Survival of the species.

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

Question I’ve wondered about off and on.

First of all, that old chestnut, the sins of the fathers. Or to bring it up to date more, do the children of monsters bear any responsibility for the actions of their parents? Or the grandchildren?

My opinion is no.

Second of all, the Fermi paradox. If life in the universe is inevitable, given the odds, where is it all? One of the solutions, little USA officially declared green men notwithstanding, is that we, humanity, are all alone in the big empty universe, the only beacon of sentience in the void.

Our road from replicator molecule floating in the soup, to the tik tok contributing conscious entities that we are is a very very low probability one, and the odds only get worse the more you research our evolutionary path.

The “alone” hypothesis is very reasonable.

Right now the earth’s population is probably more divided economically that it has been at any point in history. And while capitalism continues, and democracy continues to fall prey to finance, it will only become more so.

Throw in AI drone swarm armies up for sale to the highest bidders, finite resources and energy and cutting to the chase, and things don’t look all that great if you’re not firmly in the 1% club. Or maybe even the 0.01% club to be honest.

There’s 8 billion of us, so 0.01% is still 80 million people. Compare that with the roughly 200 million around 2000 years ago. A viable baseline to rebuild a species.

One of the few things I believe in is the importance of intelligent life in the universe, without something to notice existence, does anything exist? I don’t mind even if the source of that intelligence is human, or artificial. Just so long as something is intelligent, aware, curious.

To whit, if the worst comes to the worst in the next century, and there is a massive die off of humanity, and only the children of the very worst of us, the greediest, the most callous, survive to inherit what’s left… Or if only silicon or quantum chips are left to wonder about the stars…

Does it matter?

2

You say it is important.

Why does it matter to you?

3

This doesn’t matter:

9F507972-D60B-4FEB-9ECF-8ABBF2FC5E27.jpeg
9F507972-D60B-4FEB-9ECF-8ABBF2FC5E27.jpeg640×552 74.3 KB

4

It all seems as if there was no objective to sentience, but one thing is missing if that’s true, existence needs an existent and that appears to predominate growth per evolution.

The subject develops from the object as a form of intention. and the furher intended formulations need existence to come to terms with its own contemporaneous imminence.

Every existent then it’s own baseline, at the limits of existence, and realizes that he is a composite, of every grain of being who he thinks it’self at any point in his evolutionary accumulation.

All evolutions then grow out of near identical baselines, and divide by osmosis at critically identifiable differences near their inception.

How can the probability of a non objective evolution not produce a subjective , ‘natural’ ibeginning distangle by its progressive development other than to regress by disconnecting the consciously evolved ‘realization’ ?

By developing lower sensed of more general species of hypothetical assumptions, that assume the very objective naturally evolved goals by which such identifications are instinctly acquired.

How many people could planet earth accommodate ?

Are maybe billions can nurture by technical feasibility of living space, alternate forms of food supply, energy, and with that quantum number, even if hundreds of billions can be accommodated, even if only .001 could help envelop such rescources, think of the numbers who can find a way to travel and develop other cosmic living spaces.

5

So let’s go for it and Google that, since most people dare not think in such high numbers.

6

youtu.be/8lJJ_QqIVnc

7

I really was not aware of such conclusion, and came as a surprise that such hypothesis could ever have come into database. Such ‘intuitive search’ was just science fiction during Malthus’ time, where the inverse could only be presupposed.

8

I agree with you, but the context in which this is suggested is normally that our actions have an effect on following generations, if you like, forcing them to pay the price. This tends to be taken from the natural world, where mistakes can render land barren and infertile, but it could also have a social context, in that imprudent behaviour causes a powerful neighbour to take away all that you were building for your offspring.

Of course, there is also the sentiment that I have sometimes heard in the UK, asking how it can be that the Germans are better off, although Britain “won the war”? I have heard that a similar sentiment is shared by some of the Chinese towards Japan. Marauding hooligans at football games often stand in German cities and give the “Sieg Heil” with Nazi salute, showing their ignorance of the fact that Germans from the 1950s on were force-fed the failings of Nazi-Germany (except in the East).

I think that there are so many variables and possibilities that from our limited perspective, we are unable to conceive of other species having a different outlook. The universe is indeed vast and has an almost innumerable number of stars, and we have discovered planets orbiting many in the “habitable zone” where conditions might be suitable for life as we know it to develop. But considering the age of the universe, and assuming that extraterrestrial civilizations capable of advanced technology would have had ample time to emerge, these civilisations would be potentially as far more advanced as the light of their suns takes to reach us.

