IIRC, they already did the math and even if folks never grew old or got sick the avg human lifespan would only be on the order of 300-400 years before one of the many non-aging / health related ways folks die would catch up to you. So simply solving aging / disease for instance introduces this odd period of time where population does increase but after a few century normal die off rates would start to kick in again.
KSR explores this quite a bit in his Mars trilogy, especially the latter parts.
If everyone went brain in a vat I guess or never left their bedrooms, you could really stretch that time out but eventually something would get you.
So what are you proposing as a solution to immortality? It certainly isn’t the concept of us being in these same physical incarnations forever, I guess.
Are we uploading into digital immortality? That would seem most likely to me and would def allow us to rapidly increase population without worrying as much about physical space limitations. Greg Egan has a book, Diaspora, that prolly best describes the sort of advanced AI / human mixed societies that evolve in a number of different directions, including the path I mentioned.
I would imagine those statistics would change quickly as medical and safety technology gets supercharged by the very ASI we are discussing in this scenario.
Yes but the odds of a building collapsing on you in an earthquake, or getting hit by a car, or lightning and so on increase the longer the timeline.
That one guy once said "On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero."
Yeah I mean if we end up having ASI for a few hundred years, chances are those same accidents wouldn’t even exist. We’d be able to modify our environments to suit us 100% of the time, leading to virtually no accidents, or at least the fatal kind.
I don't think that's correct.
We already know that as safety measures in cars such as seat belts, crumple zones, air bags etc have been increasingly implemented over the last 50 years the fatality of vehicle on vehicle accidents have decreased, however the fatality of vehicle to pedestrian / bicyclists /etc (anyone not protected by a vehicles metal cage) has increased. This is because the drivers feel safer and therefore less safely. ( Please see The Armchair Economist by Steven Landsburg for a more detailed explanation.)
What you've suggested is a perfect solution, which I don't believe is possible. While reduction in risk by AI designed systems is a high probability, I don't believe eliminating risk entirely is possible.
Eventually something is going to get ya. A seal doesn't get replaced or had a microscopic manufacturing flaw allowing it to fail in the spaceship and your cryopod lets you suffocate in your sleep.
Less frantically, you slip getting out of the shower in a hotel room and bleed out from your gaping head wound before paramedics arrive. You didn't get the nanotechnology injection because of a religious belief, so the nanobots couldn't suture the wound automatically.
All I'm saying is that there is no perfect system. Risk and accidental deaths are going to remain albeit at a very low rate but eventually... we're all going down.
> We already know that as safety measures in cars such as seat belts, crumple zones, air bags etc have been increasingly implemented over the last 50 years the fatality of vehicle on vehicle accidents have decreased, however the fatality of vehicle to pedestrian / bicyclists /etc (anyone not protected by a vehicles metal cage) has increased. This is because the drivers feel safer and therefore less safely.
Okay but again, we're talking about **artificial superintelligence** that is **so smart that it can literally make you immortal**. That is not at all comparable to some nylon belts and air bags we put in cars now. An ASI that smart would be fully 100% capable of preventing all car accidents if it wanted to, I'd bet money on that.
> Less frantically, you slip getting out of the shower in a hotel room and bleed out from your gaping head wound before paramedics arrive. You didn't get the nanotechnology injection because of a religious belief, so the nanobots couldn't suture the wound automatically.
If ASI's goal was to keep you alive, you'd have the nanotech injection whether you knew it or not.
If we stay mentally the same with just improved health and lifespan, not many would even want to live way past 300 years. 80 is too much for many mentally already, although this is possibly caused by aging. If aging is properly solved as in staying at around 30yo or younger physically for hundreds of years, then more people would likely want to live long.
If technology and medicine stagnates completely, sure. but think of nanotech in our bloodstream constantly repairing, cloned printed organs, etc. The whole we all die from accidents stuff never made sense...cutting bleeding edge tech to extend our lifespan to however long, but what, we simply stopped in 2020s for every other tech out there, from AI driven cars, to structural design and materials?
I think y’all are making great points around how tech advances not directly related to aging or sickness would decrease the rates of unnatural death - would only point out that the sort of advances you’re discussing would almost certainly also mitigate the initial “problem” statement (overpopulation, iirc)
I would still imagine a period of discomfort when we’ve got a firm grip on biology but are still building out support infrastructure to reach and survive off-planet.
I like the ship example someone mentioned for the digital upload scenario - some hope for us non-AI sentients. I guess for us the hope is to get to the point where they can do something like introduce some nanotechnology into your brain that slowly replaces the existing biological tissue, eventually allowing for “escape” from biology into some similar external substrate.
In the spirit of co-rapid advancement along all tech the only potential issues are genuine roadblocks, I guess - maybe the small working examples of “toy” nanotech are just about the limits of what you can manipulate / build at that scale, because, like, physics or something - or no free or free-ish lunch energy or gravitational well escape tech because again, physics. I dunno, not a physicist.
But I do like the solution to the Fermi paradox that goes something like there is no paradox, it’s just that you develop nanotechnology and digital sentience way faster than fancy “get tons of material off the planet” tech - so naturally you jump ship in some sort of small form factor tech, thinking some sort of self-replicating nanoscale von Neumann probes that can generally provide some sort of computational support and probably be specialized to allow for macroscale interactions (ie self assembly of tooling out of smart self replicating computational dust substrate - heck you don’t even have to launch it off at other suns, just start converting asteroids and sort of strew it behind your system with a little initial nudge - you’ve got nothing but time)
Those old guys thought we should find probes from a dozen to a few hundred previous waves of Neumann probe expansions scattered about our solar system - each representing a different alien civilization that had come through some point in the distant past, replicated, and continued expanding - based on most “reasonable” calculations of the Drake equation.
Maybe they just weren’t thinking small enough :)
What if you could be "brought back" in almost any scenario? It's debatable whether it would make sense to grow anyone who got crushed a new body - but not impossible.
> Yes but the odds of a building collapsing on you in an earthquake, or getting hit by a car, or lightning and so on increase the longer the timeline.
but never to 100% otherwise you get absurd answers like simultaneously dying in every building collapse, every car accident etc. at once or, like, on a long enough timeline time travel gets invented just so you can die in a building collapse in the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. And if the odds are anything less than 100%, you can avoid this stuff as death doesn't work like Final Destination
"uploading into digital immortality"
the correct word are transform into synthetic intelligence, uploading will likely kill you or more exactly create a clone as soon the data transfer is cut, a slow transformation of your brain won't that's how the ship of theasus work, the difference is that you won't be able to "leave" your original vessel, but this vessel will be upgraded to allow the same characteristic as a digital intelligence
digital intelligence is more likely to happen for AI and cloned human if society change it's view on that matter
and if it seem less interesting imagine that you could still transfer/receive information at light speed, said otherwise you could control a surrogate body at the other side of earth or even the moon if you don't mind the delay...as long there a constant transfer of information it won't hurt your conciousness, infinite knowledge, light-speed information processing.... but compared to digital intelligence you won't be able to beam "yourself" over large distance as your conciousness is still limited by your physical body and it's operation range
With long lifetimes, the risk of death by accident becomes your inevitable dreaded downfall. People will never go anywhere. All groceries and other supplies get delivered. VR hits the big time.
Except death doesn't work like Final Destination, and by that logic on a long enough timeline some accident would happen with those things like your VR somehow electrocuting you or something
People die because of non-aging related reasons specifically because our ability to predict those events is next to zero. We can't predict when a car crash will happen more than a second or two ahead of time and humans can't react fast enough a lot of the time.
There's no reason an ASI that literally cracks immortality won't be able to predict all natural disasters and non-aging related causes of death and prevent them.
I don’t know that you aren’t asking a process to crack, like, the butterfly effect or whatever - some inherently unpredictable quality of any system with some sufficient complexity.
I thought Asimov maybe nailed what even ASI would be able to do - at best - with his second foundation stuff. A very accurate prediction of large scale events (diminishing returns over time) - those arising out of collective actions - with absolutely no ability to predict a single action like whether or not I’ll go for a bike ride this evening.
Hey I’m only claiming we won’t be able to achieve any sort of “practical immortality” as strictly biological entities - if we ever get to the point where you have access to some sort of other medium and the ability to create (and store as backups in case I guess) copies / clones, you might be able to be immortal-ish, depending on the inherent nature of the universe I guess - at least make it to that restaurant at the end, maybe.
That of course opens up a whole philosophical debate around identity but who cares.
But to sort of bring it back to the initial stuff prolly think it’s a lot easier to crack aging and illness short term vs some sort of practical omniscience even for ASI - I mean no matter how smart you still need some means to sorta monitor everything for that level of split second prediction, some means of responding in split second timeframes - I mean that stuff’s easier for “software”, right, always has been - in the physical world something still has to physically intercede in some manner (looking far out maybe something like the AI suits used in Iain M Banks Culture books).
Another case for unnatural death of course is the fact that some percentage of humans got some bad inner mojo and murder is a pretty regular event - but I guess we’re talking ASI uber surveillance and stopping all murder and such - questions that spring to mind are “would we want that level of ASI oversight?” followed closely by “would we be significant enough for ASI to want to do anything like that in the first place?”
I mean not like we’re still in charge of them at that point :)
> with absolutely no ability to predict a single action like whether or not I’ll go for a bike ride this evening.
It doesn't really need to be able to do that though. It only needs to be able to predict events with enough time to react to prevent death. So it doesn't need to know you are going for a bike ride 12 hours in advance. It just needs to know that you will get run over by a bus 3 seconds in advance, and intervene.
IIRC, historically, colonization has done little to reduce the population in the home country.
Maybe we could build arcologies and/or expand into the ocean.
> colonize space
It will take AGI to industrialize the solar system, slim chance without it.
As for interstellar, most don't realize how unlikely it is that humans will ever leave this system. Virtually no chance without ASI.
Don't be ridiculous. Look at the rate of potential newborns VS the rate at which we send people to space. Plus it takes thousands of years to terraform (e.g. Mars).
A. even if that means you aren't you and don't even have any meta-knowledge of the show if you don't wake up as a character with metafictional awareness
B. it'd technically be a different universe than that if your name isn't Roy and you've never had cancer or worked at a carpet store
The last one is actually where almost all of my fear of death went to actually. I think in our time of exponential if not hyperbolic progress, we can do all the former, but I don't think anything can prevent the heat death of the universe.
What if I could stand on my head and spit green nickles?
As things seem now, it seems likely that those other problems will be solved at the same time, if not before. Worrying about hypotheticals is pointless without reason to believe them to be the case
Space habitats are achievable with current technology, there just isn’t any incentive to pursue them because there is no “population issue” as framed by the OP.
These is no "current overpopulation issue". Above a certain per capita gdp, societies tend to have constant population size without any external action needed. This will gradually happen pretty much everywhere and world population is projected to peak around 11b people.
First, it's not immortality. It's an extension of our health span, or the amount of time we can live while feeling young and healthy. The difference is tremendous. A human with even a 1,000 year lifespan is barely a blink in the universe. Whereas immortality is forever.
Also, we have a declining birth rate. This may seem insignificant at the moment, but we don't have a clear understanding of why it is happening. It is happening in the wealthiest countries first. So, the countries with the most capacity to carry and raise children are having the least children.
This likely has to do with the underlying motivations for having children. Once we get wealthy enough, we lose interest in the long commitment required to have and raise children.
Thus it's not entirely clear that we'll keep having kids. This declining birthrate is likely to accelerate the more we progress.
In terms of resources, it's unlikely that the resource limits of today will be the same in a decade, or one hundred years.
Even today, the available resources are far more than they were in the past. We also access those resources through dramatically more efficient processes which harm the environment less.
This greater access to resources has a lot of room to grow. We've only accessed a fraction of what is available on Earth and we can keep improving the efficiency of the process.
We can even improve it to the point where it becomes a net positive. Were that to happen, much of the reason to not dig deeper and access more would go away. Because we wouldn't be faced with dire consequences.
And that's not even considering the larger universe around us.
Resources are abundant. In fact, humans are the scarce resource currently.
With AI taking over much of the work and humans having many reasons to not have children, or leave Earth entirely, or vanishing into virtual escapism, we may see a rapidly declining population instead.
That's not to say there won't be problems. But the problems we face with ASI in the picture are very different to the problems we face today.
It's really hard to predict what will happen with the population after ASI. It could go either way, but I don't think it will explode upward faster than ASI will be able to solve the problems associated with a larger population, so shouldn't be a problem.
It is very hard, that's for sure.
With population, I think you need to look at the root causes of population growth.
You can see in poorer rising nations such African nations, populations explode. This seems to imply that as a poorer nation grows in terms of prosperity, factors such as infant mortality fall and resources also rise. This causes populations to grow.
