Aside from climate change, what have you worried about the future of humanity and the planet?

Aside from climate change, what have you worried about the future of humanity and the planet?

I’m not worried about the planet, but the future of the life forms living on it has consumed much of my attention over the last 50 years.

If you are at all prone to anxiety, stop reading, and go read something else. My wife and two children all have severe anxiety issues, and I suspect my planning to mitigate all foreseeable threats is a major component of that. Take heed. Stop now if uncertain.

First some context.

We are very complex organisms, the most complex things we know of.
When one begins to understand something of the complexity of evolution, there is some simplicity that emerges from all those equations and graphs and all those studies of thousands of species current and past.

Perhaps the most important thing to understand is that complexity always comes out of cooperation, and cooperation is always vulnerable to higher order cheating strategies, and so requires active strategies to detect and remove cheating.
Given that we are the most complex evolved organism we know, it is accurate to a first order approximation to say that we are also the most cooperative organism ever to exist (however competitive we may be in some contexts).

Our existence, and complexity at all levels, is predicated on cooperation (not competition, as economic dogma would have us believe {one of the biggest lies present in society today, as part of a suite of cheating strategies}).
When one looks closely at the mathematics of the emergence of cooperation, it requires situations in which external threats exist that may be countered by cooperative action; and that the benefits of such cooperation outweigh the benefits of competing with neighbours for existing resources.

If you understand and accept the need to cooperate, then you don’t need to read any further.

If you think that your self interest is best served by competing in markets, then read on; and be warned that these threats may give you nightmares, and do seem to fundamentally alter brain chemistry in some people.

Before I get into the detail of the threats, I need to be explicitly clear that I believe all of these threats have relatively simple mitigation strategies available, if one is able to think in terms of cooperation, abundance and automation rather that in terms of competition, scarcity and money. Once we develop fully automated technology capable of producing a duplicate set of systems (full process from mining to manufacture to delivery); then if it has a reasonably short replicating time (about a month) then within a decade anything that system can produce can be universally available to all people. The other aspect of technology like that is that it can let us produce vast systems in space, and within the earth. There is an issue with this mitigation strategy, in a competitive context it is a problem greater than any it solves, which is to say that it is only stable in cooperative contexts, but then life such as we are is only stable in cooperative contexts (something several different religious traditions have captured some aspects of, but current economic and political dogma ignores).

So, with that general class of mitigation strategy in mind – here are the major threats, followed by brief explanations and their mitigation strategies.

Valence failure
Culture failure
Ignorance (including over simplification of complexity)
Twin Tyrannies
Pandemics (natural and artificial)
Ecosystem collapse
Comet & Meteor strike
Black holes and other deep space phenomena
Severe Solar storm
Technology failure
Technology capture

Expanding each of those headings a little:

Valence failure

Valence is those things that attract and repel us at various levels. In mathematical terms one can think in terms of slopes on terrains with various humps and hollows in the terrain around certain “features”. There can be potentially infinite dimensions, with overlapping and summing valence. In simple terms, think of a mountain, gravity always wants to take us to the bottom of a valley and keep us there, but if we have a particularly strong attraction to standing on a peak, then we can expend time and energy to take ourselves to that peak (against the pull of gravity). Strategy “spaces” are like that too.

Over the deep time of history evolution has encoded many levels of valence into our genetic and cultural systems. Thus we get born with some sets, we learn other sets (without necessarily being consciously aware of them), and we get to choose some sets (the thin icing on the cake in a sense). For most people, most of the time, there are far more sub-conscious valences present than there are conscious ones. And for everyone that is true some of the time.

Because those valences were “tuned” by the conditions of our past, they are only useful in our present to the degree that our present is like our past. Some aspects of our present have no precedent in our past. So there are some contexts present right now that have no direct historical precedent; one has to go through levels of abstraction to get to something even remotely similar.
Thus our likes and dislikes, our cultural ways of being, can all lead us into danger if they are simply followed without conscious awareness. The contexts of today are sufficiently different that every one of us needs to use our own intelligence to interpret where the lessons of our past are applicable and where we may need to do something new.

