they sounded cool. This is probably also why you feel that "life has [proven you wrong]", even if it hasn't - some of the things that you naively expected to happen didn't happen, so you decided to abandon the entire idea of exponential progress and/or a bright future for humanity altogether. Same reason why so many atheists become believers, really. But even if that wasn't the case for you, personal anecdotes don't constitute a strong argument either way.
I still don't really see what societal issues you are talking about. Could you be more concrete? Since you didn't give me a specific example, let me disprove at least the statement that "technological solutions do not work for societal issues": solitude (not to be confused with "loneliness") was a societal issue that has all but been solved by the internet and smartphones. And, to address your last concern in the paragraph, I do appreciate that people are bound to have differing opinions and thoughts and interests, but: when you are in a world where anything that you desire you receive on-demand - this includes psychological preferences - the word "issue" itself becomes a practical impossibility (again, save for a few areas like exploration of real-world space, philosophical problems, and stuff like that).
Interesting. I don't think this is a mainstream opinion, though. Diseases have existed all throughout history and were actually much deadlier in the past due to inferior medicine. Climate change may reduce the population significantly, I do agree - although this may be balanced out by natural population growth. I don't think it's likely that global population will drop 800% in the foreseeable future - once again, considering global catastrophes like a nuclear war don't take place.
Humanity will invariably reach a state of utopia in at most 200 years
← View full post
If you read old and ancient writings you will find that there have always been people claiming that mankind would reach utopia within a few hundred years. So far, they have been wrong for at least 3000 years.
I also don't believe that you have even considered the societal problems that are independent of technology.
Science and technology can only solve technical problems. They can not solve problems due to human nature... Elimination of jobs and greatly reducing starvation will not solve the human problems that have existed for thousands of years...
I doubt that humans will go extent for many thousands of years (unless some alien species wipes us out). But, I find it probably that the world population in 100+ years might only be a Billion or so, and it might be 10-20 Billion as well.
--
SingleUse
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Your first point is more of a sleight-of-hand trick than an actual sound argument. While technically somewhat - though not fully - true, it's pretty clear that most of the utopias described historically were either ideological, and hence controversial (for example, I would bet most people would prefer today's society than Plato's "utopian" society), or religious, and hence not grounded in observation or logic, in nature. Of course, all of this is very different from my proposition, which is based exclusively on observation. In other words, there wasn't a single writing throughout history that wagered utopia was a few hundred years away that was based on verifiable data on the current rate of progress. Additionally, many "utopias" predicted by our ancestors have already been fulfilled or bettered, such as those depicted in early sci-fi novels and those relating to human rights and equality.
I have considered the societal problems, and most of them will have a solution as well. Do you have any specific problems in mind?
Also, why do you think world population will be that low? It's becoming increasingly likely that a cure for ageing will be developed in this century, and even if it isn't, consciousness simulation will essentially kill ageing anyway. What's your reasoning here?
--
olderdude-xx
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
1st. I don't think your so called "objective data" is all that objective or even close to complete. I used to think many of the same thoughts as you espouse about 40 years ago. Life has taught me how ignorant I was.
As far as your thinking that the societal problems have real solutions... Many millions (if not billions) of people have thought that since technology got to the point that it greatly improved life. Technological solutions do not work for societal issues. Societal issues stem from the fact that people are innately free to have different dreams, opinions, and thoughts along with the fact that some behaviors are "human" in nature. That's not something you can actually eliminate.
As for future world population. Major disease (Covid-19 is extremely minor MERS killed about 1/3 of people who got it), technological failures, climate change, and many things could dramatically alter the world population either quickly or over time. Up or down are equally possible.
--
SingleUse
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Well, just saying "your data isn't objective" isn't that strong of an argument. I have real data from which falsifiable hypotheses can be made (and have been made in the past - almost all of them were correct). The data that I am referring to is, for example, computing power value (calculations per second per modern-day dollar) over time and key historical events over time. Both of these variables have followed an exponential trajectory long before Moore's Law was formulated (or was in effect). Feel free to explain what you feel is not objective about these data.
You having the same thoughts as me 40 years ago isn't really convincing, either. If I had to guess, I'd say you probably had these thoughts not because they were logical but because they sounded cool. This is probably also why you feel that "life has [proven you wrong]", even if it hasn't - some of the things that you naively expected to happen didn't happen, so you decided to abandon the entire idea of exponential progress and/or a bright future for humanity altogether. Same reason why so many atheists become believers, really. But even if that wasn't the case for you, personal anecdotes don't constitute a strong argument either way.
I still don't really see what societal issues you are talking about. Could you be more concrete? Since you didn't give me a specific example, let me disprove at least the statement that "technological solutions do not work for societal issues": solitude (not to be confused with "loneliness") was a societal issue that has all but been solved by the internet and smartphones. And, to address your last concern in the paragraph, I do appreciate that people are bound to have differing opinions and thoughts and interests, but: when you are in a world where anything that you desire you receive on-demand - this includes psychological preferences - the word "issue" itself becomes a practical impossibility (again, save for a few areas like exploration of real-world space, philosophical problems, and stuff like that).
Interesting. I don't think this is a mainstream opinion, though. Diseases have existed all throughout history and were actually much deadlier in the past due to inferior medicine. Climate change may reduce the population significantly, I do agree - although this may be balanced out by natural population growth. I don't think it's likely that global population will drop 800% in the foreseeable future - once again, considering global catastrophes like a nuclear war don't take place.