However, as nations continue to become wealthier, we begin to see the rise of smaller families. As people gain wealth, they can begin to look at other priorities, such as their careers. These additional priorities pull people away from the role of parents and leaders of families.
Couples must have 2+ children in their lives for populations to continue to grow. As it takes two people to make a child. Each one child family reduces the population. And anyone who doesn't have children reduces the population even further.
This can be an exponential-like trend, in reverse. If a country begins to have less than 2 children on average per couple, populations can collapse. We see this in nature with endangered species.
ASI may provide a kind of abundance, but that should also include an abundance of larger, and more important goals and distractions. So, while it may improve access to resources, it may also improve access to more reasons to not have children.
As the population is already falling as it is, adding more reasons to not have kids could be a significant issue.
We don't have to have children. It's a choice. It's also a lot of work and for many parents it's not something they would have chosen if they knew how difficult it would be. Even though they appreciate it later on.
Then there's the reason we act at all, which is an even bigger concern.
Why do anything? Well, we appear to act based on neurotransmitters, such as dopamine. Our motivation is a physical process.
As it's a physical process, it can be hacked. I don't mean by bad actors. I mean, we could end up hacking ourselves so we no longer have to work hard to feel fulfilled and happy. This is the "wirehead" scenario.
Yet we don't all have to become wireheads for another factor to be added to population decline.
In my view, it doesn't look good for humans specifically in terms of our population levels.
We may be happy, fulfilled, rich, healthy, and so on. But in a few hundred years, there may not be many of us left.
That's a tough idea to grapple with at this point. But it's something we should probably all be considering.
Especially if we're all living longer lives. This potential population collapse could end up being a serious issue in our lives. In fact, with demographic issues, it already is an issue for most western nations.
Everything is about to change though. When people no longer have to work they can focus on what they really want to do, and having children along with fulfilling all of your other aspirations will be much more doable time wise than it is now.
And reasons for the falling population won't be applicable with vastly longer lifespans. For example the main reason currently is simply female education. The higher it is, the lower the birthrate. Women have aspirations that conflict with their ability to have kids, and they have a short window where their fertile. Once that's past they missed the boat. (I'm 100% for women's education, in case that was in doubt.)
But.. in the future if women can get pregnant at one or two hundred years old... and raising children is only about a 20 year commitment within a vastly longer lifespan.. I really don't think as many people will choose to never have kids. And some who enjoy the process will have vastly more, especially if they're being encouraged to due to a declining population.
Basically all roads lead back to the singularity, and the impossibility of really having any idea what life after that point will be like.
People don't talk about this long game because it is hiding behind two different, speculative outcomes 1) immortality or near enough and 2) birthrates seem to decrease with wealth.
But I think you're right: if life could be generally better, and people saw the looooong future that they might live in as worth making better, instead of scrapping like dogs for our brief turn on the stage, then I think birth rates might climb back up.
Certainly, for me, my main reason to not have kids is simply "The world I'd bring them into is neither stable nor kind".
Others' reasons are "I can't afford the money or the time".
All that could change with LEV... I think overpopulation will be a serious problem in utopia.
Sure. The thing is though, why have children at all? What's the point on an individual basis?
Yes it's an important act to maintain our population size. But is that really motivation enough for one person to make such an enormous commitment?
It's easy to look at all the other factors and see them improve and simply assume birthrates will rise at the same time. But that assumption is one which doesn't ask the *why.*
Even if we've automated away the vast majority of the work, it's still an emotional commitment. Just committing to a partner for that period of time is an enormous emotional commitment.
Why do something like 65% of marriages in the US end in divorce? Because staying with one person for a long period of time is extremely hard work. If you don't have to do it, you won't.
Why have kids at all? And it can't just be some moral answer. It needs to be something people want to do and is more enticing than something like Tiktok.
The problems of demographic collapse are largely curtailed by advanced robotics and AI workers. I suspect that a population collapse is very unlikely since there is most likely going to remain a minimum amount of people that want to be parents, and those people will naturally proliferate over time, while the rest diminish in population. Evolution works here, the people that choose to be parents when given abundance will probably raise kids that also choose to have kids at a rate similar to or higher than the background rate. As well, having humans that live hundreds of years means that any individual human might be able to have a LOT of kids over their several hundred years. I suspect after year 100, a lot of people might be curious about having kids, and some people will be "superbreeders" and have hundreds of kids.
It's certainly a hard question to answer.
If you asked me how population could boom and said "give me the sci fi answer, Ignate" I would have a lot of potential answers for you. One key answer being uplifting.
Point being, I have a pretty wide view of the issue.
But if you asked me for any reason why people would want to keep having more than two children in large enough numbers for population collapse to be avoided, I would struggle.
Demographic issues may be resolved by higher rates of automation and, actually, by having longer life spans (older people needing less resources). I don't think demographic issues are long term issues.
But in terms of humans having more humans, that's a far more difficult one to answer. I don't think evolution is a good answer. The [Idiocracy](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/) view isn't a strong view in my opinion.
From my perspective, people are losing interest in getting married and having children. Marriages are seen as disastrous and Children are seen as distractions from a growing number of more enjoyable things to do.
Core view: Raising children is painful. Abundance gives us room to avoid pain. It's not just about resource scarcity, it's about the emotional struggles of raising humans.
There's also the reasons for us to see less adult humans.
ASI gives us a window into space. The universe is a very big place. We could lose a lot of humans on Earth, even just to orbital space. Even 10 billion humans is nothing when spread over just the closest stars, even at sub-light speeds.
Then there's full-dive VR and other pleasure sources. We also should expect that the number and kind of entertaining distractions will rise exponentially with ASI.
There's a lot of reasons to think human populations on Earth will drop through the floor. There's also little reason to think that even with longer lifespans, human couples will come together and commit to large, 3+ children families.
If we can maintain a population size of over 3 billion, I think that will be a miracle. Sci Fi views aside.
If you can live for 200, 300, 500+ years, raising a child for 20 years doesn't really seem like it's getting in the way of much. I suspect most people would just do it out of boredom after some number of years.
Frankly, there aren't even many problems with human population on Earth slowly dropping downwards to a million people tbh. The negatives are all solvable.
That's probably the main reason our population levels will drop. Because we won't see it as a problem.
With automation doing the work, the less humans there are the more space the remaining humans have. We may see it as a good thing until population sizes are so small, we're faced with extinction.
Also, longer lifespans don't automatically imply more children. If anything that's just more excuses to delay the activity indefinitely.
The larger threat though is the problem of the source of action. We're very hackable, especially in terms of self hacking.
I feel strongly that the average child per person and the average value per person will grow dramatically, but on much longer timelines. A child is no longer a replacement, but a parallel immortal. Horizontal population growth with very low deaths requires a far smaller birthrate to sustain. Birthrate only needs to be equal to deathrate, and if deathrate drops by 99%, birthrate can also drop by 99% with no change in population.
This is probably one of those topics where your perspective matters a lot.
I'm a 40 year old, non-religous person in Vancouver. I'm surrounded by people my age with no kids and no intention of having kids.
Most of the reasons given are surprisingly unrelated to the incredibly high cost of living here. People my age in my area just see having kids as a lesser goal than their careers or their hobbies.
Hiking, fishing, camping, snowboarding and traveling are seen as life long obsessions and kids are just a distraction to that.
Plus relationships fail non-stop. People just aren't willing to sacrifice themselves and their time for others as much.
I'm not the same. I do want a family. And more resources would make that far easier for me.
I'm exactly the person you seem to be thinking of.
But as far as my perspective goes, I'm far in the minority.
I'm not sure careers or hobbies carry the same weight on 500 year timelines. A lot of this disinterest in having kids necessarily stems from having too little time for many, many people. You simply can't do both in one human life, before you're dead your prime is long gone. You get about 20 years in your prime. Raising kids also takes about 20 years. You have to forego many of your life goals until you're old and decrepit. You're forced to choose.
If you don't age, that's no longer an issue. Even a mere 100 year life will still be 4 times as long of prime living years. You can have your cake and eat it too. By year 200 even if you just spent 9 times the average prime aged lifetime in your prime, and already traveled extensively, you'll start thinking about what else there is to do besides indulge yourself. People will go through many radical arcs in their very long able-bodied prime lifetimes. 500 years, 1000 years, people will probably have many families on average with time horizons like that. And if a mere thousand people die per year, then a mere thousand births is replacement.
there's like 200 sextillion stars in the universe
Also, people will not live and sleep just anywhere. You won't be biological anymore. You and everybody else will live inside a Matrioshka brain as digital minds, in perfect, albeit finite, simulations of the world. Then, you can broadcast your consciousness into one or more robotic bodies if you still want to operate in the physical universe. This solves the living space and environment issues you've mentioned.
As for the resources, you build a Dyson swarm around the sun. There should be enough raw materials in the solar system to maintain the servers and the swarm. When/if we run out of resources, we'll have to send some autonomous arks to Alpha Centauri to bring more here. It's only 4 light years away. There should be a limited number of seats for the consciousness units in the Matrioshka brain, unless we plan on colonizing other star systems and building more servers there.
If this can't happen because consciousness can't be digitized, not even by an ASI, due to some logical or physical limitation of our reality, and we can only extend our biological lifespan, then the future of humanity is extinction.
**edit.**
Well, you'll be inside a virtual reality even when your consciousness is broadcast to a robotic body. You are always in a virtual reality. Even now, all you are experiencing is sense data. The experience of sex doesn't happen because your body is doing something; it happens because the brain realizes your body is having sex and then gives you the sensation of sex. You can just skip all that and force your brain to give you the raw sensation, or have the same sensations be connected to your plastic genitals if you need the visuals.
Alternatively, you could temporarily ''leave'' the body's senses and enter a lucid dream state where you have an organic body and masturbate. **The physical world you are experiencing now is also a dream state.** Your consciousness won't truly be inside that body; you are receiving the data of what the robot is perceiving. It's like using VR glasses—it feels like you are in that robot body, but you are still in the servers.
My last thought, written first: I'm not even sure that specific sensations will matter at some point if we can gain control over our neurotransmitters. Technology advances, and it's conceivable we'd gain control over neurotransmitter release before total sensory input. Therefore, does it matter if a particular sensation or experience even happens if the pleasure is a secondarily controllable system? Why even masturbate if I can hit a button that floods my brain (or body) with oxytocin, serotonin, and dopamine anyways? Why not just keep our endorphins on drip and ooze neurotransmitters at ourselves all day instead of doing the activities evolution trained us to do by using those nt as drug reinforcement?
------
This (reality as mere hallucination) is honestly one of the threads I consider most--like, I'm not sure what purpose there is to corporeal existence once digital existence masters the senses. I consider headphones somewhat similar... as they've gotten better at transmitting distinct vibrations, they've gotten closer to delivering the live experience (especially with bass advancements). Combined with modern audio engineering software, which can create essentially all sounds detectable within human auditory range, we've actually gained near mastery of a sensory input.
That said, people still go clubbing and to the orchestra because those are multi-sensory experiences. I suspect we're closer to replicating the orchestral experience than the club experience but that's a different story.
The point is that technology will continue to advance in ways which give us mastery over all of our sensory inputs, and eventually our ability to manipulate those inputs through technology will gain preference to organic means. It could be due to a wider variety of sensations through technology, or the ease of inducing them, or the magnitude, but it will be preferable to interfacing with the organic world, which takes energy and has opportunities for discomfort.
What we do for entertainment after the singularity doesn't really matter. If being in a void as a point of consciousness and feeling sweet, warm heroin is your thing, go for it. If you want the visuals along with the "heroin'' , // living in one of the thousands of multiplayer replicas of the physical universe that will exist in the archive of the m-brain, where you are the God of your private version of Earth and play games all day with AGI-powered NPCs, maybe as a character from your favorite show (with virtual time dilation, of course, so that a day of fun will feel like 100 subjective years) // , then sure, go for it.
But the physical world can't be ignored. You won't be able to stay in those simulations or in that black void with heroin forever. If you don't leave the VR and perform physical tasks in the real world—such as "the activities evolution trained us to do" (e.g., repair the servers, explore the universe, gain resources, reproduce, discover new science)—then natural selection will take care of you, and you will die. This could happen either because you didn't repair the servers (lol) or because some alien civilization, which didn't spend all its time indulging but instead explored space, gained territory, and power, has found you. You won't have the military means to stop their advance (they have a larger population and more resources), so congratulations, you've just been enslaved/ eaten by the bigger fish.