At a personal level, it is almost 10 years since I watched my oncologist write “palliative care only” on my file, and heard him tell me “you could be dead in 6 weeks, you have a 50% chance of living 5 months and a 2% chance of living 2 years”. For me, that was enough to get me to examine many levels of valence in my life, to eliminate alcohol and refined sugar from my diet, to take animal products out of my diet, to add high dose vitamin C (at least 2 doses per day of at least 5g, every day, without fail, ever), to eat mostly raw organic produce for many months. For me, the strategy worked, the tumours (stage 4 melanoma) went away, then twice they came back when I cheated just a little (no cheating at all in the last 8 years and 8 months – and no tumours in that time). Many others I have talked to have not been as strict, and have had good success initially, but then not stuck to it. Those that have stuck to the regime all seem to be alive and well. So this is an example of where valence from our past (a liking for sweet sugars, and meat) that served our ancestors well, do not actually serve us well. There are many more such things at higher levels of culture and systems. Desire for power and prestige in social orders can deliver existential level risk to all of us, if it is too narrowly focused.

Culture failure

We all need culture. We all learn things from culture that are essential for our survival. Without culture we would not survive. And as mentioned above, culture is largely created by our past, and as such cannot possibly have knowledge of the truly new. We have lots of new things, and we need those new things. So we need to respect and honour the cultures of our birth, even as we see the need to go beyond them in some contexts, we should never do so lightly. Cultures are often far more complex than we give them credit for, and they are created in our past, so may contain aspects that are not applicable to our present and future. We must each be conscious of that, alert to it, and responsible for it. And that is not a simple thing, as by definition, there can be no universally applicable rules around it. It is something we must each be deeply responsible for, to the best of our abilities for reason and intuition (both are necessary).

When cultures lead us into conflict, they are a threat to us all. We all have a responsibility to choose cooperation over conflict if there is any reasonable probability of it being successful.

Most of our political and economic systems contain multiple levels of existential level risk at present.

Ignorance (including over simplification of complexity)

When one starts to comprehend the vast scale of the complexity of what it is to be a human being; when we start to understand something of the complexity of the evolutionary systems contained within multiple levels of each and every one of us, then we start to gain a certain humility, a certain acceptance of eternal ignorance, a certain acceptance of diversity, a respect for life and all its many differences.

Unfortunately, we are not born with such understanding and respect, we must each learn it.

We must (each and every one of us) start from a place of very simple ideas, of accepting culture and language, of creating our simple models of a reality that now seem clearly to be complex beyond the capacity of any conscious entity to understand in detail. We have no other choice. The younger we are, the more simple the world seems to us, and the easier some choices seem to be. That is necessary and unavoidable in a sense, and it also contains many levels of danger.
Modern science has developed many tools and ways of thinking that take a very long time to become familiar with, that most people are not aware of. To a scientist like myself, every aspect of knowledge contains fundamental uncertainties, even as in many contexts that knowledge delivers an ability to make things happen with extreme reliability (as in modern computer systems, and some aspects of engineering).

So when one starts to understand the complexity present, one starts to appreciate that a certain amount of simplification is necessary to do anything in life, and the more urgent the need for action, the more likely things are to be simplified. That is all necessary and needed in a sense, but there is another aspect in which some things are really complex, and have no useful simplification. Sometimes the most useful simplification is to accept profound ignorance and to trust others who have some beginnings of an understanding of the risks and responses required. The really difficult aspect is that most tend to place such trust based upon past experience, but in truly novel contexts, past experience is not necessarily a good predictor of future performance. So situations can get deeply uncertain, and one needs to exercise extreme caution with trust, even as one accepts the need to trust something or someone.

Another aspect of this, is that the more someone investigates the details of any one aspect of reality, the more one must ignore all other aspects. Thus experts in any field can become so ignorant of other fields that they make basic errors.
That demands that we make teams which have multiple levels of experts and generalists, and that we develop sufficient trust within those teams that communication actually happens, and we manage to see major risks before they become major problems.

Holding too tightly to overly simplistic models from our past, ones with overly simple answers to questions that have levels of complexity of which most are completely ignorant, can lead to choices with existential level risk. This applies at every level of social structure.

The tendency in American politics to put liberal and conservative against each other, rather than having them cooperate with each contributing their essential perspectives to creating long term workable outcomes, is one of the major systemic failures that currently poses existential level risk.

Twin Tyrannies

In terms of power and control, there are two major risk modalities – the tyranny of the majority (in which individuals that are away from the norm cannot self express) and the tyranny of a minority (in which a small group of individuals dominates all others). Both sets of tyrannies develop social instabilities which can lead to existential level threat (via a range of mechanisms including technology and warfare).