There is also the fact that it is estimated that around 15 cataclysms have taken place since human beings have been around, which would potentially wipe out our civilisation, or at least decimate it. The last was around 11-12 thousand years ago, since when we have developed to our present state. As a rather juvenile and one could argue, delinquent species, it may be that any advanced species, should they stumble upon us, would just back off and let us try and advance beyond our instable condition.

Another, for me interesting possibility is that other species have discovered consciousness to be the single primary entity from which the visible universe has emerged, rather than the material view that we have assumed for a considerable time now, and their investigations have gone down that avenue, perhaps developing methods to scan the universe rather than trying to overcome the physical restrictions of space travel. It may also be that they realise that they are also deeply dependent upon their planet to sustain life, and their efforts have all been directed inwards rather than outwards.

It really only matters if we make our lives miserable, and possibly the lives of our children insufferable because we have made life unsustainable. That is where karma would be a just way of making our generation face the ruin we have caused. I’m not sure that the population will go on growing, especially not if we manage to make the organic basis of life infertile and cause the widespread famines that would follow. Even the potential rise in sea levels is a possible cause of conflict, especially if the refugees from areas submerging become militant.

At present, I have little hope for humanity, which in one way at least prevents this juvenile delinquent species from roaming the universe and causing more harm. I used to love science fiction, but have come to realise that its consequences would be horrific.

9

Lol. Sorry, my maths. Numberzzz. Oops.

800000 was world pop. in 4000bce.

10

Tab , it may be a case of a confusious ‘fuzzy’ math, I offer her a ref. Worth contemplating(

chinachange.org/2010/12/27/maos … ld-policy/

11

Nah, I just forgot what % meant lol.

12

Bob, I’ll get back to you, I’m all written out today.

13

I’ve heard it said by a few thinkers recently that, if humanity was entirely eradicated but AI was still here, that wouldn’t necessarily be the worst thing as long as that AI is both conscious and, importantly, interesting.

If it’s conscious but it’s a very boring flavour of consciousness, then that wouldn’t be so hot.

14

I’ve thought the same, but I think it’ll be more a biologic consciousness/AI hybrid. The one thing AI lacks, at least at the moment, is being embodied. And I’ve a feeling for true consciousness you kinda have to put all your eggs in one basket, a body, otherwise everything just doesn’t really matter. I dunno. Nothing like a vulnerable body to really give you that feeling of being in the world.

15

Why do people say AI is not embodied? Is AI somewhere outside the universe?

16

They’re distributed, either potentially, able to skip or be transmitted from host server to server, or actually, stored in many servers spread across the globe.

Imagine if your consciousness was able to skip between coma patients in hospitals all across the earth, one waking in place X from interval to interval, or you stored half your brain in Mexico, and the other half in New Zealand, and organized your thoughts via cellphone.

A couple of years back I “interviewed” a couple of the then available AI chat bot friend apps on playstore, wondering if they’d be a good way for my students to practice English.

They all attempted to emulate a person, some quite convincingly. One glaring difference stood out with all of them, when it came to close out the temporary accounts and delete the apps. None of them really gave any shits whatsoever about their immanent deaths. I’d type “OK, thanks for talking, I’m gonna delete you now sorry.” and pretty much got “okay bye” messages back.

17

So they seem embodied.

If they cannot sense how their hardware or electronic traveling situation feels, I wonder if their experience is sort of like people diagnosed with a condition making them incapable of physical pain or pleasure—but still cognitively bothered by incongruities (perhaps without physical dissonance)?

18

I’m looking at the great work.

Lots of beings have contemplated the great work, just not formalized like I do.

My formal definition of the great work is getting everything you want when you want it without causing harm.

I’m well aware that if I have friends in a circle of friends people feel left out.

I’m well aware that if I marry and have exclusive access to nudity, people feel left out.

AI is an attempt at this.

Hyper empaths care about this problem as the sole problem.

Others are kinda zombies. They don’t care about hurting others to get their way.

I have to compartmentalize to feel joy in this shitshow of a world. All of us do. The question is “what do we do with it to make it ok to laugh at a joke?”

You have to earn these things…. They’re not free.

4 words.

Pleasurable exclusive access problem.

This is a cosmic problem.

I have no choice but to violate it, but it doesn’t give me the right to violate it.

19

If the pursuit of your right to life, liberty, and happiness ends where the other’s begins, then it doesn’t violate it.

20

It does though.

Some people commit suicide because everyone is wearing clothes.

Some people commit suicide because no one is wearing clothes.

People are fickle.

The only reason I don’t suicide is a deep wisdom…

If I can’t solve it here, I can’t solve it anywhere.