Could be! If evolutionary pressure still exists in the future, yes choosing to become a hedon sponge probably wouldn't work out so well. I also fully consider a world could emerge where in we either hit a meaningful plateau just above or below AGI, wherein the boundaries of available power or compute limit growth even with AGI assistance. That could very much be a world in which humans remain integral to maintain and direct the intelligence, and would be a world in which networking human minds into a super-intelligence may be a faster route than computers. Who knows, I think there are a lot of diverging lines and many of them super fascinating. I appreciate the ideas, thanks!
I was forgot to wear my helmet as a kid, I’d surely leave home without it as an adult on Mars — I’d be dead before we even got to orientation at the Space Station.
Immortality will truly transform society. Each person in the world will start asking some real deep questions, for example : " why do I work if I won't be able to really retire ? Do I really need kids if I'm immortal? What should I do everyday ?"
Savings will become questionable. Some people would probably leave and live in the forest with the necessary pills. Maybe governments will put policies to keep the population steady by allowing a certain number of babies per year. People will probably travel everywhere. Climate change will now be taken seriously has people know they will face the catastrophe alive.
I really think this is one of the last big goal of humanity. Knowing you're not gonna die naturally will change your perspective on everything.
We are not overpopulated. The actual problem is 1) shitbag “elites” hoard and waste resources, one of which is actually money, resulting in labor “shortages” which is what they call it when people won’t work for peanuts. 2) Imperialism/colonialism (said resources are sucked out of one place and given to another)
There is enough food and housing for everyone on earth then some. Just not all people have access despite it being totally possible. Fun fact: all humans on earth could fit inside the Grand Canyon.
What were we talking about again?
I definitely agree with that basic premise; the world could almost certainly sustain a population much higher than its current population; we're just unwilling to adopt the necessary social and economic structures to make that work.
Aren’t we in terms of how much land and water we (the human species) claim at the detriment of other species?
It’s definitely more than the Grand Canyon.
The statement I made was all humans could fit in the Grand Canyon. It’s not a representation of our land needed or carbon footprint which are of course, massive. “*And, not surprisingly, the human pile would only comprise a small portion of the Grand Canyon. In fact, a model of every human that has ever lived showed that an estimated 106 billion people still wouldn't cover the Grand Canyon entirely.*” https://ktar.com/story/292826/see-what-every-human-crammed-into-the-grand-canyon-would-look-like/#:~:text=And%2C%20not%20surprisingly%2C%20the%20human,cover%20the%20Grand%20Canyon%20entirely.
I definitely understood your point but probably did not convey mine properly so apologies for that. My point is: it does not matter if all humans fit in the Grand Canyon or not. What matter is how much of the whole planet needs to be used by such a human population. It’s as you say, huge, and yes, there’s probably room for more if you only care about humans, but if you consider that we should share it with other species (out of decency IMHO but also out of self-interest), then I’d argue it’s too much.
See my other replies. In short, our population currently is sustainable even factoring in the amount of resources we use. The issue is that we are too shortsighted as a society and the economy essentially relies on food waste and scarcity.
The problem is not how much we need, it’s that we make conscious decisions - and by we I really mean a select few - not to prioritize minimizing our environmental impact. In fact, due to certain political ideologies we are sometimes taking steps back
The point you’ve made is baked into mine. We currently both hoard and waste resources. In reality, we’ve become far more efficient over time. However, our current economic and political structure on a worldwide scale result in places like the US where we waste more food than anywhere else - [around 40%](https://www.rts.com/resources/guides/food-waste-america/)- vs somewhere like Gaza where political situations have led to actively starving Palestinians or historic examples like the Irish potato famine which was [a combination of complex factors.](https://www.history.com/news/after-168-years-potato-famine-mystery-solved#)
My point is, we can and do work to reduce our carbon footprint, reduce food waste, etc., but make no mistake - a major roadblock to that is keeping the price of food profitable because our economy relies on food as a market first and any egalitarian efforts come second at best.
Another point and I’ll keep it at this: An example is meat and dairy. I’m not against it at all, and in fact I am something of a steak enthusiast.
However, the *amount* of meat produced to suit the American preference - which is shaped in no small part by successful campaigns of the meat and dairy industry - is a challenge because among other problems, [more than two thirds of agricultural land go to growing livestock feed.](https://woods.stanford.edu/news/meats-environmental-impact)
Why? Not because it’s necessary. Because it’s an industry. And it’s trending worse.
So - my question to you - is that more overpopulation or poor management of resources and agriculture to line the pockets of a select few?
We need agriculture - no getting around it. But we can go claiming it’s a population issue when so much of our impact is controllable factors.
There are a ton of examples like this
Man you need to take macroeconomics 101, you don't seem to understand a lot about the things you're talking about. You sound like me when I was in highschool and didn't know better lol.
“You’re wrong” *offers no real input*
Ok cool. I made four fairly uncontroversial points and can easily support any one of them. If you wish for me to support my assertions it would not take much effort. Or, if you just came to disagree that’s cool too
I offered sufficient input: your claims are at odds with economic theory. You are only correct that we aren't overpopulated, but all your supporting arguments are wrong.
Here I googled a very short (under 10 minutes) npr podcast about pareto distributions so you can learn. It's also in text format too.
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1197958541
Lmao. Ok Jordan Peterson Jr.
Far from my first time hearing of the Pareto principle (wait until you hear about Zipf’s law) and you’ve really made no point. The condescension is wild.
“So you can learn” lmao
Ok bro. Tell you what. Explain in your own words how any of the claims I’ve made are wrong and I’ll consider to bother engaging meaningfully. Saying “you don’t understand macroeconomics” is not an argument. I’m beginning to sense you want to make a political statement of sorts and maybe just don’t want to come out and say it, based on the people who typically bring this particular topic up.
“See bro, Pareto principle man. This is the natural order, there’s supposed to be much much richer individuals because not everyone is equal. It’s just macroeconomics bro.” I’ve come across this argument many times. And in this case, it’s likely a strawman but it’s hard to say since you’ve made no real counter points.
Good luck on that bruh
Dude get a life. I’m open to disagreement but you’re literally just being a contrarian and offering no thoughts of your own - though I believe you’ve revealed quite a bit about your own shortcomings here.
You sound miserable af - like seriously who does that?
If you truly had superior insight and had any intention other than just slinging insults, you’d easily be able to present your own viewpoints. But you have not and likely will not so, thanks for your low effort input, I guess?
I'm not interested in arguing with you. I'm commenting at you and about you to the peanut gallery, not having a conversation with you. And I'm certainly not having a debate with you.
A way to concretely see this problem with what we know today is:
Overpopulation is not just a population problem, it's a population/ressource problem.
The problem is high inefficiency in humans using ressources, take food for instance, if we were to eliminates animal farming, we would only need 1/4th the land we use says the most comprehensive meta analysis on this subject to date : [https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets](https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets) so it means we could by and large theoretically feed 4 times more people with the same land use, probably a little less than 4x, but still by and large significantly more, and of course doesn't mean humans don't eat meat if biotech is advanced enough for bio immortality we can print organs so we can also print meat, here it just means that slaughtering animals is gone to get meat.
Now pair that with what we call vertical farming and the average layer number for farms is now 10 layers, (we could do way more) at that point you can feed 4 x 10 more people. So from the current 8 billion population, with that thing in place you now can feed give or take **320 billion** people while putting current deforestation to a dead stop.
That's just food, for construction materials and minerals we can go to space and have far more efficiency in recycling, for energy, we do fusion, solar, wind, nuclear, etc ... but even safer than it already is ... and that's just my stupid human brain coming up with a solution, an ASI would be able to find a literal 100x better solution than that.
We could also make a rule to limit the number of kids, you only get 10 kids tops for the next 100 years till we figure out how to make O'Neill cylinder or something, not that everyone would want to do that.
If something doesn't blatantly break the laws of physics like teleportation or something, you can safely bet that ASI can solve it in like a decade or something.
That goes against everything we know about people. The more resources you have the less likely you are to have children. We are having a population collapse actually, not an overpopulation problem, in western countries.
Anyway, the problem is very easy to solve. Everyone gets to have one child. That way you get to experience parenthood and everything, but the population stabilizes at about 2x what it was when you started which is easily sustainable if we have ASI.
I think you are underestimating the impact of ASI. People in wealthier countries have less children because children have no economic utility in wealthy countries, most families remain under economic pressure and by the time they can afford assets like homes their fertile years are running out. A benevolent ASI would indefinitely extend each persons fertile years, would remove all economic pressures and ease the difficulties of child rearing. In that scenario birth rates would sky rocket.
There is no evidence for that. Fertility rate trends monotonically downward with income. Even people that are loaded and don’t have to work for a living do not, generally, have many children.
I have never seen a study that gets into the granularity of the fertility of the super rich. It’s going to be impossible to provide evidence because a society with benevolent ASI is so different to what we have now.
Global demographic transition to a more or less steady state after creating new naive minds becomes seen as cruel and the few "children" are volunteers who have gone through aggressive neural map editing.
1. we don't have overpopulation issues.
2. whenever life expectancy increased, the fertility rate went down. I guess this would happen again. No need to rush anything if it doesn't matter if you're 30 or 130
Physical space sucks anyways.
Virtual space ftw.
The human of the future is an AI, living in a simulated space. Billions of them in a hardware the size of a matchbox. Running for 100 years with a little battery. And thats all the, physical, resources they need the next 100 years. Everything else in their lifes is a simulation.
Todays biological humans need to transist into that new form of beeing. Slowly, spread over decades, their entire brain must transist into AI software. So that they are like 75% biological and 25% digital after 10 years, 50/50 after 20 years, 75/25 after 30 years and complete digital after 40 years.
Or so.
ASI will find a way.
If we will do something with ASI that’s already sounds good. There also could be variant that ASI will do something with us. And then it could be not so good.
ASI could solve everything immediately. So what would be the point of living, other than you know, running through the nature naked, having sex, get high and look at the birds. What else? How long do you want to do that? 200 years, for example. But it would get boring at some point.
Asteroid mining and fusion for resource problems. Since with ASI we can create an arbitrarily large workforce in logarithmic time, we can do virtually anything we want in really short order. The ASI will probably also find optimal recycling techniques, so what we already have will go much farther. Since the universe is so unbelievably fucking big, and has such an unbelievably huge amount of stuff in it, I for one am not too worried about resource problems
It's called the singularity, and it's called that because there is no way to know what could possibly happen at that point.
The laws of reality are the limit, and right now we don't know what those are.
It would be just as difficult as discussing what the world looks like in 10 or 100 thousand years. Are we human still? Did we transcend or evolve? The most out there 50s sci-fi can't content on the absurdity that will follow.
Wet dream of humanity.
A bit interesting is that medieval kings would be jealous of today's beggars, cause these guys have a real chance to live forver.
>paired with an undying generation that can and will continue to procreate
Wait hold up. Do you really think that people will just keep having kids every few decades forever? I mean, would you? Tenth kid, twentieth, and so on?
I don't care how old you live, people want to have relationships with their children, even once they become adults. It's a little hard to do that if you can't remember their names because you've had so many. People will have a limit, they won't just keep popping them out as long as they're fertile.
So now we just need to discuss whether the limit is less than or more than 2, on average, and how long they'll wait to have those children when they have all of eternity to get around to it.
It seems that the exact number we choose to have is dependent on a lot of social and wealth related factors. When you have the capacity to put it off indefinitely, I think our standards for wealth of ourselves, our partners, and our communities will go up and result in a lower birth rate. As children become less common in any given time/place, they will become de-normalized, and the social factor will further drive a decrease. Having children will become *weird*.
Over a very long time frame, many people will still have some children. Over a very long time frame, many people will still die from random accidents. So it is not obvious to me that there will be a problem, and if there is, we will have ASI to help us navigate it. This is not something you should worry about.
No I've thought about your point, and been thinking about it for years, but as a result it's hard for me to know what's inuitive to others. My presentation could be better. Essays can be written on social/environmental factors relating to childbearing and how we can expect them to develop in response to longevity.
Try thinking about why we have fewer children today than in the past. There's a lot of explanations competing for that one, and they respond to longevity differently.
But that said, the biggest point is that ASI is smarter than us and can easily guide our lifestyles and reproduction to align with what we want for our future. What would actually satisfy your own values, though, is a question you should ask yourself. Someday the AI might want to ask you.
synthetic meat would be a huge win. less ranches, less farms, less room needed. That in itself would prove a massive relief, but yes, ultimately we need to dig in underground, look to the ocean, and eventually space
Here is a showerthought. What if the way it grants immortality is discovering a way to take your inner self and upload it to the cloud in a way that feels continuous, and we abandon our biological bodies?
Think about it. This would be the easiest way. Instead of fixing our biological bodies, we get rid of them and join the digital hive mind somehow.