Developing systems that allow all individuals reasonable levels of freedom, while simultaneously demanding of all individuals responsible action in both social and ecological contexts, is required if we want any sort of long term security.

Pandemics (natural and artificial)

The 1918 influenza pandemic (Spanish Flu – H1N1) killed between 2 and 6 times (estimates vary) as many people as world war 1. It is always possible that a virus with a longish incubation time, early infectious stage, and high mortality rate could emerge and spread widely.

In today’s highly connected world, it is quite easy to imagine pandemics taking out over 90% of the population, with technological collapse following.
We have the tools to fight such things, but they take time to develop. The only effective counter strategy in the time it takes to develop such measures is isolation. Our current social and technological systems do not allow for such isolation. The sort of fully automated systems described far above would give us an effective counter strategy that would work for everyone.

When one factors in that military organisations around the world have been aware of this for nearly a century, and that some have already developed such viruses targeted to particular racial groupings (each side to the others), then the threat of artificial pandemics is at least as high as natural ones. The mitigation strategy is the same in either case, isolate until inoculation is available.


We have nuclear weapons capable of destroying all human life.

We have biological weapons capable of destroying most human life.

We have technological weapons capable of destroying technology, and with it most human life.

We could develop technology to seek out and destroy all human life.
We cannot afford all out war, yet in a competitive context, it is almost inevitable. For Mutually Assured Destruction to actually work as a deterrent, both sides have to actually be mad enough to actually push the button, and each has to actually believe that the other is actually that mad. That is not a stable situation, not at any level!!!

It must fail, it is only a matter of when, not a matter of “if”.

We cannot afford another war.

The only effective counter is universal cooperation, and universal observation.
That can only work with any sort of stability if it has as its highest values individual life and individual liberty, which demands respect for diversity at every level. So people would be free to do whatever they responsibly chose, and they may be called upon by others to justify their definition of responsible, and the group may decide that the risk is too high in that time and place, and they have to go some distance away to do that thing (perhaps into orbit, perhaps around some other body than earth).


Super volcanoes are a real thing. Many examples in the geological record.
Even relatively small ones like NZ’s Taupo can cause disruptions to civilisations within the written record of such things. Larger ones like Toba of Yellowstone have probably been responsible for bringing the total human population on the planet down to less than 1,000 individuals several times in the past.

Technical solutions are possible, and they require quite large scale technology, of the sort referred to in the introduction above.


I lived through a 7.8 quake 2 years ago, and my community is still in the recovery phase. A very large quake in an area of high population and technology could be a source of global destabilization of our current economic and political systems.
We need systems that can be stable and respond appropriately and cooperatively to such situations.

Again, very high tech mitigation strategies are possible, and they require wide level social agreement and cooperation to deploy.

Ecosystem collapse

Global climate change is just one tiny subset of this category.

We are altering global systems with our current technologies and numbers of people.
I don’t believe many people actually want a world without modern technology, modern medicine, modern communications, modern food reliability, etc. So we must accept that we have and will modify things.

We also need to accept the responsibility for managing such things. Doing that at a global scale can only be done with global cooperation. Our existing systems based in global competition are an existential risk in and of themselves in so far as they prevent and subvert such cooperative efforts.

Long term we need to accept the need to manage the amount of sunlight reaching the earth, in order to maintain temperature and sea levels etc within habitable ranges for human beings. That is all relatively simple technologically, once we have global cooperative systems that accept diverse cultures and individuals (provided that all such accept the right of all others to exist).

Comet & Meteor strike

Comets and meteors are similar in that they are big chunks of matter coming from outer space and going very fast. If they hit the earth they cause a lot of damage, the bigger and faster they are, the more damage they do. And it is more complex than that, but it is a good start.

It is reasonably well accepted that a large meteor took out the dinosaurs (and many other species) about 65 million years ago.

Smaller ones don’t cause extinction level events, but can still kill a lot of people, even most of them, without leaving much trace in the fossil record.

Both require the same sort of mitigation measures, it is just that for comets the measures need to be further away from earth than for meteors – and again they require global cooperation for security, and technology capable of fully automated manufacture and remote operation, so that it can be manufactured and deployed at scale from the moon.

Black holes and other deep space phenomena

These require the same sort of detection equipment deployed at scale at the edge of the solar system and beyond.

Very low probability, but the scale of disruption means that in the long term it is worth doing, once all other sources of risk are mitigated.

