I feel there's a much higher chance that humanity will drastically change its own fate (for better or worse) in the next hundred years, and any forecasts beyond that have very wide error bars. Artificial intelligence is the big one (it ends the current era of "business as usual" no matter whether it's friendly or not), but there's also nanotech, superviruses coming from desktop bio-hackery, mind uploading, good old nuclear terrorism, etc. For "business as usual" to continue and things like climate change to stay relevant, we need to dodge all of the above, which is difficult.
Technology, even AI, is only a tool - whether it is used for good or evil depends on the hand that wields it. There is no reason to believe that any new technology will help humankind as a whole as long as those that desire power are lavishly rewarded for their malevolent acts. Our society today is defined by war, authority that refuses accountability, and oppression of anyone with less power than ourselves.
We have plenty of technology to solve all of our problems already - more will not save us.
Vernor Vinge, the man who coined the phrase "Technological Singularity", gave an interesting talk describing three scenarios if the Singularity does not happen. He calls them A Return to MADness, The Golden Age, and The Wheel of Time. He still regards the Singularity as the most likely non-catastrophic outcome for our near future.
Earlier generations could have said the same thing before each of: the internet, petroleum, flight, biotech, robotics, atomic bombs, the electric grid, the automobile, etc.
AI, nanotech, biohacking, and other possible future technologies just don't seem anywhere near as disruptive as that first list. They'll get incorporated into the "business as usual" machine if they come to pass at all — and much more easily than, say, atomic bombs were.
There's a follow-up post[1] where he talks more about the reactions:
"A vision of a future in which civilizations, species and worlds follow life cycles like those of all other natural things didn’t leave them furious or depressed. Their comments instead featured such words as “comforted,” “delighted,” and “awed.” It’s easy, and also common, to mischaracterize such feelings as simple schadenfreude at the failure of humanity’s overinflated ambitions, but there’s something rather more significant going on here. Not one of the readers who made these comments made gloating remarks about the fate of humanity or the Earth. Rather, what comforted, delighted, and awed them was the imagery of Nature’s enduring order and continuity that I wove throughout the narrative, and brought to the tightest focus I could manage in the last two paragraphs. "
Makes one wonder "why" and become very nihilistic. What's the point of anything? (Which obviously results in the answer of 'nothing'.)
This was a very well-written story. Let's remember, it's just a story, just a conjecture, just a spinning of a tale. Perhaps it's logical or perhaps it's not, but in the end humans have tenaciously clung to the idea it all has meaning, and I expect we will until the end, for better or worse.
I guess it's horror in a very wide sense. But me and any memory of me will be long gone before any of this even begins to happen. I had my time here, enjoyed it, and it'll come to an end, as all things eventually do.
The spiritual tradition from which the author of this piece speaks -- and it's more warmed-over quasi-hippiedom than anything genuinely Pagan or Druidic -- is a repeated affirmation of precisely that.
This brings up a thought I've had repeatedly (an admittedly unscientific one) when considering human history.
Considering that it "only" took us several thousand years to transform ourselves from hunter-gatherers to our current technologies, it makes little sense that this is the first human culture to reach the point we've reached. Then I try to dissuade myself from such a notion, rationalizing that if that were the case, we'd know it from some sort of evidence by this point.
And yet, I still can't shake the notion that this "shouldn't" be the first time around. Weird, especially since I consider myself a hardcore skeptic.
What about artificial satellites? If their orbits were stable, shouldn't any satellites from previous civilization still be around? Do you have an estimate on the attrition rate from random meteor collisions and the like? We should be able to do pretty well just from our own experience.
I can't think of the name of the theory, but the general idea is that it would be very difficult to rebuild to our current level of technology after a cataclysm event because all of the easily reached surface resources required to bootstrap it have been picked clean. Even the near-surface resources are gone, requiring us to use massive open-pit mines or deep mining/drilling.
Some material could be recycled from crumbling cities I imagine, but even recycling most modern materials requires a certain minimal level of technology, no?
Even stranger, our sun has collapsed and been rebuilt at least once (estimates are 3 times). Makes you wonder how many civilizations could have been built.