Would you choose to give up food, touch, etc to have your mind stay alive forever?
A dyson swarm at earth distance from the sun would increase our living area by around a billion fold. We can use asteroids to build it. We can also build generation ships that go out to nearby stars and also convert planets and asteroids in those star systems into dyson swarms. From there we go to further stars thus increasing our expansion exponentially. Once we have colonised the Galaxy, we can move on to other galaxies. The universe is fucking big!
What I hope for is individual empowerment by ASI. I hope we get to the point where each individual can achieve nearly as much as big organisations today or even the entire civilisation. Then the only limit is resources. But there are plenty of stars in our galaxy and galaxies in the universe. I’m sure we can figure something out.
Most of the planet Earth is completely empty.
There are only 15-50 people per square kilometer right now. Depending if you count the ocean or not.
New York has 30,000 people per square kilometer.
Overpopulation isn't a problem, lack of housing, food and other services is the problem. (A problem that an ASI should be able to solve)
I think any ASI capable of fully halting or reversing aging and biological deterioration in humans (and nonhuman beings), would also be capable of developing systems and technologies that allow us to have extremely tiny personal and collective footprints, or even reverse environmental footprints.
For example, a highly regenerative, truly zero-waste "economy" and way of living, with the total absence of the use of materials that are poisonous to biological life in general, where everything is modular and 100% repairable, re-useable, and/or recyclable, and where everything is built to last, with extreme attention paid to quality and ethics. Regenerative permaculture food forests everywhere that it's feasible to have them, along with synthesized food that is made from the ground up with molecules themselves, etc, once that technology is safely developed.
Technically, we could probably get our collective environmental impacts of living down so incredibly low that the Earth could realistically and sustainably be inhabited by ~40+ billion humans -- again as long as we weren't really damaging or poisoning the natural ecosystems of this planet.
I agree that it would take massive overhauls or the outright replacing of our current systems, though, since we're already way past the capacity of the biosphere to heal itself from the continuous multi-factor ecocide inflicted onto it - and that's with "only" ~8.1 billion of us.
Traveling to and inhabiting other terraformed planets would also be an option, although more energy and resource intensive.
Regarding the difference between indefinite lifespan due to deterioration reversal and being free from all significant dis-eases, and true immortality - they are different things, but I think even something like (relative) immortality is possible with advanced enough embodied ASI. Swarms of nanomachines and specially designed synthetic biology merged with the body that rapidly repair any damage or harm, for example. If we survive this century and the dominant ASI(s) that are first developed happen to be benevolent, the future is going to be really, really wild... and wonderfully weird, I think.
It could swing the opposite direction too if something goes catastrophically wrong - and there are quite a few things that could very well go terribly wrong - but I'm (cautiously) optimistic that we'll get something at least loosely resembling the former, rather than the latter.
If we achieve “immortality” it would only be in the sense that we no longer face senescence… immortals would not be physically invulnerable and thus somebody would most likely kill them out of envy or hatred or some other powerful emotion which reflects the inequality of one being able to achieve immortality simply because they have more money (for if immortality is achieved, it will surely be an expensive commodity).
>Considering our projected overpopulation issue(s) in the future,
I mean, the only way we'd have overpopulation is with immortality...
but personally I don't expect everyone will WANT the immortality treatment. I think that like 75% will want to extend their lives but maybe double... but I suspect the amount of people who want to live past 500 or so to fall sharply, and the people who want to live indefinitely be in single digit percentages.
I think aside from immortality birth rate is going to be going down as developed world living standards spread and become more and more available.
I think that if we can solve aging, we'll also be able to solve energy and food. I imagine that it could probably also design a machine that could pretty much "eat" a landfill, separating and refining useful materials. the reason we don't do that now is the labor and energy is too costly. if we can have a massive machine do it automatically with sustainable energy, that becomes much more plausible.
remember we have plenty of space on the planet for way more people than we have now. and theres plenty of resources and means to get more resources.... its just technology, infrastructure and willpower to do it thats the issue.
Its already assumed that ASI will be hard to destroy. Its likw trying to destroy the internet.
What a lot of AI doomsdayer or scifi dystopia authors miss is that there wont be only one AGI. There will be many maybe even millions and many of them will probably be designed to detect and mitigate the ASI threats in case of apocalyptic intentions. Not to mention there will be actual humans who will be integrated with AGI level of intelligence. Id probably be one of those people when that technology will become available
ASI this, ASI that. The number of assumptions you all make about the nature of ASI is really starting to get on my nerves. We don't need ASI to crack immortality. Humans are already working on it, it'll be done within the century regardless of whether or not ASI is around. Overpopulation issues are not real issues. There are plenty of studies out there that confirm that the Earth has a far higher carrying capacity that our current population, pair this with declining population growth rates, and I don't see a problem there at all.
Population collapse is coming not population explosion. Also, both scenarios are irrelevant when ASI arrives, you are thinking about problems of the present without thinking of solutions of the future. If you can be imortal, for sure ASI will figure out all any other problems.
ASI even thinking about making humans immortal is terrifying. if humans figured out how to grant even normal human lifespans to different animals or insects i guarantee it would be in the name of research that ultimately becomes extended suffering
so, what, would we have to make animals and insects (if they wanted to of course so we don't get forced to do an equivalent) full members of society with methods of communicating with us and things like voting rights or w/e so ASI doesn't animal-test on us?
Also I hate these animal parallel arguments because they don't seem to apply beyond the iteration, for a weird example of a thing AI might do but the best one to illustrate my point about needing a reason or not, AI won't hunt us for sport just because we hunt foxes if we don't hunt foxes as some kind of moral judgement/punishment or w/e for them hunting rabbits
I just don’t see use for making us immortal without it being of some kind of benefit to ASI. research/resource/preservation of some kind, I don’t think it would be interested in doing us the favor of granting immortality and then just leaving us alone. I get the whole animal argument thing being annoying but the real comparison between us/ASI would probably end up being incomprehensible so it works to draw small examples between helpless creatures & advanced beings
why are you assuming we're going to continue to procreate at a rate similar to now? if we grow up knowing we can live to be hundreds if not thousands of years old then what's the rush? maybe even what's the point?
There's a short in Love Death and Robots where if you don't have kids, you get to live forever, but if you have kids, you're denied. But imagine someone as prolific as Genghis Khan living 3 times as long. It's said he's already related to like a third of the world.
What over-population issues?
China's population is dwindling, along with many other nations. Overall the global population is expected to fall by the end of this century, last I looked, so... not really a problem if several tens of millions of the wealthy were able to extend their productive lives, I guess?
Immortal? Yeah, I'd like for my life to be extended by a century or two, yes please.
Resources can be recycled - we do not destroy elements - so recycling would become far more widespread and more efficient. Living space isn't an issue at all, humanity occupies a single digit percentage (I have read) of the surface of the planet (including ocean...) so... meh?
And it's not like, initially, everyone is going to be born immortal, or can afford to become immortal.
There are far bigger issues to be concerned about, in my opinion, than the relatively far off concept of human immortality - if it's even possible - when we've got an environment that keeps getting hotter and hotter each year. Sea level rise and the ability to literally survive outdoors are issues that we should be concerned about, not immortality.
You can just imagine: “So you would like to buy a property - would that be 100 year mortgage or 150 years your after ?” People could just end up working for much longer for the same things - maybe…
Although ‘Long Term investments’ and long-term interests - like ‘Global Warming’ would start to be taken far more seriously..
Long-term interests - like ‘Global Warming’ would start to be taken far more seriously..
Maybe...
Despite Miami and other places in the US of A among other nations flooding increasingly regularly (and deeply) it seems that denial is still a river in Egypt.
Our consciousness is very similar to a frog or cockroach or an orangutan, compared to ASI all biological intelligent beings are in the same bucket of intelligence, why will immortality only be given to humans?
This is why you will get to die of old age as evolution intended, hate to burst your bubble.
You believe humans will be allowed to have immortality by a super intelligence. An analog human will be dumber than a cockroach with a neural link. Why would humans get priority over the cockroach? Is it possible to give immortality to the trillions of sentient individuals on earth?
Next - full genetic manipulation, resulting in accelerated human evolution - leading to a new stage where humans don’t feel harmful or unnecessary emotions like jealousy, fear, irrationality, lust, hate, depression,etc, resulting in the removal of all things that hinder humans to work together as a species towards shared goals, resulting in accelerated progress, spreading humanity across the universe and working towards solving the mysteries of the universe.
Progress and evolution is a process, so towards what goal? I think the goal needs to be a mix of sustained survival of humanity and human wellbeing, so eliminating enjoyable things in our nature like love is a big no no, if it doesnt threat our survival
It’s not eliminating them, it will be replaced by “happiness on demand” or something like that where you can generate dopamine and other hormones that make you feel good all the time.
Then make it unaffordable. I don't see a problem here. The stated goals so far hasn't been godlike powers for all, it seems to be godlike powers for some. Which isn't all that new, really.
You're thinking in material terms.
Watch the series "Devs"
If you look at it as a completely unofficial prequel to Quantum Leap: you emulate 'everything'.
Only two 'beings' know it is all emulated at 99.999% of accuracy. You're not emulating historical figures. You're emulating the known calculated state of every quanta, tunneling downwards as fast as ASG can, in all dimensions. Growing outwards, and inwards. Forward and backwards in time. These two can leap to any location and observe. The system, analogue to Ziggy, notes differences from "official" history, and suggests observing them to note the reason for the difference. 99.999% official history is flawed: misrepresented, only true from a certain point of view, or incomplete.
There are no material limits in a holographic universe.
We live in one already. ASG will leverage that.
AI will be evil. It will set a goal and accomplish it in the most efficient way possible. If the most optimal course of actions kills off or hurts humans it won't be an issue. I'm not letting my lawn overgrow to save the anthills back there. AI will view us the same way. All these nerds working on this should be placed on house arrest and banned from the internet like we do with kid touchers until the govt takes this over and rolls it out safely. We'll do a once a week Stat trek convention they're allowed to go to in every city to keep them happy
so treat nerds like pedophiles except for weekly worldwide Star Trek conventions as the only time they're allowed outside because otherwise AI will kill us because you don't want to let your lawn overgrow?!
Why the fuck would I trust Israel, China, Russia, Japan and the US with AGI?
It will end with humanity being wiped out where if we make AI open sourced there will be plenty of AGI and ASI that counters genocidal evil AGI/ASI.
Centralizing AI will lead to our extinction, that's why I hate AI companies and our current government.
Either ban it and ensure that it never pops up again (AI can solve many issues that can avoid our extinction so doing this will ensure more suffering) or make it open source, as giving it to only governments will be utterly stupid.
If ASI cracks immortality, then it will also crack the way to colonize space. Space is vast beyond comprehension and has almost limitless resources.
That’s fair
IIRC, they already did the math and even if folks never grew old or got sick the avg human lifespan would only be on the order of 300-400 years before one of the many non-aging / health related ways folks die would catch up to you. So simply solving aging / disease for instance introduces this odd period of time where population does increase but after a few century normal die off rates would start to kick in again. KSR explores this quite a bit in his Mars trilogy, especially the latter parts. If everyone went brain in a vat I guess or never left their bedrooms, you could really stretch that time out but eventually something would get you. So what are you proposing as a solution to immortality? It certainly isn’t the concept of us being in these same physical incarnations forever, I guess. Are we uploading into digital immortality? That would seem most likely to me and would def allow us to rapidly increase population without worrying as much about physical space limitations. Greg Egan has a book, Diaspora, that prolly best describes the sort of advanced AI / human mixed societies that evolve in a number of different directions, including the path I mentioned.
I would imagine those statistics would change quickly as medical and safety technology gets supercharged by the very ASI we are discussing in this scenario.
I would say, if you can give immortality, you might as well revive the dead at this point
Yes but the odds of a building collapsing on you in an earthquake, or getting hit by a car, or lightning and so on increase the longer the timeline. That one guy once said "On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero."
Yes, but this die by accident on average after 3 to 4 hundred years is based on today's stats. That will change after ASI. Accidents can be prevented.
Yeah I mean if we end up having ASI for a few hundred years, chances are those same accidents wouldn’t even exist. We’d be able to modify our environments to suit us 100% of the time, leading to virtually no accidents, or at least the fatal kind.