Severe Solar storm

This is actually quite high probability, and high impact. We need global systems hardened to survive it, and backup systems in place to replace anything destroyed.

Again, relatively simple once we have fully automated manufacturing on the moon, but devastating prior to that point.

Technology failure

This involves many possible levels of failure of technology, from variations on the “grey goo” nanotechnology mistakes to many levels of variation on “paper clip optimizer” in the world of AI. Reasonable levels of engineering precaution should mitigate those risks, and the incentives of market competition are to short circuit complete sets of tests to be “first to market”. Thus it is a combination failure of markets and technology in most instances. And there are non-market failure modalities possible.

Cooperation and visibility are key mitigating strategies.

Technology capture

Bad agents are always a problem.

Any agent that is optimising for some set of conditions that does not include reasonable consideration for the life and liberty of all others is an issue for everyone.

General openness, public visibility, fundamental cooperation, and ongoing personal commitment are the only effective strategies to combat this class of threat in the long term. The more sets of cooperative groups present, the safer it is for all involved.

Centralisation at any level is a risk that is best countered by empowering communication between diverse groups in a cooperative context.

Posted in Ideas, Longevity, Our Future, Technology, understanding | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Quora – Scientists cure aging. How does your life change?

Quora – Scientists cure aging. How does your life change?

Not much.

I have known since 1974 that biological life extension was possible, but not how to do it.

The big question that has occupied my mind for most of the period since is:
What sort of social, political and technical institutions does one need to have in place to give potentially very long lived individuals a reasonable probability of doing so with reasonable degrees of freedom?

Over 40 years of exploring system and strategy “spaces” and questioning assumptions that very few people question, have led me to a set of answers that I have reasonable confidence about.

So I would continue doing the sorts of things I have been doing for the last 30 years, talking to people about the assumptions most people accept that are just not true (though they were once useful approximations, that is no longer the case).

Some of the big ones:

1/ Evolution for complex organisms like ourselves is much more about cooperation than it is about competition. If any of us want a reasonable chance of living a reasonably long time (more than 1,000 years) with reasonable freedom, then we must develop social institutions at every level that are fundamentally cooperative, at the same time as they have individual life and individual liberty (universally applied) as their highest values.

2/ While markets and the ideas of “money” and “capital” were very useful tools in an age where most things were genuinely scarce, in an age where automated systems allow for universal abundance of a large and exponentially expanding set of goods and services, these ideas now pose existential level threat with the incentive structures they give at higher levels of abstraction. Thus we need to develop alternative systems that are abundance based that do all the many levels of essential functions that markets currently perform. The major reason anyone is hungry or without education in today’s world is because of the incentives present in markets based values (which necessarily value anything universally abundant at zero – so some people have to be hungry in order that others be well fed, in a market based system – and that is not stable long term).

3/ The idea of “Truth” (capital T version, as in one True way to do anything or how anything actually is). It is an idea that comes out of an overly simplistic model of how reality works. Two major different sub aspects of this.

a/ Reality seems (beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt) to allow infinitely many different ways of doing most things, that are very nearly indistinguishable on any sort of “cost” metric. So in most situations there are many equally possible ways of doing just about anything (in that the “cost” of determining the difference is greater than the original “cost” difference itself); and all a group needs to do is agree to all doing one of them, or some limited subset of them, if rapid progress is the desired outcome.

b/ Our perceptual systems come with many levels of uncertainty, so our experiential realities are necessarily approximations to whatever reality actually is. In most contexts, this doesn’t matter much, as they are usually close enough to be useful, but it really matters when people start arguing about things that are not common, and can exist very differently in our personal experience of reality. None of us can be 100% certain about any aspect of reality (really). All of us need to accept that other people may experience reality very differently from ourselves; and that we will all be different from what reality itself actually is in ways that few can even begin to understand as yet.

So I will continue working to change ideas in use at all levels of awareness and operation in society.

I will continue to advocate for having the value of individual sapient life at the top of the value hierarchy, followed by individual liberty, then whatever else individuals choose. And that requires that we each acknowledge that such values demand of us that we act responsibly in social and ecological contexts.

Freedom so defined is a real freedom, of freedom within the necessary limits required to sustain complexity like ourselves; not some mythical freedom to follow whim without consideration (which is a recipe for death and destruction). Reality has its own rules, and we ignore them at our peril. The rules around the sorts of boundaries required to sustain complex forms like ourselves are not human inventions, they are requirements of reality itself. Any particular human culture may be an imperfect approximation of such requirements, but that does not change the underlying nature of the systemic requirements (at any and all levels of abstraction and awareness).

