The Singularity

What about the possibility of an indenfinitely long organic life through
cellular regeneration using future nanotechnologies. Is that of any
interest? Would a space based habitat wish to instill a
superintelligence (organic or electronic) to facilitate its construction
and operation?

> We may be atavistic and selfish about it, but I think most of us are
> interested in human beings exploring and populating the universe, not
> machines with the theoretical descendants of human brains. And, as
> much as Teilhard de Chardin made the melding of all intelligence on
> the planet sound dreamy and attractive, the good old life force
> present in individual living creatures still seems like the dominant
> motivation on this planet. If the planet and its inhabitants is going
> to be saved, we had better start developing the advanced modes of
> thinking that Paul suggests.
>
> [mailto:ssi_list@... On Behalf Of Paul D.
> Fernhout
>
> > Since the board has been relatively quiet the past week or
> so I thought
> > I would take the opportunity to solicit opinions on the
> "singularity",
> > as applied to the accelerating rate of technology
> development.
> >
> > http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?m=1
> >
> > If something like the "singularity" were to occur, what
> was be in
> > potential impact on the future development of orbiting
> habitats?
>
> Kurzweil is a clever and creative guy, and says much of
> interest --
> including the notion that change is happening in such a way
> as the next
> hundred years may seem like thousands of years of change
> compared to the
> last hundred years. While I agree with much of the thinking
> behind the
> notion of a singularity (exponential growth in computing
> value per dollar,
> emergence of AIs changing the landscape of the economy and
> society),
> Kurzweil specifically makes a classic error of thinking
> human intelligence
> is beyond evolution. To elaborate, he bases a lot of his
> optimism on the
> notion of human brains being downloadable into some
> futuristic network,
> then proceeds to ignore the evolutionary consequences. For
> example, he
> ignores the possibility that parasitic AI processes that
> will overwrite
> sluggish human intelligences not well adapted for network
> living.
> (Remember, more than 90% of species in the ecology are
> parasitic.) Or
> another way to look at it is, why should the network
> tolerate huge clunky
> programs wandering around just because they have some
> ancient link to
> (likely long since dead) meat-space brains? I'm not saying
> there aren't
> ways to approach those issues, just that Kurzweil seems to
> ignore them (at
> least as of a few years ago), and I think does so to his own
> peril if the
> rest of what he says is true.
>
> One issue of the singularity I disagree with is that I
> personally think
> large corporations or large bureaucracies function as a form
> of AI (though
> made up of human parts, with people often acting mainly like
> amoral
> transistors in that context). So, I think what we have seen
> in the world
> over the last fifty years is already an example of AIs at
> work. This may
> be true even for a few hundred years before that with the
> various East
> India type exploitation companies, and perhaps even a few
> thousand if you
> see kingdoms as AIs -- ahistory of AI behavior including
> slavery and the
> decimation of various native peoples including in the
> Americas. It's most
> often not a pretty picture -- and what good comes from it is
> generally
> despite the system.
>
> NASA is a prime example -- it spent a hundred billion
> dollars for a space
> station, more than O'Neill wanted for habitats, and really
> has not much to
> show for it in terms of realizing positive value for
> humanity as opposed
> to just perpetuating itself. Sure, some minor successes, but
> a hundred
> billion dollars worth? Langdon Winner in his book
> "Autonomous Technology"
> talks about "Reverse adaptation" where large bureaucracies
> change their
> environment to create needs for their continued existence.
> There are those
> few at NASA who do space settlement work anyway (which
> should IMHO be
> NASA's main mission), but it is important to recognize that
> the dynamics
> of the NASA AI as it were have to do with its own
> perpetuation and
> survival -- not directly producing anything of value for
> humanity. I could
> pick on other AI bureaucracies which are worse as far as
> human survival
> (e.g. Enron, FEMA(?), Microsoft, the US Military), but NASA
> seemed more
> topical for this list.
>
> And to head off the stock reply of -- corporations are made
> of people so
> they serve human ends -- I can only point to something like
> the Nazi
> bureaucracy, which internally was very polite and kept
> accurate records,
> yet did horrendous things, where the best one could do from
> inside was a
> bit of foot dragging lest one be accused of being
> unpatriotic or worse and
> be killed. In the case of any modern large public (US)
> corporation, any
> executive who talks about doing anything except pursuing the
> most short
> term profit maximization is going to be fired. Any employee
> who does not
> substantially fit their role will also be, at best, fired.
> So, the system
> functions with its own dynamics despite the individual
> desires or ethics
> of the players. Changing such a system to direct it to more
> humane ends is
> a very complex problem. I'm not saying all bureaucracies are
> actively
> hostile to humanity -- just that they tend to be at best
> indifferent while
> defining the landscape in which humans need to carve out a
> survival niche.
>
> And yes, I'm sure a bunch of free market people will chime
> in on how
> productive such amoral systems can be -- which is part of
> the chorus that
> keeps that whole system going. To head that off, I would
> cite
> John Maynard Keynes himself:
> http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes
> "For at least another hundred years we must pretend to
> ourselves and to
> every one that fair is foul and foul is fair; for foul is
> useful and fair
> is not. Avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods
> for a little
> longer still." from: "The Future", Essays in Persuasion
> (1931) Ch. 5
>
> Well, in Kurzweil's accelerate time frame, it has been much
> longer than a
> hundred years in accelerated time units since 1931, so
> perhaps, if humans
> are to survive, the time is now for new (and perhaps more
> ethical or
> inclusive) ways of doing things. I hope the AIs of the
> future have more
> humane ethics than these bureaucratic AIs of the past.
>
> One other aspect of the singularity and technological change
> -- it would
> not take much more than a self-replicating robot with the
> intelligence and
> size of a cockroach to spell the end of humanity (e.g. how
> would you
> manage to keep them out of your home and from killing you in
> your sleep by
> drilling into your ear canal?) So, there is no guarantee
> making
> self-replicating AIs will lead to space settlements.
> Further, developing
> space settlements without first solving many problems back
> hear on Earth
> will still leave the Earth as a place that generates violent
> technologies
> which might overwhelm space settlements (even
> self-replicating ones).
> There are a lot of potential paths, but the one of an elite
> in space with
> a warlike and envious Earth with continuing resource
> conflicts I do not
> think is a stable one. As Bucky Fuller wrote, whether it
> will be "Utopia
> Or Oblivion" will be touch and go up to the end. And clearly
> better
> computers (and even AIs) and advanced technology will play a
> big role in
> making space settlements easier to do -- and once the reach
> the level of
> only costing a billion dollars or so to start (like
> launching one
> self-replicating seed) then they are at the level where some
> rich
> individuals can do them as a hobby or a spiritual pursuit.
>
> Still, do I think the potential negative consequences of the
> singularity
> for humanity is yet another good reason for developing space
> settlements?
> Yes I do. Though not to such a high degree that we should
> unduly reduce
> trying to minimize its negative impacts by making the Earth
> a better place
> at the same time (and I think the two are compatible, both
> helped by
> realizing Bucky Fuller's "Design Science" ideals).
>
> A bit rambling, but all I have time for. :-)
>
> --Paul Fernhout
>
education

History of space My first Space exploration