David, thanks for the compliment. It's very kind of you to say so.
shoshin wrote:
> First, does GD predict a self-extinction event? One of the puzzles
> of the universe is “where is everyone else? Why no visitors?” One
> answer is that “life” encounters several bottlenecks that prevent
> intelligent life from arising, and then reaching the level of
> space travel: Not the right molecules, not the right
> conditions. Or once arisen, catastrophic destruction intervenes
> (asteroids, volcanoes). Or life becomes “too intelligent/powerful”
> (the “Forbidden Planet” scenario). Or maybe faster than light
> travel proves to be impossible. We are at the stage at which we
> may develop the ability to travel across light-years, but might we
> also find a way to destroy ourselves? The consensus seems to be
> that civilizations destroy themselves before they get to the space
> travel stage. Is that part of GD?
Generational Dynamics really doesn't address the creation of life nor
the extinction of life. Those questions are left to the evolutionary
biologists, the philosophers and the theologians. GD addresses the
stuff in the middle.
However, in the full article, I did include speculation about other
intelligent life in the universe. The speculation is as
follows:
- Technological development must occur in a specific order. You
can't invent the car until you've invented the wheel.
- Therefore, every intelligent species in the universe will develop
technology in the same way as humans, and will eventually reach the
Singularity in the same way.
- After the Singularity, technology development will occur vastly
more quickly. Assumption: At some point in time, all technological
development will be completed. We call this point Singularity#2.
Every intelligent species in the universe will eventually reach the
same Singularity#2.
- Therefore, we arrive at this speculation: Other intelligent
species have all reached Singularity#2, and they're in communication
with each other. They're aware of us on earth, and they're watching
us, to see when we reach Singularity#2, so that we can join their
community.
shoshin wrote:
> Second, I question your confidence that climate change will be
> solved technologically. Your use of the horse manure analogy is
> ill-advised, as is your dismissing long-range climate predictions
> with “we can’t even predict what the weather will be next month.”
> That’s true, but the long-term trends are undeniable.
I'm actually quite confident that climate change will be solved
technologically. That's the only way it can be solved. The only
question is whether the technology will be developed corporations, or
through some loony government project. I guess you know where I stand
on that question.
I personally believe that nanotechnology will provide the eventual
solution.
Also, the long-term trends are indeed deniable. Climate change
activists have gotten one prediction after another wrong. (See the
links at the end of that section.) And I don't for a moment believe
that climate scientists have the vaguest clue what the earth's
temperature will be in 2100. This is all sleazy politics, and
a grab for taxpayer money.
shoshin wrote:
> With respect to horse manure, you are confusing “local ruin” with
> “systemic ruin.”
Of course the horse manure problem was systemic. If the use of horses
had increased in an unlimited fashion, then every city and town in the
world would be plagued with horse manure, horse urine, horse corpses,
and resulting disease and vermin. This could easily lead to some kind
of systemic disaster, such as a worldwide plague that would kill
billions of people and billions of horses, and cause the extinction
of many species.
shoshin wrote:
> Climate catastrophe is systemic ruin. As a software guru, you know
> (and have discussed) the ever-enlarging software packages that no
> one actually understands, and that periodically collapse with no
> explanation. Any sufficiently complex system has multiple
> connections and feedback loops. The “ecosphere” is a monumental
> example. It can withstand multiple insults and perturbations (CO2
> levels, methane, destruction of the rainforest), slowly adapting
> and changing. But at some point, the system will dramatically
> “reset” itself to a new equilibrium point. And that point is
> unpredictable. And that time is unpredictable. Given human nature,
> we will NOT act to prevent this, we will only REACT. Humans
> discount the future. Gradual change is ignored. We will continue
> to “perturb the system” until something dramatic happens, and that
> will be a surprise.
This is very dramatic, and just as speculative as the horse manure
systemic disaster.
The part that you're leaving out is that the multiple connections and
feedback loops usually mean that problems are self-corrected by the
complex system.
Gradual change is NOT ignored. Look at what's happening in Beijing.
There must be millions of people in corporations and universities around
the world who are looking for a solution to the "climate change problem,"
because they know that the first person who finds one will make millions
or trillions of dollars. Sleazy politicians will have nothing to do
with it except to take the credit.
shoshin wrote:
> Finally, an unrelated comment: You must be shivering with delight
> at Marco Rubio’s campaign ad tag-line:
> “The world is a safer place when America is the strongest country
> on earth.”
> He’s like the love-child of Monroe and Truman! And if you just
> substitute “military/industrial complex” for “world,” it’s true!
Rubio? Who's that? I thought the only person running was Trump.