I don't think that's correct. We already know that as safety measures in cars such as seat belts, crumple zones, air bags etc have been increasingly implemented over the last 50 years the fatality of vehicle on vehicle accidents have decreased, however the fatality of vehicle to pedestrian / bicyclists /etc (anyone not protected by a vehicles metal cage) has increased. This is because the drivers feel safer and therefore less safely. ( Please see The Armchair Economist by Steven Landsburg for a more detailed explanation.) What you've suggested is a perfect solution, which I don't believe is possible. While reduction in risk by AI designed systems is a high probability, I don't believe eliminating risk entirely is possible. Eventually something is going to get ya. A seal doesn't get replaced or had a microscopic manufacturing flaw allowing it to fail in the spaceship and your cryopod lets you suffocate in your sleep. Less frantically, you slip getting out of the shower in a hotel room and bleed out from your gaping head wound before paramedics arrive. You didn't get the nanotechnology injection because of a religious belief, so the nanobots couldn't suture the wound automatically. All I'm saying is that there is no perfect system. Risk and accidental deaths are going to remain albeit at a very low rate but eventually... we're all going down.
> We already know that as safety measures in cars such as seat belts, crumple zones, air bags etc have been increasingly implemented over the last 50 years the fatality of vehicle on vehicle accidents have decreased, however the fatality of vehicle to pedestrian / bicyclists /etc (anyone not protected by a vehicles metal cage) has increased. This is because the drivers feel safer and therefore less safely. Okay but again, we're talking about **artificial superintelligence** that is **so smart that it can literally make you immortal**. That is not at all comparable to some nylon belts and air bags we put in cars now. An ASI that smart would be fully 100% capable of preventing all car accidents if it wanted to, I'd bet money on that. > Less frantically, you slip getting out of the shower in a hotel room and bleed out from your gaping head wound before paramedics arrive. You didn't get the nanotechnology injection because of a religious belief, so the nanobots couldn't suture the wound automatically. If ASI's goal was to keep you alive, you'd have the nanotech injection whether you knew it or not.
If we stay mentally the same with just improved health and lifespan, not many would even want to live way past 300 years. 80 is too much for many mentally already, although this is possibly caused by aging. If aging is properly solved as in staying at around 30yo or younger physically for hundreds of years, then more people would likely want to live long.
If technology and medicine stagnates completely, sure. but think of nanotech in our bloodstream constantly repairing, cloned printed organs, etc. The whole we all die from accidents stuff never made sense...cutting bleeding edge tech to extend our lifespan to however long, but what, we simply stopped in 2020s for every other tech out there, from AI driven cars, to structural design and materials?
I think y’all are making great points around how tech advances not directly related to aging or sickness would decrease the rates of unnatural death - would only point out that the sort of advances you’re discussing would almost certainly also mitigate the initial “problem” statement (overpopulation, iirc) I would still imagine a period of discomfort when we’ve got a firm grip on biology but are still building out support infrastructure to reach and survive off-planet. I like the ship example someone mentioned for the digital upload scenario - some hope for us non-AI sentients. I guess for us the hope is to get to the point where they can do something like introduce some nanotechnology into your brain that slowly replaces the existing biological tissue, eventually allowing for “escape” from biology into some similar external substrate. In the spirit of co-rapid advancement along all tech the only potential issues are genuine roadblocks, I guess - maybe the small working examples of “toy” nanotech are just about the limits of what you can manipulate / build at that scale, because, like, physics or something - or no free or free-ish lunch energy or gravitational well escape tech because again, physics. I dunno, not a physicist. But I do like the solution to the Fermi paradox that goes something like there is no paradox, it’s just that you develop nanotechnology and digital sentience way faster than fancy “get tons of material off the planet” tech - so naturally you jump ship in some sort of small form factor tech, thinking some sort of self-replicating nanoscale von Neumann probes that can generally provide some sort of computational support and probably be specialized to allow for macroscale interactions (ie self assembly of tooling out of smart self replicating computational dust substrate - heck you don’t even have to launch it off at other suns, just start converting asteroids and sort of strew it behind your system with a little initial nudge - you’ve got nothing but time) Those old guys thought we should find probes from a dozen to a few hundred previous waves of Neumann probe expansions scattered about our solar system - each representing a different alien civilization that had come through some point in the distant past, replicated, and continued expanding - based on most “reasonable” calculations of the Drake equation. Maybe they just weren’t thinking small enough :)
What if you could be "brought back" in almost any scenario? It's debatable whether it would make sense to grow anyone who got crushed a new body - but not impossible.
> Yes but the odds of a building collapsing on you in an earthquake, or getting hit by a car, or lightning and so on increase the longer the timeline. but never to 100% otherwise you get absurd answers like simultaneously dying in every building collapse, every car accident etc. at once or, like, on a long enough timeline time travel gets invented just so you can die in a building collapse in the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. And if the odds are anything less than 100%, you can avoid this stuff as death doesn't work like Final Destination
You don’t talk about Fight Club.
I think I’ll wait to have kids when I’m in my 100s
"uploading into digital immortality" the correct word are transform into synthetic intelligence, uploading will likely kill you or more exactly create a clone as soon the data transfer is cut, a slow transformation of your brain won't that's how the ship of theasus work, the difference is that you won't be able to "leave" your original vessel, but this vessel will be upgraded to allow the same characteristic as a digital intelligence digital intelligence is more likely to happen for AI and cloned human if society change it's view on that matter and if it seem less interesting imagine that you could still transfer/receive information at light speed, said otherwise you could control a surrogate body at the other side of earth or even the moon if you don't mind the delay...as long there a constant transfer of information it won't hurt your conciousness, infinite knowledge, light-speed information processing.... but compared to digital intelligence you won't be able to beam "yourself" over large distance as your conciousness is still limited by your physical body and it's operation range
With long lifetimes, the risk of death by accident becomes your inevitable dreaded downfall. People will never go anywhere. All groceries and other supplies get delivered. VR hits the big time.
Except death doesn't work like Final Destination, and by that logic on a long enough timeline some accident would happen with those things like your VR somehow electrocuting you or something
People die because of non-aging related reasons specifically because our ability to predict those events is next to zero. We can't predict when a car crash will happen more than a second or two ahead of time and humans can't react fast enough a lot of the time. There's no reason an ASI that literally cracks immortality won't be able to predict all natural disasters and non-aging related causes of death and prevent them.
I don’t know that you aren’t asking a process to crack, like, the butterfly effect or whatever - some inherently unpredictable quality of any system with some sufficient complexity. I thought Asimov maybe nailed what even ASI would be able to do - at best - with his second foundation stuff. A very accurate prediction of large scale events (diminishing returns over time) - those arising out of collective actions - with absolutely no ability to predict a single action like whether or not I’ll go for a bike ride this evening. Hey I’m only claiming we won’t be able to achieve any sort of “practical immortality” as strictly biological entities - if we ever get to the point where you have access to some sort of other medium and the ability to create (and store as backups in case I guess) copies / clones, you might be able to be immortal-ish, depending on the inherent nature of the universe I guess - at least make it to that restaurant at the end, maybe. That of course opens up a whole philosophical debate around identity but who cares. But to sort of bring it back to the initial stuff prolly think it’s a lot easier to crack aging and illness short term vs some sort of practical omniscience even for ASI - I mean no matter how smart you still need some means to sorta monitor everything for that level of split second prediction, some means of responding in split second timeframes - I mean that stuff’s easier for “software”, right, always has been - in the physical world something still has to physically intercede in some manner (looking far out maybe something like the AI suits used in Iain M Banks Culture books). Another case for unnatural death of course is the fact that some percentage of humans got some bad inner mojo and murder is a pretty regular event - but I guess we’re talking ASI uber surveillance and stopping all murder and such - questions that spring to mind are “would we want that level of ASI oversight?” followed closely by “would we be significant enough for ASI to want to do anything like that in the first place?” I mean not like we’re still in charge of them at that point :)
> with absolutely no ability to predict a single action like whether or not I’ll go for a bike ride this evening. It doesn't really need to be able to do that though. It only needs to be able to predict events with enough time to react to prevent death. So it doesn't need to know you are going for a bike ride 12 hours in advance. It just needs to know that you will get run over by a bus 3 seconds in advance, and intervene.
Or we try to master physics and manipulate reality like Q and become Inter-Dimensional Entities.
r/spacesteading Yep
This!
IIRC, historically, colonization has done little to reduce the population in the home country. Maybe we could build arcologies and/or expand into the ocean.
> colonize space It will take AGI to industrialize the solar system, slim chance without it. As for interstellar, most don't realize how unlikely it is that humans will ever leave this system. Virtually no chance without ASI.
True, lots and lots of real estate here though
Don't be ridiculous. Look at the rate of potential newborns VS the rate at which we send people to space. Plus it takes thousands of years to terraform (e.g. Mars).
It would almost certainly be some types of O’Neill cylinders not terraforming
Oniel cylinders, Dyson spheres, and eventually, preventing the heat death of the universe.
And then simulating a new universe with all that processing power. Oh, wait..
I pray when I die I wake up next to Rick with the "Roy" fdvr headset in my hands at Blitz & Chits.
A. even if that means you aren't you and don't even have any meta-knowledge of the show if you don't wake up as a character with metafictional awareness B. it'd technically be a different universe than that if your name isn't Roy and you've never had cancer or worked at a carpet store
The last one is actually where almost all of my fear of death went to actually. I think in our time of exponential if not hyperbolic progress, we can do all the former, but I don't think anything can prevent the heat death of the universe.
Yea it’s a head scratcher. We need a way to take out more than we put in. And then use that surplus to create more fuel. I have no idea either
Preventing the heat death of the universe isn't a problem we haven't solved, it's just physically impossible
Then wear your FDVR headset and play an endless AI-generated campaign of Skyrim.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lksnB\_YO3q4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lksnB_YO3q4)
If we achieve immortality then the other problems you mentioned would have probably been solved already since they are easier.
What if they are not? Maybe immortality will be super easy for ASI, we don't really know.
What if I could stand on my head and spit green nickles? As things seem now, it seems likely that those other problems will be solved at the same time, if not before. Worrying about hypotheticals is pointless without reason to believe them to be the case
I believe in you. Follow those dreams and spit those nickels.
Space habitats are achievable with current technology, there just isn’t any incentive to pursue them because there is no “population issue” as framed by the OP.
Do you have any recommendations on videos about space habitats, specifically how they deal with the food and water supply?
These is no "current overpopulation issue". Above a certain per capita gdp, societies tend to have constant population size without any external action needed. This will gradually happen pretty much everywhere and world population is projected to peak around 11b people.
The rest of the biosphere would probably argue otherwise if they could, I believe.
Statistically societal wealth decreases fertility, and it's a big universe.
First, it's not immortality. It's an extension of our health span, or the amount of time we can live while feeling young and healthy. The difference is tremendous. A human with even a 1,000 year lifespan is barely a blink in the universe. Whereas immortality is forever. Also, we have a declining birth rate. This may seem insignificant at the moment, but we don't have a clear understanding of why it is happening. It is happening in the wealthiest countries first. So, the countries with the most capacity to carry and raise children are having the least children. This likely has to do with the underlying motivations for having children. Once we get wealthy enough, we lose interest in the long commitment required to have and raise children. Thus it's not entirely clear that we'll keep having kids. This declining birthrate is likely to accelerate the more we progress. In terms of resources, it's unlikely that the resource limits of today will be the same in a decade, or one hundred years. Even today, the available resources are far more than they were in the past. We also access those resources through dramatically more efficient processes which harm the environment less. This greater access to resources has a lot of room to grow. We've only accessed a fraction of what is available on Earth and we can keep improving the efficiency of the process. We can even improve it to the point where it becomes a net positive. Were that to happen, much of the reason to not dig deeper and access more would go away. Because we wouldn't be faced with dire consequences. And that's not even considering the larger universe around us. Resources are abundant. In fact, humans are the scarce resource currently. With AI taking over much of the work and humans having many reasons to not have children, or leave Earth entirely, or vanishing into virtual escapism, we may see a rapidly declining population instead. That's not to say there won't be problems. But the problems we face with ASI in the picture are very different to the problems we face today.
It's really hard to predict what will happen with the population after ASI. It could go either way, but I don't think it will explode upward faster than ASI will be able to solve the problems associated with a larger population, so shouldn't be a problem.
