I’m sorry, Zinnat, but I don’t think so. You said (for example):
I don’t think that Nietzsche’s texts are difficult to understand - the revers is true: Nietzsche’s texts are easy to understand. Nietzsche said this and that . there are some contradictions in his texts, but they as such are not difficult to understand.
Actually, if You start with the premiss, that Nietzsche, is the ultimate ironist, then everything will fall into place. That no ONE understood that, caused HIS demise, and that of WW2.
Where there is the ability to enslave all of humanity there certainly will be the desire to do just that by groups of people out there.
[size=120]Machines and all those ecological, economic, and demographical problems:[/size]
Reforming democracy is relatively useless, but reforming demography is not useless.
These are my presuppositions:
size=140[/size] Currently there are three main global(istic) problems:list the ecologic problem,
(1.2) the economic problem,
(1.3) the demographic problem.[/list:u]
So, if we really want to solve that three main global(istic) problems, then we can do it only by considerating this three facts:
list the pollution of the environment is a disaster,
(1.2) the wealth is unequally or at least unfair distributed,
(1.3) the offspring is unequally or at least unfair distributed.[/list:u]
size=140 [/size]Currently the politicians are not able to solve that three main problems and produce more and more regulated markets.
size=140[/size] „Free“ markets have not existed anymore since the end of the Stone Age and will not exist until the Stone Age will come back.
The politicians don’t solve but increase the problems. The market allone can’t solve but decrease the problems, if such a market is wanted, allowed.
My solution requires less regulated markets and laws than we have today. A familiy manager is needed for my solution and will be found soon via market, if those bureaucratic laws which currently forbid to have family managers will be eliminated. Many other laws will have to be eliminated as well before the concept of the family management will be successful.
Many people have no time for their children - a family manager would do the job temporarily instead of them. Many people merely have children because the state pays for them - that is criminal, unsocial, thus egoistical, and of course that leads to many more problems which increase exponentially. Many people who want to work, to supply, to carry, to achieve, to accomplish, to afford will be able to have children then, now they can’t, and other many people who don’t want to work will have children too but not more than one per adult (= two per married couple).
The merely one law which is needed for my solution is that which says: „it is not allowed to have less and more than one child per adult“. In view of the fact that many laws will disappear, these two laws are very few. Furthermore, my solution leads to more wealth because the productive can be reproductive again (now they can’t), so that there will be also productive people in the future. Because of the probability that again more intelligent and responsible people would take more care about their environment the reduction of the pollution of the environment would also become more probable.
„Dangerous thinking“ must be allowed on this forum because it is a philosophy forum and no party conference. My solution is a taboo, I know, it is not wanted by the rulers because if practised it will be successful, and that means that the rulers will lose their control and consequently their power. The rulers don’t want other humans, especially intelligent humans, because they are not needed, machines can replace them.
I have made a proposal how to solve the three main problems of Western modernity which has become the three main problems of the planet Earth, thus of all human beings, probably of all „higher“ living beings, perhaps of all living beings. If each adult of the human beings is allowed to have one child but not allowed to have both less and more than one child, then the population shrinks very slowly because the reproduction rate is merely 1,0 and not 1,07 or more (population growth). My solution menas that the qualitiy of the population grows, while the quantity of the population shrinks, so that all become richer and also more responsible for their environment because of their quality.
Else the reverse continues: Western modernity as a way of life for all human beings as a growing population on a more and more uninhabitable planet Earth.
Wait a minute, are you saying that government powers controlling whole robotic armies in the future will not be so nice and caring towards us?
Laughs
Here’s an interesting related article on ongoing studies into the dangers of superintelligence:
chronicle.com/article/Is-Artific … e-a/148763
Humean, i am kind of beginning to feel very much as if this is the coming scene. Just almost simultaneously, i wrote a piece in the off topic forum,‘daily journal’ of the introduction in Japan of robots , actually placed on homebound students’ desks, and learning through this kind of interaction and memory. Almost at the same time you brought in the super intelligence article. Uncanny and strange. However, the article brings to light concerns of the negative aspects of robotics, corresponding reversely to one of usefulness, and even developing technically feasible empathy, as in the Japanese robotic student, being used in Japanese classrooms.
