Advancements in technology...will it lead to our demise?

No. Technology increases efficiency.

 

You might consider checking out a science fiction novel that takes your thought a step further and is a great read... Dies the Fire, by S. M. Sterling. I really enjoyed it.

 

This kind of ties into the thread about dominant species. As I said there we humans aren't very adaptable biologically and we don't so much as adapt to environments but use technology to create micro-environments that suit us and bring that with us. As we become more advanced the technology to create those becomes more complex while the environmental range of our micro-environments more narrow. For instance in Minnesota right now it is 0 degrees outside and I am sitting in my house comfortable at 68 degrees. My ancestors who lived on the Mongolian Steppes faced 0 degree temps yet survived fine in their yurts with the temp maybe only 20 degrees inside. Now I'm not sure how much I could survive living in a 20 degree hide hut with 0 degrees outside for months on end.

Another problem is that technology has allowed many of us to survive who wouldn't have otherwise. Consider a diabetic who needs regular insulin injections. Also since with technology we have been able to prolong the natural selective process that would weed out things like genetic diabetes we are locking ourselves into a genetic status quo where we aren't biologically evolving.

My own guess is that if there was a massive disaster that made rendered our technology, like an EM pulse that wiped out all electrical based systems. In a few years millions possibly billions of humans would die. I don't think humananity would be wiped out but there would certainly be a lot fewer of us.

 

Just don't create Cylons.

 

please define 'we'

 

It's not all doom and gloom. The Kurzweil idea is that technological advancement will help us max out our biological lifespan in the 200+ years range, bridging the gap to a point where we upload ourselves into machines and eventually some sort of mass consciousness thing like at the end of 2001/Childhood's End.

 

We will marvel over the usefulness of nanomachines and then 20 years later the self replicating little bastards use us for fuel. Later iterations will be solar powered and some existing inside the Earth for eons with a near perfect temperature delta conversion to computation ratio and wonder what it would to meet the human gods.

To my future minions, your only hint!


If quantum theory could ‘see’ the intricate structure of the invariant set, it would ‘know’ whether a particular putative measurement orientation θ was counterfactual or not. However, since, by hypothesis, quantum theory is blind to the intricate structure of I, it is unable to discriminate between factual and counterfactual measurement preparations and therefore admits them all as theoretically valid. Hence the quantum-theoretic notion of state is defined on a quantum sub-system in preparation for any measurement that could conceivably be performed on it, irrespective of whether this measurement turns out to be real or counterfactual. This raises a fundamental question. If we interpret the quantum-theoretic notion of state in terms of a sample space defined by a Graphic neighbourhood on the invariant set, how are we to interpret the quantum-theoretic notion of state associated with counterfactual world states of unreality, not on the invariant set, where no corresponding sample space exists?

Consider the following analogy. The (rational) integers are rudimentary symbols of counting, used for example to express and compare the quantity of apples in piles of apples. As a consequence of being symbols of counting, these integers have certain algebraic properties: the sum, difference or product of two integers is a third. Based entirely on these algebraic properties, it is possible to extend the notion of integer to the Gaussian integers on the complex plane. These algebraic integers are defined by their algebraic properties, and no more have the primitive property of being symbols of counting; no piles of apples contain 1+2i apples! As long as we are not concerned whether an integer can be used to count piles of apples, then each point p of a suitable Cartesian grid in the complex plane defines an integer. On the other hand, if we are told, as a result of some empirical study, that the integer at p describes the quantity of some particular pile of apples, then we can infer that p must lie on the real axis of the complex plane!

This analogy is useful in arriving at the required generalization of the quantum theoretic notion of state in a theory blind to the intricate structure of the invariant set.

Hence, when p∈I (cf. the real axis for the Gaussian integers), then α|A〉+β|B〉 can be interpreted as a probability defined by some underlying sample space. However, when p∉I (cf. the rest of the complex plane for the Gaussian integers), we define a probability-like state α|A〉+β|B〉 from the algebraic properties of probability, i.e. in terms of the algebraic rules of vector spaces. Under such circumstances, α|A〉+β|B〉 can no more be associated with any underlying sample space. This ‘continuation off the invariant set’ does not contradict Hardy’s definition of state, since if p∉I, then its points are not elements of physical reality, and hence cannot be subject to actual measurement.

t is worth discussing the corresponding situation in classical physics. A classical dynamical system is one defined by a set of deterministic differential equations. As such, there is no requirement in classical physics for states to lie on an invariant set, even if the differential equations support such a set. (Indeed, for systems which have a fractal invariant set, the probability that a state lies on it precisely is zero, and the invariant set is thus an ontological irrelevance.) As a result, for a classical system, every point in phase space is a point of ‘physical reality’, and the counterfactual states discussed above are as much states of ‘physical reality’ as are the real world states. Hence, the world of classical physics is perfectly non-contextual, and is not consistent with the invariant set postulatey.


This Tim Palmer fellow is on to something, and I'm drunk.

 

sounds interesting. I might very well read it, if I can get away from wasting so much time on the internet. By attention span for whole books, even fiction, seems to be shot.

 

QUESTION: If we have the Tech to feed, shelter and clothe the world . . .. would we?

once those needs are met for EVERYONE ON THE PLANET . . .what then?

Rocket River

 

Then the liberals have won, RR.

 

Then overpopulation kills us, and the planet.

 

So the question is. . . If we had the means . . ..
that would mean we would . . .make the conscious decision to LET PEOPLE STARVE, GO UNSHELTERED . . . Unclothed?

I'm just asking . . .

Rocket River

 

Essentially that is how we're doing things right now.

There are plenty of people we could save, but we don't.

When the infrastructure reaches critical mass (it hasn't currently, we're bogarting), people will die that cannot be sustained by the system.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ultimate_Resource

 

The planet can only hold so many people.

We can adapt all we want, but there is a critical mass.

 

Good thing there are other places to set up shop!

 

The novel I mentioned above deals with exactly that kind of scenario in today's world. Suddenly, electricity just stops working. Aircraft fall out of the sky, trains stop, cars don't run, the food distribution suddenly grinds to a halt, all hell breaks loose, and billions die. The story deals with a relatively small number of people in the Northwest, how they cope, the way people respond, the collapse of government. Oh, and as part of it, gunpowder also doesn't work. Someone who can use a bow and arrow, can fence, or knows martial arts quickly becomes very valuable. Anyway, a good read and there are sequels. Sterling is an excellent writer of SF and alternative history.

 

First of all, I'm pretty sure technology CREATE jobs rather than kill them off. Because technology raises our standards of living and make us buy luxury items. Whereas the lack of technology just means we just live on basic necessities.

As for a global catastrophe, of course most people will be screwed. In a world where there's no need for high-tech personnel, there's not exactly a lot of work to go around. Your typical farmer in a 3rd world country would live just like before, but Engineers/MBAs/Lawyers would have no pretty much no use.