More specifically to your comment, even on our planet, the evidence of civilization would be hard to find if there was a civilization several million or even a few hundred thousand years ago.
When I was a kid I remember imagining that the dinosaurs managed to create an advanced civilization, reaching the moon, creating cities, tried to harvest asteroids but accidentally wiped themselves out after a major mistake, eliminating the evidence for their civilization in the process.
This was after reading The Crucible of Time by Brunner (one of my favourite books)
I don't think even our current civilization could rebuild what we have. The easily-extracted fossil fuels are spent. Even if we haven't reached Peak Oil, we need increasingly more advanced technology to find and extract fossil fuels.
Can you elaborate? Before we were hunter & gatherers, we were monkeys, before that there were dinosaurs, before that there were one-cell organisms.
If there were human civilizations a million years ago or before that, there would be significant evidence of cities, just as there is evidence of dinosaurs, no?
To me the most interesting point in the future is 120 trillion years: when all the stars in the universe have exhausted their fuel, and the Universe has gone dark.
>To me the most interesting point in the future is 120 trillion years: when all the stars in the universe have exhausted their fuel, and the Universe has gone dark.
Sorry, but doesn't that sound like the LEAST interesting point in the universe?
>Ten years from now... Among those who recognize that something’s wrong, one widely accepted viewpoint holds that fusion power, artificial intelligence, and interstellar migration will shortly solve all our problems, and therefore we don’t have to change the way we live.
Oh, of course. Dontcha know that, during that time, we'll be no more than 6 years away from a computer passing the Turing Test? http://longbets.org/1/
But in all seriousness, this was quite entertaining. I don't know if we have any reason to expect another (highly) intelligent species to arise in the next 100 million years. Were there any obstacles in the past 100 million years that prevented an intelligent species from developing before humans?
Fact that intelligence is very expensive in terms of energy consumption. Brain is already very expensive, highly intelligent species would need to dedicate more energy. So unless evolution will evolve cheaper way of representing high intelligence (which might be possible, our brain chemical structures are artifacts of time we lived in the oceans), it is unlikely that a species would evolve substantially higher intelligence compared with humans.
So to evolve superior intelligence: need a lot of food at regular intervals with strong evolutionary pressure for being smarter, instead of faster, tougher, bigger, or more violent. Generally unlikely to happen in nature.
Just because they don't make jewelry and weapons doesn't mean some other animals (elephants, whales, other apes) are not highly intelligent. I prefer to call civilizations like ours "technological" and not pass judgement on the smarts of other creatures because they don't like building things.
I wonder on what basis the author assumes that the next glacial period is a million years from now.
This would be a clear break with the last million years (100k year severe glaciations separated by 10-15k year interglacials), or of the first half of the pleistocence (mild glaciations every 40k years).
If the holocene interglacial really is extended to a million years, it would likely be enough time for the polar ice caps to disappear completely, ending the quarternary ice age altogether.
I thought that at first too, but then I realized that there is no explicit declaration that there weren't many glacial periods in-between. It just so happens that a million years from now, the earth is in a glacial period. Then again, I don't know what the "holocene interglacial" is, so your other points are probably well founded.
This reminds me of a Time Team special where they pointed out that the island of Great Britain has completely lost its human population and be re-populated at least seven times so far.
Great reading! Things could of course play out like this but, since we have no really no clue, aiming for the stars is the most exciting alternative.
The biggest mistake we could be making right now is to waste the current free oil reserves that are probably necessary to move to the next technological level.
But I guess capitalism leaves no other option: we need the profit motive to keep things running. Maybe another economic system would be better suited to reach grand goals, but which one?
Interesting, but how does humanity rise from a non-industrial dark age to high technology without any reserves of fossil fuels? I say we get only one shot at this - if we our our grandchildren blow it, we remain at ... ok this is stupid ... ewok levels of civilization forever after.
I think the author ignores several important facts. For one, humans are high on the food chain and in turn may not be as robust as say roaches, but we can construct pretty much everything. We will evolve and change, but the extinction of the human race would require several Unprecedented events. Even a large meteorite striking Earth would have trouble killing off humanity (obviously if it's big enough...). Furthr, algae reduce carbon much MUCH more efficiently than plants and can reproduce much faster. Even more we already have processes of turning algae to oil (although the oil is of poor quality). All that being said the more carbon dioxide is released the quicker/more algae will grow and the more oxygen and oil can be produced. In other words, obviously there are limits and I challenge you (the author or reader) to do research, but although humanity has problems. As a species we are doing alright.
