do we deserve to perish in a nuclear holocaust?

Post Reply New Topic

Yeah if I couldn't argue I'd probably take a tire iron and beat the shit out of someone

Why in the world would I wish that advances would slow down? I am merely judging from past experience and that indicates that the first stage of the development of any technology shows rapid and radical advance as a new area offers many unfamiliar possibilities. No doubt the computational capabilities of nanocircuitry does indicate extraordinary possibilities but to assume that those possibilities would somehow only be embodied in robots is narrow viewed to the extreme. As humanity examines the possibilities of incorporating nanocircuitry into organic systems it is extremely dubtful that humans would permit themselves to be excluded from the advances. The melding of organics into new advances in information technology would certainly make some remarkable changes in human physiology without the necessity of shedding totally the extremely sophisticated energy and material systems developed in the evolution of life. The brutal concept that it necessitates a stupid nuclear war to revise the nature of life on Earth is, to say the least, naive and perhaps, as other posts have indicated, motivated by attitudes alien to mere technology. I will not speculate on that as it is not of interest to me and surely a distraction to the fascinating speculation as to how humanity must necessarily change to encompass the technology arising, not out of only robotic technology but also the marked advances in genetic understanding and the current excitement of self generating nanocircuitry. The variations and integrations of these multidiscipline technologies will surely generate enough interest in where we go from here without exulting in the monstrous stupidities now driving much of the leadership of the world and envisioning that the only way out is mass extermination.

There are several factors here. One of the most important is the unpredictability of the future. The assumption of a smooth development curve, either linear or geometric, is very tricky. Early in the development of the computer IBM experts predicted that six or seven computers were all that were necessary for the needs of the world. I remember when IBM ridiculed the Apple II back in the 1970's as a silly toy and finally put out a highly inferior model themselves before they realized the potential of the market.
A compact nuclear power supply has been a dream ever since Einstein proclaimed E=MC^2 and atomic power is still expensive, dangerous, bulky, and extremely messy and very environmentally unfriendly in its totality. Like fusion power it is always about 30 to 50 years in the future and likely to remain there. But, you never know. The mismanagement of the current fission units with their accidents and secretive policies of not revealing dangerous mistakes and unwise economic maintenance does not make the whole business very reassuring.
Economically robotics seems to be progressing nicely as long as the parties in power control the means of production and perhaps, eventually, will efficiently replace all the sweat shops, child and slave labor groups etc. that are lowering the wage scales throughout the world. The promised elevation of the quality of work in the West does not seem to be realized as skilled people are being pushed into low paying service jobs as skilled work moves to the Far East and it becomes very evident that there is no lack of talent in those populations. Strangely large corporations do not seem to make the connection that if they pay their workers less they may temporarily gain in competitive costs but also lose greatly in the slightly longer run in having a reduced market to purchase their output. Very efficient automatic production not only changes the whole labor management environment, it radically undermines the capability of consumers to purchase output and makes the economic gains a destructive weapon against the whole money system. Insofar as robotics is concerned the entire replacement of a major part of the work force by robots could only lead to Luddite revolts on a massive scale that might upset or destroy entire social systems and set robotics back totally. Military robots are another matter but essentially governments have to provide for humanity, not robots and I have no idea where that will end up.

In essence, a very successful robotic system will totally upset human social affairs through its rendering of current economic systems as completely wrong headed and civilization may well be headed for chaos and self destruction without the necessity of an atomic armageddon.

The early concept of huge safe nuclear power in tiny containers which are a basic necessity for efficient robots and other mechanical equipment freed from dependence upon continual renewal from very temporary and weak sources still remains a dream and a very remote but real possibility. It's still science-fiction.

To a great degree I sympathize with your disdain and horror of humanity and its long and current history of brutality and stupidity but I suspect even you must detect within humanity great possibilities in a positive direction. I have a hunch that a total transition to robotics will merely duplicate much of the waste and destruction of human history in a different medium that is not quite so attuned to the flux of energy and matter that produced humanity and it seems to me that a meld of the two approaches would be far more successful than a total discarding of humanity but that requires a radical transformation which may or may not take place. In anycase, it will involve conflicts of its own nature that, considering past history, will be long and cruel and perhaps not successful.

I've seen the fern thing which only indicates that the pattern has a mathematical basis. But all things have a mathematical basis. Robots don't need nuclear power, true, but it sure as hell would be more convenient that copulating every couple of hours with an electrical system.

The concept that machines are cold and humans are warm or hot is a pure fantasy based on human standards. Viewed from a neutral stance humans are equally cold and the mayhem that humans create and disseminate derives from totally cold internal calculations that most frequently neglect points that machines are equally capable of misinterpreting. Machines will no doubt destroy each other in stupid and useless conflicts as easily as humans and if they are given in their programs "warmth" they no doubt will behave appropriately. Humans are just a different variety of machine.

If these robots will be there to stay on earth, they need the mechanisms to sustain themselves. If their metals or whatever materials oxidate or wear off, they need some mechanism to renew themselves or recycle or reproduce. So each individual robot has a self-interest in maintaining itself. If each robot does not have this egoism, they would not survive.

If robots are given the capabilities to sustain themselves they probably will. And when one group of robots nails down an essential material or component for survival there will no doubt be some motivation for conflict from another robot group to take it away. The one outstanding characteristic robots have is that they can think and react faster so the old history of conflict and destruction might, in a robot civilization, take place faster and might be even more destructive.

The term genocide is usually applied to the elimination of a specific minority, usually for the satisfaction of rabid politicians who are in the market to control a national majority. The generalized destruction of entire nations or species, which DNForest seems to favor is much more democratic and more in the spirit of restoring some sort of balance to the number and variety of all life at the cost of indiscriminate murder of much of his (her?) own species and should be regarded as psychopathic homicide or mass murder, seemingly for the satisfaction of the pure lust to kill with little expectation of any long term benificial effects.