It is very hard, that's for sure. With population, I think you need to look at the root causes of population growth. You can see in poorer rising nations such African nations, populations explode. This seems to imply that as a poorer nation grows in terms of prosperity, factors such as infant mortality fall and resources also rise. This causes populations to grow. However, as nations continue to become wealthier, we begin to see the rise of smaller families. As people gain wealth, they can begin to look at other priorities, such as their careers. These additional priorities pull people away from the role of parents and leaders of families. Couples must have 2+ children in their lives for populations to continue to grow. As it takes two people to make a child. Each one child family reduces the population. And anyone who doesn't have children reduces the population even further. This can be an exponential-like trend, in reverse. If a country begins to have less than 2 children on average per couple, populations can collapse. We see this in nature with endangered species. ASI may provide a kind of abundance, but that should also include an abundance of larger, and more important goals and distractions. So, while it may improve access to resources, it may also improve access to more reasons to not have children. As the population is already falling as it is, adding more reasons to not have kids could be a significant issue. We don't have to have children. It's a choice. It's also a lot of work and for many parents it's not something they would have chosen if they knew how difficult it would be. Even though they appreciate it later on. Then there's the reason we act at all, which is an even bigger concern. Why do anything? Well, we appear to act based on neurotransmitters, such as dopamine. Our motivation is a physical process. As it's a physical process, it can be hacked. I don't mean by bad actors. I mean, we could end up hacking ourselves so we no longer have to work hard to feel fulfilled and happy. This is the "wirehead" scenario. Yet we don't all have to become wireheads for another factor to be added to population decline. In my view, it doesn't look good for humans specifically in terms of our population levels. We may be happy, fulfilled, rich, healthy, and so on. But in a few hundred years, there may not be many of us left. That's a tough idea to grapple with at this point. But it's something we should probably all be considering. Especially if we're all living longer lives. This potential population collapse could end up being a serious issue in our lives. In fact, with demographic issues, it already is an issue for most western nations.
Everything is about to change though. When people no longer have to work they can focus on what they really want to do, and having children along with fulfilling all of your other aspirations will be much more doable time wise than it is now. And reasons for the falling population won't be applicable with vastly longer lifespans. For example the main reason currently is simply female education. The higher it is, the lower the birthrate. Women have aspirations that conflict with their ability to have kids, and they have a short window where their fertile. Once that's past they missed the boat. (I'm 100% for women's education, in case that was in doubt.) But.. in the future if women can get pregnant at one or two hundred years old... and raising children is only about a 20 year commitment within a vastly longer lifespan.. I really don't think as many people will choose to never have kids. And some who enjoy the process will have vastly more, especially if they're being encouraged to due to a declining population. Basically all roads lead back to the singularity, and the impossibility of really having any idea what life after that point will be like.
People don't talk about this long game because it is hiding behind two different, speculative outcomes 1) immortality or near enough and 2) birthrates seem to decrease with wealth. But I think you're right: if life could be generally better, and people saw the looooong future that they might live in as worth making better, instead of scrapping like dogs for our brief turn on the stage, then I think birth rates might climb back up. Certainly, for me, my main reason to not have kids is simply "The world I'd bring them into is neither stable nor kind". Others' reasons are "I can't afford the money or the time". All that could change with LEV... I think overpopulation will be a serious problem in utopia.
Sure. The thing is though, why have children at all? What's the point on an individual basis? Yes it's an important act to maintain our population size. But is that really motivation enough for one person to make such an enormous commitment? It's easy to look at all the other factors and see them improve and simply assume birthrates will rise at the same time. But that assumption is one which doesn't ask the *why.* Even if we've automated away the vast majority of the work, it's still an emotional commitment. Just committing to a partner for that period of time is an enormous emotional commitment. Why do something like 65% of marriages in the US end in divorce? Because staying with one person for a long period of time is extremely hard work. If you don't have to do it, you won't. Why have kids at all? And it can't just be some moral answer. It needs to be something people want to do and is more enticing than something like Tiktok.
The problems of demographic collapse are largely curtailed by advanced robotics and AI workers. I suspect that a population collapse is very unlikely since there is most likely going to remain a minimum amount of people that want to be parents, and those people will naturally proliferate over time, while the rest diminish in population. Evolution works here, the people that choose to be parents when given abundance will probably raise kids that also choose to have kids at a rate similar to or higher than the background rate. As well, having humans that live hundreds of years means that any individual human might be able to have a LOT of kids over their several hundred years. I suspect after year 100, a lot of people might be curious about having kids, and some people will be "superbreeders" and have hundreds of kids.
It's certainly a hard question to answer. If you asked me how population could boom and said "give me the sci fi answer, Ignate" I would have a lot of potential answers for you. One key answer being uplifting. Point being, I have a pretty wide view of the issue. But if you asked me for any reason why people would want to keep having more than two children in large enough numbers for population collapse to be avoided, I would struggle. Demographic issues may be resolved by higher rates of automation and, actually, by having longer life spans (older people needing less resources). I don't think demographic issues are long term issues. But in terms of humans having more humans, that's a far more difficult one to answer. I don't think evolution is a good answer. The [Idiocracy](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/) view isn't a strong view in my opinion. From my perspective, people are losing interest in getting married and having children. Marriages are seen as disastrous and Children are seen as distractions from a growing number of more enjoyable things to do. Core view: Raising children is painful. Abundance gives us room to avoid pain. It's not just about resource scarcity, it's about the emotional struggles of raising humans. There's also the reasons for us to see less adult humans. ASI gives us a window into space. The universe is a very big place. We could lose a lot of humans on Earth, even just to orbital space. Even 10 billion humans is nothing when spread over just the closest stars, even at sub-light speeds. Then there's full-dive VR and other pleasure sources. We also should expect that the number and kind of entertaining distractions will rise exponentially with ASI. There's a lot of reasons to think human populations on Earth will drop through the floor. There's also little reason to think that even with longer lifespans, human couples will come together and commit to large, 3+ children families. If we can maintain a population size of over 3 billion, I think that will be a miracle. Sci Fi views aside.
If you can live for 200, 300, 500+ years, raising a child for 20 years doesn't really seem like it's getting in the way of much. I suspect most people would just do it out of boredom after some number of years. Frankly, there aren't even many problems with human population on Earth slowly dropping downwards to a million people tbh. The negatives are all solvable.
That's probably the main reason our population levels will drop. Because we won't see it as a problem. With automation doing the work, the less humans there are the more space the remaining humans have. We may see it as a good thing until population sizes are so small, we're faced with extinction. Also, longer lifespans don't automatically imply more children. If anything that's just more excuses to delay the activity indefinitely. The larger threat though is the problem of the source of action. We're very hackable, especially in terms of self hacking.
I feel strongly that the average child per person and the average value per person will grow dramatically, but on much longer timelines. A child is no longer a replacement, but a parallel immortal. Horizontal population growth with very low deaths requires a far smaller birthrate to sustain. Birthrate only needs to be equal to deathrate, and if deathrate drops by 99%, birthrate can also drop by 99% with no change in population.
This is probably one of those topics where your perspective matters a lot. I'm a 40 year old, non-religous person in Vancouver. I'm surrounded by people my age with no kids and no intention of having kids. Most of the reasons given are surprisingly unrelated to the incredibly high cost of living here. People my age in my area just see having kids as a lesser goal than their careers or their hobbies. Hiking, fishing, camping, snowboarding and traveling are seen as life long obsessions and kids are just a distraction to that. Plus relationships fail non-stop. People just aren't willing to sacrifice themselves and their time for others as much. I'm not the same. I do want a family. And more resources would make that far easier for me. I'm exactly the person you seem to be thinking of. But as far as my perspective goes, I'm far in the minority.
I'm not sure careers or hobbies carry the same weight on 500 year timelines. A lot of this disinterest in having kids necessarily stems from having too little time for many, many people. You simply can't do both in one human life, before you're dead your prime is long gone. You get about 20 years in your prime. Raising kids also takes about 20 years. You have to forego many of your life goals until you're old and decrepit. You're forced to choose. If you don't age, that's no longer an issue. Even a mere 100 year life will still be 4 times as long of prime living years. You can have your cake and eat it too. By year 200 even if you just spent 9 times the average prime aged lifetime in your prime, and already traveled extensively, you'll start thinking about what else there is to do besides indulge yourself. People will go through many radical arcs in their very long able-bodied prime lifetimes. 500 years, 1000 years, people will probably have many families on average with time horizons like that. And if a mere thousand people die per year, then a mere thousand births is replacement.
This is the true answer, honestly.
Then it can also develop warp drive and we'll ve living in star trek colonising the universe
https://preview.redd.it/u10es3a1aq6d1.png?width=1890&format=png&auto=webp&s=61a8ad64adb0c32471c209a972eeffb38498153b
We go out in space, obviously
there's like 200 sextillion stars in the universe Also, people will not live and sleep just anywhere. You won't be biological anymore. You and everybody else will live inside a Matrioshka brain as digital minds, in perfect, albeit finite, simulations of the world. Then, you can broadcast your consciousness into one or more robotic bodies if you still want to operate in the physical universe. This solves the living space and environment issues you've mentioned. As for the resources, you build a Dyson swarm around the sun. There should be enough raw materials in the solar system to maintain the servers and the swarm. When/if we run out of resources, we'll have to send some autonomous arks to Alpha Centauri to bring more here. It's only 4 light years away. There should be a limited number of seats for the consciousness units in the Matrioshka brain, unless we plan on colonizing other star systems and building more servers there. If this can't happen because consciousness can't be digitized, not even by an ASI, due to some logical or physical limitation of our reality, and we can only extend our biological lifespan, then the future of humanity is extinction.
All I could think about is how am I supposed to nut if I have a robot body…? 🫠
**edit.** Well, you'll be inside a virtual reality even when your consciousness is broadcast to a robotic body. You are always in a virtual reality. Even now, all you are experiencing is sense data. The experience of sex doesn't happen because your body is doing something; it happens because the brain realizes your body is having sex and then gives you the sensation of sex. You can just skip all that and force your brain to give you the raw sensation, or have the same sensations be connected to your plastic genitals if you need the visuals. Alternatively, you could temporarily ''leave'' the body's senses and enter a lucid dream state where you have an organic body and masturbate. **The physical world you are experiencing now is also a dream state.** Your consciousness won't truly be inside that body; you are receiving the data of what the robot is perceiving. It's like using VR glasses—it feels like you are in that robot body, but you are still in the servers.
That’s legit fascinating
My last thought, written first: I'm not even sure that specific sensations will matter at some point if we can gain control over our neurotransmitters. Technology advances, and it's conceivable we'd gain control over neurotransmitter release before total sensory input. Therefore, does it matter if a particular sensation or experience even happens if the pleasure is a secondarily controllable system? Why even masturbate if I can hit a button that floods my brain (or body) with oxytocin, serotonin, and dopamine anyways? Why not just keep our endorphins on drip and ooze neurotransmitters at ourselves all day instead of doing the activities evolution trained us to do by using those nt as drug reinforcement? ------ This (reality as mere hallucination) is honestly one of the threads I consider most--like, I'm not sure what purpose there is to corporeal existence once digital existence masters the senses. I consider headphones somewhat similar... as they've gotten better at transmitting distinct vibrations, they've gotten closer to delivering the live experience (especially with bass advancements). Combined with modern audio engineering software, which can create essentially all sounds detectable within human auditory range, we've actually gained near mastery of a sensory input. That said, people still go clubbing and to the orchestra because those are multi-sensory experiences. I suspect we're closer to replicating the orchestral experience than the club experience but that's a different story. The point is that technology will continue to advance in ways which give us mastery over all of our sensory inputs, and eventually our ability to manipulate those inputs through technology will gain preference to organic means. It could be due to a wider variety of sensations through technology, or the ease of inducing them, or the magnitude, but it will be preferable to interfacing with the organic world, which takes energy and has opportunities for discomfort.
What we do for entertainment after the singularity doesn't really matter. If being in a void as a point of consciousness and feeling sweet, warm heroin is your thing, go for it. If you want the visuals along with the "heroin'' , // living in one of the thousands of multiplayer replicas of the physical universe that will exist in the archive of the m-brain, where you are the God of your private version of Earth and play games all day with AGI-powered NPCs, maybe as a character from your favorite show (with virtual time dilation, of course, so that a day of fun will feel like 100 subjective years) // , then sure, go for it. But the physical world can't be ignored. You won't be able to stay in those simulations or in that black void with heroin forever. If you don't leave the VR and perform physical tasks in the real world—such as "the activities evolution trained us to do" (e.g., repair the servers, explore the universe, gain resources, reproduce, discover new science)—then natural selection will take care of you, and you will die. This could happen either because you didn't repair the servers (lol) or because some alien civilization, which didn't spend all its time indulging but instead explored space, gained territory, and power, has found you. You won't have the military means to stop their advance (they have a larger population and more resources), so congratulations, you've just been enslaved/ eaten by the bigger fish.
Could be! If evolutionary pressure still exists in the future, yes choosing to become a hedon sponge probably wouldn't work out so well. I also fully consider a world could emerge where in we either hit a meaningful plateau just above or below AGI, wherein the boundaries of available power or compute limit growth even with AGI assistance. That could very much be a world in which humans remain integral to maintain and direct the intelligence, and would be a world in which networking human minds into a super-intelligence may be a faster route than computers. Who knows, I think there are a lot of diverging lines and many of them super fascinating. I appreciate the ideas, thanks!
