Comments on: Looking Human Extinction in the Face

By: Jeffrey Herrlich

Jeffrey Herrlich — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 20:56:08 +0000

It’s no news to Michael, but with truly **massive** resources humanity could probably put-up a self-sustaining space station, today. Granted, it wouldn’t be luxurious living. That tech will probably continue to get cheaper to some degree. And it could be used to back-up up humanity’s future potential, in the sense that some humans could survive an earth-bound existential disaster from genetics or nanotech. Unfriendly AI, fuggetaboutit. Government’s are already spending some money on space development, but a laughably tiny amount on Unfriendly AI investigation. And they are at least beginning to ask questions about the safety of nanotech/genetics. (eg. The NNI) That’s the primary reason that I believe Friendly AI deserves the lion’s share of attention at this time.

By: IConrad

IConrad — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:10:25 +0000

Al fin wrote:

The danger of new biologies is that the ecology that sustains us could be replaced by a new ecology that cannot sustain us.

Only if the new biologies possess a greater energy economy efficiency than the old — that is; only if they can ‘out-compete’ the native environs.

Now, oddly, GM agro is actually more of a concern than early-stage synthetic biology; not because the material itself is transferable, but because the genetics of agricultural goods has been demonstrated to find its way into fallow plants (even of other species…?) Of course, the fears of “deep ecologists” when it comes to the Terminator gene are just plain not founded on science — but what of their beliefs really are, anymore?

By: Al Fin

Al Fin — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:09:30 +0000

Excellent point, Michael, about all the money being spent on (C)AGW, which can not with a straight face be considered an existential risk, when comparatively little is being spent on genuine risks.

Does anyone remember Thomas Disch’s novel “The Genocides?” Most species go extinct through loss of habitat. Humans had best extend their habitat range significantly.

The danger of new biologies is that the ecology that sustains us could be replaced by a new ecology that cannot sustain us.

By: Carl Shulman

Carl Shulman — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 10:19:55 +0000

Michael,

I noted above in parentheses the actual inadequacy of the arsenals of the time for human extinction (which would have required strong Sagan-style ‘nuclear winter’ or the like).

By: floss

floss — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 05:43:44 +0000

Toynbee (d.1975) describes a period in a civilization called Interregnum, when there is a breach in order or government. This period may last a few hundred years. Population disperses and society breaks down. The Greco-Roman civilization had this period, as did most of the major civilizations of the past 10,000 years. It would serve us well to study civilizational history.

At any one time there are several civilizations going through their cycle. We have an elderly civilization acting out its Roman era, we have a mature civilization in its post Greek civil war era, and we have several civilizations in a dark age. One or two are coming out of an Interregnum and there’s even one that is being born as we speak.

So although we discuss human extinction it’s good to keep in mind civilizational life cycles.