So I would very likely continue doing a similar sort of balance of activities to what I am doing now, part intellectual exploration, part discussions such as this, part caring for community, part caring for the natural world, part exploration of new possibilities, part maintaining existing competencies and structures, part social engagement, part playing in both natural and artificial environments. Some of it alone, some of it in groups of different sizes.

Posted in Longevity, understanding | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Quora – You wake up immortal and with $1,000. What’s your plan to be a billionaire?

Quora – You wake up immortal and with $1,000. What’s your plan to be a billionaire?

Do everything I can to disinvent the concept of money, and get automated technology to the point that it can meet the reasonable needs of everyone on the planet.
Explore and develop non-market methods for stable cooperative systems that maximize individual freedom and security.

Competitive scarcity based games (like markets) are antithetical to long term life and liberty of individuals generally.

Competitive game spaces always tend to reduce liberty for the majority, and as such tend to increase the risk to all (as in the long term such injustice breeds revolution and increases the risk of violent death – particularly to those at the top).

As someone with the biological option of living on indefinitely, it would be in my personal self interest to investigate systems that produced the smallest possible risk to life on the longest possible time-frame, and produce the greatest degrees of liberty possible (acknowledging that all real systems have limits and boundaries required to sustain their form, and as humans are the most complex and multi-leveled systems we currently know of, we have many levels of necessary complex and context sensitive boundaries, which demands of each of us responsibility in respect of those boundaries – in both social and ecological contexts). At higher levels we call such things morality.

So nothing at all simple.

An ongoing exploration of risk minimization balanced with freedom maximization; with eternal exploration of the uncertainties involved in those highly context sensitive sets of boundaries.

And anyone who has seriously explored such strategic systems will be clear that security and freedom are optimized in cooperative systems, and competitive systems both increase risk and reduce freedom (contrary to current economic dogma).

Posted in economics, Longevity | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Quora – response to Paul Lucas’s answer to When is science not science, and relatedly, is science ever settled or should we always continue to challenge current understanding? Can you give examples?

Quora – response to Paul Lucas’s answer to When is science not science, and relatedly, is science ever settled or should we always continue to challenge current understanding? Can you give examples?

While I agree with the general thrust of this argument, in my understanding there is no “absolute” proof in science, only a “beyond reasonable doubt” sort of proof. One can doubt anything, but if one takes that too far one has no structure at all. So one is left with having to trust some things more than others, and using a web of such trusts to build a “picture” that is sufficiently reliable to be useful in navigating existence.

Evolution seems to have supplied our sensory and neural network systems with sets of priors that have proved useful and reliable over evolutionary time; and our culture has similar sets of constructs that have proved useful over cultural time; all of which seem to be heuristic in a very real sense.

So it seems that we all get live in our own personal “virtual reality” which is to some significant degree kept entrained to the reality beyond by sensory experience; but we have no possibility of direct connection to that “reality beyond”.

And sure, some of the things in science have massive data-sets supporting their reliability within particular contexts and to particular degrees.

And it is that matter of degree and context that is important.

If one is only ever going to travel within 50 km of their place of birth, and if the most accurate instrument available only measures to a mm over 5m, then the hypotheses that the earth is flat is a useful enough approximation to work within the errors of measurement of every measurement one can make.

As one broadens horizons and considers wider contexts with greater measurement accuracy, then one starts to see that the earth being round is a better approximation.

As one goes further and uses circuits based in quantum mechanics in satellites in earth orbit to try and determine location, then one must use general relativity, to describe the space-time around the planet we live on, and a substantively non-spherical geoid of a largely molten rock planet with subducting surface plates in constant motion, if one wants to get accurate estimates of position within modern limits of measurement.

Does that mean that our modern mathematical descriptions of the physics of reality are in any sense absolutely accurate?

No. It doesn’t mean that.

What it does mean is that they are sufficiently accurate to be useful within the current limits of measurement.

I strongly suspect that the reality within which we live is a fundamental balance between order and chaos at base – true randomness within limits described by probability functions. Such a system, when summed over vast collections, can deliver a very close approximation to classical causality at the level of normal human perception; but is actually operating from very different principles at base. And the smallest thing that a human can perceive with the unaided eye, for the shortest interval a human can distinguish, is a collection of at least 10^50 of those fundamental units of space-time – so very predictable in practice.