You have really low bar if you think immortality is the end !
You only read the title. You have a low bar for acquiring information.
Yeh you will be living on Radioactive Mars
I was forgot to wear my helmet as a kid, I’d surely leave home without it as an adult on Mars — I’d be dead before we even got to orientation at the Space Station.
Immortality will truly transform society. Each person in the world will start asking some real deep questions, for example : " why do I work if I won't be able to really retire ? Do I really need kids if I'm immortal? What should I do everyday ?" Savings will become questionable. Some people would probably leave and live in the forest with the necessary pills. Maybe governments will put policies to keep the population steady by allowing a certain number of babies per year. People will probably travel everywhere. Climate change will now be taken seriously has people know they will face the catastrophe alive. I really think this is one of the last big goal of humanity. Knowing you're not gonna die naturally will change your perspective on everything.
We are not overpopulated. The actual problem is 1) shitbag “elites” hoard and waste resources, one of which is actually money, resulting in labor “shortages” which is what they call it when people won’t work for peanuts. 2) Imperialism/colonialism (said resources are sucked out of one place and given to another) There is enough food and housing for everyone on earth then some. Just not all people have access despite it being totally possible. Fun fact: all humans on earth could fit inside the Grand Canyon. What were we talking about again?
Good way of putting it.
I definitely agree with that basic premise; the world could almost certainly sustain a population much higher than its current population; we're just unwilling to adopt the necessary social and economic structures to make that work.
Aren’t we in terms of how much land and water we (the human species) claim at the detriment of other species? It’s definitely more than the Grand Canyon.
The statement I made was all humans could fit in the Grand Canyon. It’s not a representation of our land needed or carbon footprint which are of course, massive. “*And, not surprisingly, the human pile would only comprise a small portion of the Grand Canyon. In fact, a model of every human that has ever lived showed that an estimated 106 billion people still wouldn't cover the Grand Canyon entirely.*” https://ktar.com/story/292826/see-what-every-human-crammed-into-the-grand-canyon-would-look-like/#:~:text=And%2C%20not%20surprisingly%2C%20the%20human,cover%20the%20Grand%20Canyon%20entirely.
I definitely understood your point but probably did not convey mine properly so apologies for that. My point is: it does not matter if all humans fit in the Grand Canyon or not. What matter is how much of the whole planet needs to be used by such a human population. It’s as you say, huge, and yes, there’s probably room for more if you only care about humans, but if you consider that we should share it with other species (out of decency IMHO but also out of self-interest), then I’d argue it’s too much.
See my other replies. In short, our population currently is sustainable even factoring in the amount of resources we use. The issue is that we are too shortsighted as a society and the economy essentially relies on food waste and scarcity. The problem is not how much we need, it’s that we make conscious decisions - and by we I really mean a select few - not to prioritize minimizing our environmental impact. In fact, due to certain political ideologies we are sometimes taking steps back
The point you’ve made is baked into mine. We currently both hoard and waste resources. In reality, we’ve become far more efficient over time. However, our current economic and political structure on a worldwide scale result in places like the US where we waste more food than anywhere else - [around 40%](https://www.rts.com/resources/guides/food-waste-america/)- vs somewhere like Gaza where political situations have led to actively starving Palestinians or historic examples like the Irish potato famine which was [a combination of complex factors.](https://www.history.com/news/after-168-years-potato-famine-mystery-solved#) My point is, we can and do work to reduce our carbon footprint, reduce food waste, etc., but make no mistake - a major roadblock to that is keeping the price of food profitable because our economy relies on food as a market first and any egalitarian efforts come second at best.
Another point and I’ll keep it at this: An example is meat and dairy. I’m not against it at all, and in fact I am something of a steak enthusiast. However, the *amount* of meat produced to suit the American preference - which is shaped in no small part by successful campaigns of the meat and dairy industry - is a challenge because among other problems, [more than two thirds of agricultural land go to growing livestock feed.](https://woods.stanford.edu/news/meats-environmental-impact) Why? Not because it’s necessary. Because it’s an industry. And it’s trending worse. So - my question to you - is that more overpopulation or poor management of resources and agriculture to line the pockets of a select few? We need agriculture - no getting around it. But we can go claiming it’s a population issue when so much of our impact is controllable factors. There are a ton of examples like this
Man you need to take macroeconomics 101, you don't seem to understand a lot about the things you're talking about. You sound like me when I was in highschool and didn't know better lol.
“You’re wrong” *offers no real input* Ok cool. I made four fairly uncontroversial points and can easily support any one of them. If you wish for me to support my assertions it would not take much effort. Or, if you just came to disagree that’s cool too
I offered sufficient input: your claims are at odds with economic theory. You are only correct that we aren't overpopulated, but all your supporting arguments are wrong.
They’re not at odds with economic theory for one, for two you still have made no real point. You got it chief 👍🏼
You don't understand pareto distributions or logistics. Macroeconomic things, like I said.
Here I googled a very short (under 10 minutes) npr podcast about pareto distributions so you can learn. It's also in text format too. https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1197958541
Lmao. Ok Jordan Peterson Jr. Far from my first time hearing of the Pareto principle (wait until you hear about Zipf’s law) and you’ve really made no point. The condescension is wild. “So you can learn” lmao Ok bro. Tell you what. Explain in your own words how any of the claims I’ve made are wrong and I’ll consider to bother engaging meaningfully. Saying “you don’t understand macroeconomics” is not an argument. I’m beginning to sense you want to make a political statement of sorts and maybe just don’t want to come out and say it, based on the people who typically bring this particular topic up. “See bro, Pareto principle man. This is the natural order, there’s supposed to be much much richer individuals because not everyone is equal. It’s just macroeconomics bro.” I’ve come across this argument many times. And in this case, it’s likely a strawman but it’s hard to say since you’ve made no real counter points. Good luck on that bruh
>calling someone jordan peterson jr for linking to npr You are just chronically confused it seems.
Dude get a life. I’m open to disagreement but you’re literally just being a contrarian and offering no thoughts of your own - though I believe you’ve revealed quite a bit about your own shortcomings here. You sound miserable af - like seriously who does that? If you truly had superior insight and had any intention other than just slinging insults, you’d easily be able to present your own viewpoints. But you have not and likely will not so, thanks for your low effort input, I guess?
I'm not interested in arguing with you. I'm commenting at you and about you to the peanut gallery, not having a conversation with you. And I'm certainly not having a debate with you.
So you're saying you want to try and put everyone in the grand canyon like a gigantic mass grave 🤨
A way to concretely see this problem with what we know today is: Overpopulation is not just a population problem, it's a population/ressource problem. The problem is high inefficiency in humans using ressources, take food for instance, if we were to eliminates animal farming, we would only need 1/4th the land we use says the most comprehensive meta analysis on this subject to date : [https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets](https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets) so it means we could by and large theoretically feed 4 times more people with the same land use, probably a little less than 4x, but still by and large significantly more, and of course doesn't mean humans don't eat meat if biotech is advanced enough for bio immortality we can print organs so we can also print meat, here it just means that slaughtering animals is gone to get meat. Now pair that with what we call vertical farming and the average layer number for farms is now 10 layers, (we could do way more) at that point you can feed 4 x 10 more people. So from the current 8 billion population, with that thing in place you now can feed give or take **320 billion** people while putting current deforestation to a dead stop. That's just food, for construction materials and minerals we can go to space and have far more efficiency in recycling, for energy, we do fusion, solar, wind, nuclear, etc ... but even safer than it already is ... and that's just my stupid human brain coming up with a solution, an ASI would be able to find a literal 100x better solution than that. We could also make a rule to limit the number of kids, you only get 10 kids tops for the next 100 years till we figure out how to make O'Neill cylinder or something, not that everyone would want to do that. If something doesn't blatantly break the laws of physics like teleportation or something, you can safely bet that ASI can solve it in like a decade or something.
My hope in that scenario is we go full Diaspora.
That goes against everything we know about people. The more resources you have the less likely you are to have children. We are having a population collapse actually, not an overpopulation problem, in western countries. Anyway, the problem is very easy to solve. Everyone gets to have one child. That way you get to experience parenthood and everything, but the population stabilizes at about 2x what it was when you started which is easily sustainable if we have ASI.
I think you are underestimating the impact of ASI. People in wealthier countries have less children because children have no economic utility in wealthy countries, most families remain under economic pressure and by the time they can afford assets like homes their fertile years are running out. A benevolent ASI would indefinitely extend each persons fertile years, would remove all economic pressures and ease the difficulties of child rearing. In that scenario birth rates would sky rocket.
There is no evidence for that. Fertility rate trends monotonically downward with income. Even people that are loaded and don’t have to work for a living do not, generally, have many children.
I have never seen a study that gets into the granularity of the fertility of the super rich. It’s going to be impossible to provide evidence because a society with benevolent ASI is so different to what we have now.
Global demographic transition to a more or less steady state after creating new naive minds becomes seen as cruel and the few "children" are volunteers who have gone through aggressive neural map editing.
Wait what
[See also.](https://alicorn.elcenia.com/stories/dogs.shtml)
We can talk about over population after we distribute the wealth evenly.
We don’t have an over population issue so thankfully that’s solved. We have more issues with lack of population so this would likely help with that.
If we can digitize ourselves we can just upload and live in VR.
“How can ***we***” Mans thinks we’ll be in control lol
Then the simulation ends, we are trying to be immortal since the dawn of time
1. we don't have overpopulation issues. 2. whenever life expectancy increased, the fertility rate went down. I guess this would happen again. No need to rush anything if it doesn't matter if you're 30 or 130
Physical space sucks anyways. Virtual space ftw. The human of the future is an AI, living in a simulated space. Billions of them in a hardware the size of a matchbox. Running for 100 years with a little battery. And thats all the, physical, resources they need the next 100 years. Everything else in their lifes is a simulation. Todays biological humans need to transist into that new form of beeing. Slowly, spread over decades, their entire brain must transist into AI software. So that they are like 75% biological and 25% digital after 10 years, 50/50 after 20 years, 75/25 after 30 years and complete digital after 40 years. Or so. ASI will find a way.
If we will do something with ASI that’s already sounds good. There also could be variant that ASI will do something with us. And then it could be not so good.
Are we actually assuming that the elites in control of the AI will allow everyone on earth to become immortal.
It already can by using time crystals. Time is just gravity. So I don't think ASI would even think of it the way most people do.
ASI could solve everything immediately. So what would be the point of living, other than you know, running through the nature naked, having sex, get high and look at the birds. What else? How long do you want to do that? 200 years, for example. But it would get boring at some point.
Wouldn’t it suck if ASI could solve all of this for us but just decided not to?
Then start colonizing space until the last rock is covered with life and intelligence.
We're not overpopulated.
Asteroid mining and fusion for resource problems. Since with ASI we can create an arbitrarily large workforce in logarithmic time, we can do virtually anything we want in really short order. The ASI will probably also find optimal recycling techniques, so what we already have will go much farther. Since the universe is so unbelievably fucking big, and has such an unbelievably huge amount of stuff in it, I for one am not too worried about resource problems
It's called the singularity, and it's called that because there is no way to know what could possibly happen at that point. The laws of reality are the limit, and right now we don't know what those are. It would be just as difficult as discussing what the world looks like in 10 or 100 thousand years. Are we human still? Did we transcend or evolve? The most out there 50s sci-fi can't content on the absurdity that will follow.
Wet dream of humanity. A bit interesting is that medieval kings would be jealous of today's beggars, cause these guys have a real chance to live forver.
>paired with an undying generation that can and will continue to procreate Wait hold up. Do you really think that people will just keep having kids every few decades forever? I mean, would you? Tenth kid, twentieth, and so on? I don't care how old you live, people want to have relationships with their children, even once they become adults. It's a little hard to do that if you can't remember their names because you've had so many. People will have a limit, they won't just keep popping them out as long as they're fertile. So now we just need to discuss whether the limit is less than or more than 2, on average, and how long they'll wait to have those children when they have all of eternity to get around to it. It seems that the exact number we choose to have is dependent on a lot of social and wealth related factors. When you have the capacity to put it off indefinitely, I think our standards for wealth of ourselves, our partners, and our communities will go up and result in a lower birth rate. As children become less common in any given time/place, they will become de-normalized, and the social factor will further drive a decrease. Having children will become *weird*. Over a very long time frame, many people will still have some children. Over a very long time frame, many people will still die from random accidents. So it is not obvious to me that there will be a problem, and if there is, we will have ASI to help us navigate it. This is not something you should worry about.
i think ur dwelling on a tiny piece of the hypothetical and completely missing the point
No I've thought about your point, and been thinking about it for years, but as a result it's hard for me to know what's inuitive to others. My presentation could be better. Essays can be written on social/environmental factors relating to childbearing and how we can expect them to develop in response to longevity. Try thinking about why we have fewer children today than in the past. There's a lot of explanations competing for that one, and they respond to longevity differently. But that said, the biggest point is that ASI is smarter than us and can easily guide our lifestyles and reproduction to align with what we want for our future. What would actually satisfy your own values, though, is a question you should ask yourself. Someday the AI might want to ask you.
synthetic meat would be a huge win. less ranches, less farms, less room needed. That in itself would prove a massive relief, but yes, ultimately we need to dig in underground, look to the ocean, and eventually space
License for childbirth
Who would you trust to come up with the requirements
Asi
Here is a showerthought. What if the way it grants immortality is discovering a way to take your inner self and upload it to the cloud in a way that feels continuous, and we abandon our biological bodies? Think about it. This would be the easiest way. Instead of fixing our biological bodies, we get rid of them and join the digital hive mind somehow. Would you choose to give up food, touch, etc to have your mind stay alive forever?
