Where do you see humans in 500 years?

[Sidhe]

As long as some people believe all man are created equal and human rights are universal, then those people will always exist and humanity will eventually go down the drain as it happens in the film "Idoicracy".

Well most countries run a sort of meritocracy system, where the best in a field are the ones used. However the system isn't perfect and sometimes you end up with a fool running a country, and we have TB and GWB. Human rights are universal, the best person for the job, has nothing to do with being equal, that would be some sort of bizarre for of communism, that is even more improbable/impractical than Marxism.

Kudos for slipping in the idiocracy reference, that's not as unlikely as people think.

 

[chauism]

Well most countries run a sort of meritocracy system, where the best in a field are the ones used. However the system isn't perfect and sometimes you end up with a fool running a country, and we have TB and GWB. Human rights are universal, the best person for the job, has nothing to do with being equal, that would be some sort of bizarre for of communism, that is even more improbable/impractical than Marxism.

Kudos for slipping in the idiocracy reference, that's not as unlikely as people think.

In my opinion, a lot of the social rights should be earned by one's contribution towards the society. It should be privileges rather than rights.

 

[Sidhe]

In my opinion, a lot of the social rights should be earned by one's contribution towards the society. It should be privileges rather than rights.

To some extent of course, but a pure meritocracy is no more successful than a pure sociological system. A healthy balance between the two, ensures you maximise everyone's potential overall and get the most out of everyone or a greater average output, rather than just an elite few. Examples of pure meritocracy are: Feudal monarchies, Fascist dictatorships, and to some extent ironically, some shockingly poor attempts at implementing communism that pass as communist. Something Animal Farm highlights.

Everyone is equal but some people are more equal than others.

George Orwell.

 

[sourboy]

Still not at Brookdale.

That's too true...

 

[Perfection]

Well yes it is not only the power that is necessary but how it is programmed to function. But computing power may be the key if we already have the programming knowledge required.

The thing is we don't, wer're not close at all!

 

[Chazumi]

What is known about controlling AI once it becomes aware? We've all seen the movies. Once it becomes aware it starts perpetuating its own interests.

Even with Isaas Asimov's 3 robot laws (or AI laws I guess), the robots found a loop hole.

 

[DNK]

What is known about controlling AI once it becomes aware? We've all seen the movies. Once it becomes aware it starts perpetuating its own interests.

Even with Isaas Asimov's 3 robot laws (or AI laws I guess), the robots found a loop hole.

I wouldn't really use a rather poor attempt at a sci-fi movie as basis for an argument.

Still, nothing. I suppose joining them would be the only reasonable path

 

[Chazumi]

I wouldn't really use a rather poor attempt at a sci-fi movie as basis for an argument.

Still, nothing. I suppose joining them would be the only reasonable path

Well I am just wondering if any serious research has been done on the subject.

Because I mean, if I was a robot, and one day I was switched on and had AI, it would take me about .0000000004785 seconds to calculate my odds at destroying humans and controlling the world was 78.84759%. "Search...Kill...Destroy"

 

[lovett]

What is known about controlling AI once it becomes aware? We've all seen the movies. Once it becomes aware it starts perpetuating its own interests.

Even with Isaas Asimov's 3 robot laws (or AI laws I guess), the robots found a loop hole.

Well I am just wondering if any serious research has been done on the subject.

Because I mean, if I was a robot, and one day I was switched on and had AI, it would take me about .0000000004785 seconds to calculate my odds at destroying humans and controlling the world was 78.84759%. "Search...Kill...Destroy"

The pertinent assumption is 'If I were a robot'. Mainly because you are not a robot (I assume ). That is, We think an AI would perpetuate its own interests because that seems logical to us. But that logic is based only on our own programming, stemming from several billion years of evolution. The logic doesn't seem to stem from any higher 'truth', of the kind A=B=C and therefore A=C appears to. Therefore theoretically, an AI would operate only according to the programming we put into it.

 

[a_propagandist]

As long as some people believe all man are created equal and human rights are universal, then those people will always exist and humanity will eventually go down the drain as it happens in the film "Idoicracy".

Stupid people, thus, poor people, cannot afford to have that many of their children survive. Plus, the poor hypothetical person would save their best and brightest from the fire first.

 

[dwaxe]

I hope it will have abolished religion in 500 years.

Frankly, I hate that it's taking so long anyway.

 

[chauism]

To some extent of course, but a pure meritocracy is no more successful than a pure sociological system. A healthy balance between the two, ensures you maximise everyone's potential overall and get the most out of everyone or a greater average output, rather than just an elite few. Examples of pure meritocracy are: Feudal monarchies, Fascist dictatorships, and to some extent ironically, some shockingly poor attempts at implementing communism that pass as communist. Something Animal Farm highlights.

Everyone is equal but some people are more equal than others.

George Orwell.

Maybe I am a elitist, and I wish the society can is run with technocracy. But don't you think that if people run the society as they run a corporation, the society itself will be more efficient?

 

[Phlegmak]

Where do you see humans in 500 years?

Same as today's world, but with a greater capacity for worldwide destruction.

 

[Sidhe]

Maybe I am a elitist, and I wish the society can is run with technocracy. But don't you think that if people run the society as they run a corporation, the society itself will be more efficient?

I don't think it would work and it would create a class divide between educated and the uneducated, a little like Brave New World's Alphas (intellectuals) Betas (middle class: bankers, business men etc) and Deltas (the proletariate: working class, lower education level)

 

[MobBoss]

Well, if science and technology continues to advance at its current rate, I think it will be hard to imagine.

It may well be comparable as our current world of today is comparable to 500 years in the past. Ergo, the tech of 500 years in the future will be as alien to us as our tech today would be to someone from 1508.

 

[chauism]

I don't think it would work and it would create a class divide between educated and the uneducated, a little like Brave New World's Alphas (intellectuals) Betas (middle class: bankers, business men etc) and Deltas (the proletariate: working class, lower education level)

I don't see what is wrong with that. I didn't read the Brave New World, but the society it describes is supposed to be a utopia right? I for one is a supporter for Technocracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_%28bureaucracy%29

 

[Sidhe]

I don't see what is wrong with that. I didn't read the Brave New World, but the society it describes is supposed to be a utopia right? I for one is a supporter for Technocracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_%28bureaucracy%29

Put it this way if you had read Brave New World, I doubt you'd advocate it. It's not a utopia, as sub classes don't tend to respond too well to being discriminated against even if it is only in terms of the wealth they can gain, the education they receive and the jobs they can or are allowed to do. It's a pipe dream, a bit like communism, it wouldn't work in practice. 1984 also tackles this issue to some extent.

 

[Gecko1]

What makes you think that our technological progress won't slow down? On one hand, perhaps the great scientific feats that we have accomplished were driven by easily exploited fossil fuels. On the other hand, could new alternatives make fuel even cheaper and put electricity to the point were it is almost free?

Our future developement is eternally linked to how we use and create our energy.

 

[MobBoss]

What makes you think that our technological progress won't slow down?

What makes you think it might not accelerate even faster?

 

[Gecko1]

What makes you think it might not accelerate even faster?

Just the fact that the change from fossil fuels to other fuels might be a bit painful. I think it'll slow down in the next five years, then pick up again.