Artificial intelligence not being practical is a silly conclusion. We already have intelligence: in a few million years of fucking around with existing intelligence, I am pretty sure we can make some significant progress. The insistence on it being silicon is what causes people to get the wrong idea.
Reading the follow-up article he talks more about the 'folk mythology of progress' and speaks of the cycle of nature (intelligent species and civilizations) as a more fundamental truth.
Here's a counter proposition: yes, the processes of nature are supremely powerful and yes, humans are apt to make life difficult for ourselves and yes, progress isn't a given. What we call progress is really just humanity fulfilling our ecological destiny of adapting to new niches, just like every other species. But by destroying our environment, we are creating the very evolutionary pressure necessary to force our own adaptation - which we will continue to rightly term 'progress'.
This is pretty bleak and pessimistic. As an optimist, I'd like to think that our advancements in technology will save us eventually. We have made significant advancements in clean energy like wind and solar, and those advancements won't stop. We have also made significant advancements in crop yields, etc. Of course, by the time those power sources are so widespread, there will be much more pollutants in the atmosphere from fossil fuel power sources, so who knows.
Anyone have a future that is a little more rosy than this? Not looking for a utopia here, but just something other than the complete fall of civilization thousands of times over.
Contrary what reading the news might lead you to believe, the world is better off than it's ever been and continuing to get better. Why does the author believe technological progress will halt tomorrow?
And on a much shorter time-scale, similar to Clifford Simak's novel-ish collection of stories "City" from the 1940s onward:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_(novel)
The most fascinating part about this post is seeing how differently people react to it: nihilism, awe, wonder, etc. The story seems to be a rorschach test of sorts.
Very interesting work. I find it very hard to imagine that a society capable of building skyscrapers and venturing into space won't leave more clues of it's existence to subsequent societies. Certainly it will be much more permanent than what the Mayans are leaving us. Perhaps the clues will be cities, perhaps it will be radiation, perhaps it will be stripped land.
I don't share the vision of the author but you'll be surprised how quickly any building may collapse once not maintained: plants will grow under concrete and end up breaking it over years and years, and erosion will progressively do the job as well. And sidementation will end up covering all that's left over centuries: look in Egypt, most of the ruins we found were deep under several dozens of meters of sand.
[+] [-] cousin_it|12 years ago|reply
For a more thoughtful take on the future of humanity, Google for the keywords "existential risk". Bostrom's writeup is a good start: http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html
[+] [-] protonfish|12 years ago|reply
We have plenty of technology to solve all of our problems already - more will not save us.
[+] [-] cpeterso|12 years ago|reply
"What If the Singularity Does NOT Happen" text: http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/vinge/longnow/
[+] [-] clord|12 years ago|reply
AI, nanotech, biohacking, and other possible future technologies just don't seem anywhere near as disruptive as that first list. They'll get incorporated into the "business as usual" machine if they come to pass at all — and much more easily than, say, atomic bombs were.
[+] [-] didgeoridoo|12 years ago|reply
I had some stuff to do, but now I think I'll just stare into the middle distance and contemplate the pointlessness of it all.
[+] [-] sedev|12 years ago|reply
"A vision of a future in which civilizations, species and worlds follow life cycles like those of all other natural things didn’t leave them furious or depressed. Their comments instead featured such words as “comforted,” “delighted,” and “awed.” It’s easy, and also common, to mischaracterize such feelings as simple schadenfreude at the failure of humanity’s overinflated ambitions, but there’s something rather more significant going on here. Not one of the readers who made these comments made gloating remarks about the fate of humanity or the Earth. Rather, what comforted, delighted, and awed them was the imagery of Nature’s enduring order and continuity that I wove throughout the narrative, and brought to the tightest focus I could manage in the last two paragraphs. "
[1]: http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2013/09/a-sense-of-ho...