PS i checked the time of postings, Your’s was posted prior to mine, but i had no way to know about it, therefore if there is a connection, (which to me seems to be the case) it is not as if the two blogs were totally unrelated.
The relationship between a developing, benign system (my ‘good’ robot) with the article’s concern with the risk of developing metastatically dubious super-intelligent systems, as measured by the different rates of change of the systems may parallel a coincidental occurrence of divergence of error as risk. If the question , at all, be asked of concurrence of risk management between two different systems, as a new basis to developed , using extra differential systems to intervene between them, to diminish the risk, can such co-incidences as my posting a very similar post, be some indication of the risks of assuming traditional logic formats coming up in the future?
If so, probability-function data should very much be focused upon as legitimate ,correlates of such variables in risk management of super-intelligence.
Just a thought, but traditional hardware, may reach limits to actually afford , not to involve concepts of simultaneity into the equation. (Here the example is very crude, Your blog predated mine by twenty minutes, but then again i had not read Your blog prior to writing mine.
What’s your point, Laughing Man?
That an advanced technological society run by a few psychopaths around the world will be an eternal nightmare for humanity.
Do I pass your screening good sir?
Yeah. Such is life - at least human life. And those ruling pschopaths and their functionaries call the other people “psychopaths”. Do you know what I mean?
Yes, of course, good boy.
That is what has been driving people for thousands of years, “bad programming”.
Now the machines have it too, driving them even harder, faster, stronger, meaner, and a whole lot smarter.
THE MACHINES AND THE UNPRODUCTIVE HUMANS.
The reasonably fair distribution of children. The invisible accent are the adverb „reasonably" and the adjective “fair”. Currently the distribution of children is absolutely unfair, and if it is right (and it is right - because fertility, intelligence / competence, and wealth are correlated) that everyone wants to copy himself / herself, then it is fair that both the less-productive people and the more-productive people can do it. Currently the less-productive people merely produce children and nothing else, and for that they get money from the state, thus the taxpayers who have few or no children (so in the end there are merely less-productive people). Do you think that that is fair? If yes, then we can end our conversation. Do you think it will be alright if we will have merely less-productive people, so that the whole human population will be less-productive which actually means unproductive? If you say “yes”, then you have to say “yes” too when it comes to this question: Will machines completely replace all human beings?.
The reasonably fair distribution of children increases the wealth of the less-productive people - right, Gib - but of the more-productive people too. Both condition each other. If the less-productive people are poor and have more children than the more-productive people and have to be supported by the more-productive people (and that all is the case), then the trend is that the more-productive also become poor and less-productive. One has always to consider the time too, for example to differ in “short time”, “middle time”, and “long time”. What I am reffering to is mainly the middle and especially the long time because this “global society” lives and thinks merely for a very short time, at the cost of our children, as I already said (here).
The reasonably fair distribution of children leads to more peace because that distribution is reasonably fair. The invisible accent are the adverb „reasonably" and the adjective “fair”, Gib. The huge majority of people who are wealthy don’t want war, they just want wealth. Human beings are luxury beings, and if the luxury of the present time is reached, then they are - by the majority - satisfied (I am not speaking of the rulers, the upper class, which is a special case because of its power which has been increasing exponentilally, horribly). Normal people are mostly satisfied when they have reached the luxury which they think has to be reached at a time. They are peaceful. War is an issue of the upper class, not of the middle class, and of the lower class because of their poorness, envy, unhappiness, resentment.
The reasonably fair distribution of children leads to more competence because the reasonably fair distribution of children leads to more intelligence (cp. 2.2.2.). It is proven that fertility, intelligence / competence, and wealth correlate with each other.
Aa) If you have no children and want to be a more-productive, then the probability is high that you have much time for being a more-productive.