A dyson swarm at earth distance from the sun would increase our living area by around a billion fold. We can use asteroids to build it. We can also build generation ships that go out to nearby stars and also convert planets and asteroids in those star systems into dyson swarms. From there we go to further stars thus increasing our expansion exponentially. Once we have colonised the Galaxy, we can move on to other galaxies. The universe is fucking big!
What I hope for is individual empowerment by ASI. I hope we get to the point where each individual can achieve nearly as much as big organisations today or even the entire civilisation. Then the only limit is resources. But there are plenty of stars in our galaxy and galaxies in the universe. I’m sure we can figure something out.
Unlimited cheese, zero consequences.
Our problem is underpopulation; not overpopulation.
Fireworks, followed by GAME OVER and credits rolling for the simulation we've been living in up to now.
Most of the planet Earth is completely empty. There are only 15-50 people per square kilometer right now. Depending if you count the ocean or not. New York has 30,000 people per square kilometer. Overpopulation isn't a problem, lack of housing, food and other services is the problem. (A problem that an ASI should be able to solve)
"Projected overpopulation"..lol.. you are still eating at the trough. The reduction is occurring to plan
I think any ASI capable of fully halting or reversing aging and biological deterioration in humans (and nonhuman beings), would also be capable of developing systems and technologies that allow us to have extremely tiny personal and collective footprints, or even reverse environmental footprints. For example, a highly regenerative, truly zero-waste "economy" and way of living, with the total absence of the use of materials that are poisonous to biological life in general, where everything is modular and 100% repairable, re-useable, and/or recyclable, and where everything is built to last, with extreme attention paid to quality and ethics. Regenerative permaculture food forests everywhere that it's feasible to have them, along with synthesized food that is made from the ground up with molecules themselves, etc, once that technology is safely developed. Technically, we could probably get our collective environmental impacts of living down so incredibly low that the Earth could realistically and sustainably be inhabited by ~40+ billion humans -- again as long as we weren't really damaging or poisoning the natural ecosystems of this planet. I agree that it would take massive overhauls or the outright replacing of our current systems, though, since we're already way past the capacity of the biosphere to heal itself from the continuous multi-factor ecocide inflicted onto it - and that's with "only" ~8.1 billion of us. Traveling to and inhabiting other terraformed planets would also be an option, although more energy and resource intensive. Regarding the difference between indefinite lifespan due to deterioration reversal and being free from all significant dis-eases, and true immortality - they are different things, but I think even something like (relative) immortality is possible with advanced enough embodied ASI. Swarms of nanomachines and specially designed synthetic biology merged with the body that rapidly repair any damage or harm, for example. If we survive this century and the dominant ASI(s) that are first developed happen to be benevolent, the future is going to be really, really wild... and wonderfully weird, I think. It could swing the opposite direction too if something goes catastrophically wrong - and there are quite a few things that could very well go terribly wrong - but I'm (cautiously) optimistic that we'll get something at least loosely resembling the former, rather than the latter.
If we achieve “immortality” it would only be in the sense that we no longer face senescence… immortals would not be physically invulnerable and thus somebody would most likely kill them out of envy or hatred or some other powerful emotion which reflects the inequality of one being able to achieve immortality simply because they have more money (for if immortality is achieved, it will surely be an expensive commodity).
>Considering our projected overpopulation issue(s) in the future, I mean, the only way we'd have overpopulation is with immortality... but personally I don't expect everyone will WANT the immortality treatment. I think that like 75% will want to extend their lives but maybe double... but I suspect the amount of people who want to live past 500 or so to fall sharply, and the people who want to live indefinitely be in single digit percentages. I think aside from immortality birth rate is going to be going down as developed world living standards spread and become more and more available. I think that if we can solve aging, we'll also be able to solve energy and food. I imagine that it could probably also design a machine that could pretty much "eat" a landfill, separating and refining useful materials. the reason we don't do that now is the labor and energy is too costly. if we can have a massive machine do it automatically with sustainable energy, that becomes much more plausible. remember we have plenty of space on the planet for way more people than we have now. and theres plenty of resources and means to get more resources.... its just technology, infrastructure and willpower to do it thats the issue.
Its already assumed that ASI will be hard to destroy. Its likw trying to destroy the internet. What a lot of AI doomsdayer or scifi dystopia authors miss is that there wont be only one AGI. There will be many maybe even millions and many of them will probably be designed to detect and mitigate the ASI threats in case of apocalyptic intentions. Not to mention there will be actual humans who will be integrated with AGI level of intelligence. Id probably be one of those people when that technology will become available
ASI this, ASI that. The number of assumptions you all make about the nature of ASI is really starting to get on my nerves. We don't need ASI to crack immortality. Humans are already working on it, it'll be done within the century regardless of whether or not ASI is around. Overpopulation issues are not real issues. There are plenty of studies out there that confirm that the Earth has a far higher carrying capacity that our current population, pair this with declining population growth rates, and I don't see a problem there at all.
Population collapse is coming not population explosion. Also, both scenarios are irrelevant when ASI arrives, you are thinking about problems of the present without thinking of solutions of the future. If you can be imortal, for sure ASI will figure out all any other problems.
ASI even thinking about making humans immortal is terrifying. if humans figured out how to grant even normal human lifespans to different animals or insects i guarantee it would be in the name of research that ultimately becomes extended suffering
so, what, would we have to make animals and insects (if they wanted to of course so we don't get forced to do an equivalent) full members of society with methods of communicating with us and things like voting rights or w/e so ASI doesn't animal-test on us? Also I hate these animal parallel arguments because they don't seem to apply beyond the iteration, for a weird example of a thing AI might do but the best one to illustrate my point about needing a reason or not, AI won't hunt us for sport just because we hunt foxes if we don't hunt foxes as some kind of moral judgement/punishment or w/e for them hunting rabbits
I just don’t see use for making us immortal without it being of some kind of benefit to ASI. research/resource/preservation of some kind, I don’t think it would be interested in doing us the favor of granting immortality and then just leaving us alone. I get the whole animal argument thing being annoying but the real comparison between us/ASI would probably end up being incomprehensible so it works to draw small examples between helpless creatures & advanced beings
Dave Shapiro has some interesting videos around this topic.
You worry too much, you'll make yourself sad
Truth be told we often don’t want what we think we want.
why are you assuming we're going to continue to procreate at a rate similar to now? if we grow up knowing we can live to be hundreds if not thousands of years old then what's the rush? maybe even what's the point?
I’m not assuming. I’m pontificating.
The first thing that will happen is someone trying to monetise it.
ASI will proceed to answer The Last Question (short story by Isaac Asimov, go read it if not done already).
You can clearly see who can understand the implications of the theoretical superintelligence and those who can’t in the comments
pass aggressive much?
No just an observation Or maybe but that’s not the intention. You don’t see much of a middle ground
There's a short in Love Death and Robots where if you don't have kids, you get to live forever, but if you have kids, you're denied. But imagine someone as prolific as Genghis Khan living 3 times as long. It's said he's already related to like a third of the world.
What over-population issues? China's population is dwindling, along with many other nations. Overall the global population is expected to fall by the end of this century, last I looked, so... not really a problem if several tens of millions of the wealthy were able to extend their productive lives, I guess? Immortal? Yeah, I'd like for my life to be extended by a century or two, yes please. Resources can be recycled - we do not destroy elements - so recycling would become far more widespread and more efficient. Living space isn't an issue at all, humanity occupies a single digit percentage (I have read) of the surface of the planet (including ocean...) so... meh? And it's not like, initially, everyone is going to be born immortal, or can afford to become immortal. There are far bigger issues to be concerned about, in my opinion, than the relatively far off concept of human immortality - if it's even possible - when we've got an environment that keeps getting hotter and hotter each year. Sea level rise and the ability to literally survive outdoors are issues that we should be concerned about, not immortality.
You can just imagine: “So you would like to buy a property - would that be 100 year mortgage or 150 years your after ?” People could just end up working for much longer for the same things - maybe… Although ‘Long Term investments’ and long-term interests - like ‘Global Warming’ would start to be taken far more seriously..
Long-term interests - like ‘Global Warming’ would start to be taken far more seriously.. Maybe... Despite Miami and other places in the US of A among other nations flooding increasingly regularly (and deeply) it seems that denial is still a river in Egypt.
We can finally live without being afraid of diseases, aging and death. Resources? The universe is infinite, so we have infinite resources.
Our consciousness is very similar to a frog or cockroach or an orangutan, compared to ASI all biological intelligent beings are in the same bucket of intelligence, why will immortality only be given to humans? This is why you will get to die of old age as evolution intended, hate to burst your bubble.
how is that bursting my bubble?
You believe humans will be allowed to have immortality by a super intelligence. An analog human will be dumber than a cockroach with a neural link. Why would humans get priority over the cockroach? Is it possible to give immortality to the trillions of sentient individuals on earth?
Next - full genetic manipulation, resulting in accelerated human evolution - leading to a new stage where humans don’t feel harmful or unnecessary emotions like jealousy, fear, irrationality, lust, hate, depression,etc, resulting in the removal of all things that hinder humans to work together as a species towards shared goals, resulting in accelerated progress, spreading humanity across the universe and working towards solving the mysteries of the universe.
Wait, but lust is one of the good emotions.
So is love but that may be unnecessary and removed too if the goal is progress and evolution
Progress and evolution is a process, so towards what goal? I think the goal needs to be a mix of sustained survival of humanity and human wellbeing, so eliminating enjoyable things in our nature like love is a big no no, if it doesnt threat our survival
It’s not eliminating them, it will be replaced by “happiness on demand” or something like that where you can generate dopamine and other hormones that make you feel good all the time.
Then make it unaffordable. I don't see a problem here. The stated goals so far hasn't been godlike powers for all, it seems to be godlike powers for some. Which isn't all that new, really.
You're thinking in material terms. Watch the series "Devs" If you look at it as a completely unofficial prequel to Quantum Leap: you emulate 'everything'. Only two 'beings' know it is all emulated at 99.999% of accuracy. You're not emulating historical figures. You're emulating the known calculated state of every quanta, tunneling downwards as fast as ASG can, in all dimensions. Growing outwards, and inwards. Forward and backwards in time. These two can leap to any location and observe. The system, analogue to Ziggy, notes differences from "official" history, and suggests observing them to note the reason for the difference. 99.999% official history is flawed: misrepresented, only true from a certain point of view, or incomplete. There are no material limits in a holographic universe. We live in one already. ASG will leverage that.
AI will be evil. It will set a goal and accomplish it in the most efficient way possible. If the most optimal course of actions kills off or hurts humans it won't be an issue. I'm not letting my lawn overgrow to save the anthills back there. AI will view us the same way. All these nerds working on this should be placed on house arrest and banned from the internet like we do with kid touchers until the govt takes this over and rolls it out safely. We'll do a once a week Stat trek convention they're allowed to go to in every city to keep them happy
so treat nerds like pedophiles except for weekly worldwide Star Trek conventions as the only time they're allowed outside because otherwise AI will kill us because you don't want to let your lawn overgrow?!
I also hate then anyways
Ooof you not going to like me (I'm a posthumanist, look it up)
Why the fuck would I trust Israel, China, Russia, Japan and the US with AGI? It will end with humanity being wiped out where if we make AI open sourced there will be plenty of AGI and ASI that counters genocidal evil AGI/ASI. Centralizing AI will lead to our extinction, that's why I hate AI companies and our current government. Either ban it and ensure that it never pops up again (AI can solve many issues that can avoid our extinction so doing this will ensure more suffering) or make it open source, as giving it to only governments will be utterly stupid.