[+] [-] lukeqsee|12 years ago|reply
This was a very well-written story. Let's remember, it's just a story, just a conjecture, just a spinning of a tale. Perhaps it's logical or perhaps it's not, but in the end humans have tenaciously clung to the idea it all has meaning, and I expect we will until the end, for better or worse.
[+] [-] ddoolin|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] api|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wavefunction|12 years ago|reply
Considering that it "only" took us several thousand years to transform ourselves from hunter-gatherers to our current technologies, it makes little sense that this is the first human culture to reach the point we've reached. Then I try to dissuade myself from such a notion, rationalizing that if that were the case, we'd know it from some sort of evidence by this point.
And yet, I still can't shake the notion that this "shouldn't" be the first time around. Weird, especially since I consider myself a hardcore skeptic.
[+] [-] wging|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TkTech|12 years ago|reply
Some material could be recycled from crumbling cities I imagine, but even recycling most modern materials requires a certain minimal level of technology, no?
[+] [-] lettergram|12 years ago|reply
More specifically to your comment, even on our planet, the evidence of civilization would be hard to find if there was a civilization several million or even a few hundred thousand years ago.
"Dust to dust"
[+] [-] clord|12 years ago|reply
This was after reading The Crucible of Time by Brunner (one of my favourite books)
[+] [-] cpeterso|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wellboy|12 years ago|reply
If there were human civilizations a million years ago or before that, there would be significant evidence of cities, just as there is evidence of dinosaurs, no?
[+] [-] z92|12 years ago|reply
Timeline of far future from Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future
To me the most interesting point in the future is 120 trillion years: when all the stars in the universe have exhausted their fuel, and the Universe has gone dark.
[+] [-] coldtea|12 years ago|reply
Sorry, but doesn't that sound like the LEAST interesting point in the universe?
[+] [-] jere|12 years ago|reply
Oh, of course. Dontcha know that, during that time, we'll be no more than 6 years away from a computer passing the Turing Test? http://longbets.org/1/
And we'll be only ~20 years away from the singularity which solves everything. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity
But in all seriousness, this was quite entertaining. I don't know if we have any reason to expect another (highly) intelligent species to arise in the next 100 million years. Were there any obstacles in the past 100 million years that prevented an intelligent species from developing before humans?
[+] [-] TrainedMonkey|12 years ago|reply
So to evolve superior intelligence: need a lot of food at regular intervals with strong evolutionary pressure for being smarter, instead of faster, tougher, bigger, or more violent. Generally unlikely to happen in nature.
[+] [-] protonfish|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wobbleblob|12 years ago|reply
This would be a clear break with the last million years (100k year severe glaciations separated by 10-15k year interglacials), or of the first half of the pleistocence (mild glaciations every 40k years).
If the holocene interglacial really is extended to a million years, it would likely be enough time for the polar ice caps to disappear completely, ending the quarternary ice age altogether.
[+] [-] bradleyland|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arethuza|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arcadeparade|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CmonDev|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gonvaled|12 years ago|reply
The biggest mistake we could be making right now is to waste the current free oil reserves that are probably necessary to move to the next technological level.
But I guess capitalism leaves no other option: we need the profit motive to keep things running. Maybe another economic system would be better suited to reach grand goals, but which one?
[+] [-] jbattle|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lettergram|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kazagistar|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nezumi|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] prithee|12 years ago|reply
http://www.lamemage.com/microscope/
[+] [-] vlucas|12 years ago|reply
Anyone have a future that is a little more rosy than this? Not looking for a utopia here, but just something other than the complete fall of civilization thousands of times over.
[+] [-] nkarpov|12 years ago|reply
http://filer.case.edu/dts8/thelastq.htm
[+] [-] fennecfoxen|12 years ago|reply
http://allpoetry.com/poem/8508345-Re-adjustment-by-C_S_Lewis
[+] [-] Houshalter|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chsonnu|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GrantS|12 years ago|reply
And on a much shorter time-scale, similar to Clifford Simak's novel-ish collection of stories "City" from the 1940s onward: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_(novel)
[+] [-] ebertx|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mathattack|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ekianjo|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] userulluipeste|12 years ago|reply