Ba) If you have many children and want to be a more-productive, then the probability is high that you have less time for being a more-productive.
Ab) If you have no children and do not want to be a more-productive, then the probability is high that you are not a more-productive.
Bb) If you have many children and do not want to be a more-productive, then the probability is high that you have less time for being a more-productive and that you are not a more-productive because you do not want to be a more-productive.
No - because they also add up.
Egoism is on both sides, Gib. You can’t eliminate egoism but merely extreme egoism, thus egomania.
The history of the Western societies shows how the trend will be for the other societies in the future, but there is one problem: it will not be the same but merely a similar devolopment because the other societies belong to other cultures, and if they know the history of the Western culture, then they also know what to do in order to become modern but not Western. They don’t want to live the Western way of life, they have a different tradtition. More and more of them resist the Western way of life.
You can have many children and be a very egomanian pigheaded fellow. You can have no children and be a very egomanian pigheaded fellow. It depends on which culture you belong to, which mindset / mentality and feelings / affects you have.
The scapegoat is not always the typical Western middle class “bourgeois”, Gib.
Yes and no - because in that case the more-productive people have to pay less taxes, less charges, less surcharges etc… It is logical. So both the more-productive people and the less-productive people will become more wealthy, if those of the less-productive who have become part of the more-productiveare more that those of the more-productive people who have become part of the less-productive people. And that is the case. So a solution of the demographical problem is necessary.
THE MACHINES AND THE UNPRODUCTIVE HUMANS.
Gib, the welfare state is not a new penomenon. If I showed you the welfare state of the 19th century (for example the German state during the time when Bismarck was Reichskanzler), you would have asked: that was a welfares state? Yes, it was, and Bismarck’s welfare state was the first and the best one. What I want to say is that we have to consider that this welfare state has changed and unfortunately become a huge monster. But my main point is not the welfare state allone but also and first of all the justice of generations (remember: demography is my theme here). The problem is that this modern “society” lives and thinks merely for a very short time, at the cost of the offspring, as I already said (here and here). This includes not only the debts but also the demographic disaster and the pollution of the whole planet Earth. So the pictures again:
The welfare state must not be eliminated but reduced. If we wanted to find back to a pure or nearly pure society of humans (and not to rush in a “society” of machines and half-machines and human slaves or even no humans), then the welfare state as a monster would not be needed anymore. But the most people want the contradiction, the oxymoron, because with the machines and more and more machines the welfare state will be needed more than ever before but eliminated. That’s a “good” outlook for our offspring, isn’t it, Gib?
Like anything else there are different levels of psychopaths.
Different kinds of psychopaths will complete against other kinds of psychopaths.
I admit being one because I’m honest about myself.
Glad I meet your approval. Carry on sir.
Thank you, and what do you think about that article?
I agree with it.
Nonetheless this won’t stop the establishment any in their quest to create a form of Skynet.
Damnable hubris of it all.
Yes, and this hubris seems to be unstoppable. It’s a “veloficeric” (Goethe) dvelopment.
Machines have already replaced many humans, for example those humans who are unemployed, jobless, out-of-work, rdundant, or those humans who are unborn because of the fact that humans have no time for children just because of the competition, the rivalry, between machines and humans. The outcome of that competition, that rivalry, was already decided when the first factories were equipped with steam engines.
And b.t.w.: Would you have answered in the affirmative, if someone had asked you in the 1960’s or even in the 1970’s and 1980’s wether you believe that a computer can be infected by a virus?
Ouzo?
You mean this one?:
And you in Solingen, Obe?
I was, once. But really for Ouzo, i may as well have been in Athens, or Big Sur. Now this is totally unoriginal, it comes from Henry Miller’s pen. Well not the Solingen , but Athens. He says, in ‘The oranges of Bosch’ that You do not have to be in Athens to be there.-You can really be anywhere.
A machine will become clever enough, and then they start to apply its intelligence to itself and improve itself.
What do you think about that?