In such a system, the very concept of “absolute” is pure illusion – an over simplification of something vastly more complex and uncertain.

[In a separate response to a separate reply to this same question]

Colin Wright – If fresh scientific evidence comes to light that challenges an existing scientific theory, it should always be looked at and assessed. …

I like this description, except that it does not explicitly acknowledge that individuals must have their own personal assessments of reliability that are independent of the “consensus” (in as much as consensus ever actually exists – which isn’t very often in science, majorities certainly, but consensus not so much).

Without those independent and personal assessments, no one would ever challenge “the consensus”.

Thus scientific progress is absolutely reliant on the contrarians, even if most contrarians are wrong most of the time. What is important is those few occasions where the persistence and self belief of a contrarian is able to build a sufficiently strong evidence base to start to move “the consensus”.

Once one can see that, in a multi-leveled, multidimensional evolutionary context of probability dependent models; then one starts to approach a modern understanding of consciousness and the fundamental role of uncertainty in being.

Posted in understanding | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Quora – Can any belief be guaranteed as true when, as history has shown us, in the future, we may find that everything we believe currently is false?

Quora – Can any belief be guaranteed as true when, as history has shown us, in the future, we may find that everything we believe currently is false?

Only one (the thing that Descartes got right) – “Cogito ergo sum”, which I would translate into my understanding as “because I have consciousness, I must have some sort of form, in some sort of matrix, even if I am uncertain about the exact nature of that form, or any of the sets of systems that underlie it”.

And I write that as someone who has had a deep interest in biology, physics, cosmology and intelligence for over 50 years; as someone with reasonably complex models of the evolution of epistemology and ontology over the deep times of genetics and culture.

I may be a biological entity, or a simulation of a biological entity, or a simulation of a simulation of a biological entity, …

Posted in understanding | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Quora – What technologies are being developed that will allow humans to live with climate change? Not technology developed to prevent climate change from reaching a “doom” point, but rather that will allow the human race to survive it.

Quora – What technologies are being developed that will allow humans to live with climate change? Not technology developed to prevent climate change from reaching a “doom” point, but rather that will allow the human race to survive it.

The human race has been surviving climate change as long as it has existed. Climate change in and of itself is not an existential risk to the species.

What poses risk to the species is the secondary impacts.

The primary impacts are not what many think. The CO2 already in the atmosphere is enough to have the sea level come up about 15m (50ft). That means a lot of coastal cities and coastal infrastructure and coastal land occupancy gone. The changes in the ocean and the rainfall and storm patterns would mean major changes to ecosystems. Such things have happened many times in the geological history of life, and have often (though not always) been accompanied by a significant increase in the rate of the extinction of species.

Right now our species faces many different classes of existential risk, some of which are the result of the ways we think about things that worked for our ancestors but no longer work in our changed times.

Two of them are really important right now.

One is the idea that the sort of value we measure in markets is a reasonable proxy for human values more generally. For most of the last couple of thousand years one could make a reasonable case for that, because most things were genuinely scarce. Now that we live in an age of automated systems where an exponentially increasing class of goods and services may be delivered in universal abundance, that case can no longer be made. The injustice of that poses existential level risk at all levels of social structure.

The other is the idea that evolution is all about competition, and that human social interaction can best be characterised as a competitive system (competitive markets) in a zero sum game. That case can no longer be substantiated. It is now clear beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt that human beings and complex biological systems more generally can best be characterised as fundamentally cooperative systems in an open game space that is potentially infinitely extensible. The fundamental theoretical and mathematical assumption sets underlying most of economics is wrong. Certainly we are complex systems with both competitive and cooperative aspects, and it is now clear that our complexity and our freedom (in both the mathematical and the cultural senses) are fundamentally predicated on cooperation.

We need global level cooperation to survive.

We need cooperation that delivers reasonable abundance, reasonable security and reasonable freedom to every individual on the planet, and that will demand from each of us responsible actions in social and ecological contexts.

In so far as climate change threatens to push our current competitive systems out of their semi-stable – semi-equilibrium state into full on survival oriented competition unleashing global nuclear conflict, then it can be seen as a trigger for existential level risk.

In so far as climate change can be seen as an external threat that requires global level cooperation to mitigate, then it can be a trigger for a new age of security and freedom for which no historical precedent exists.

In and of itself it is not an existential risk.

It is how we choose to respond to the context that defines it’s risk. It is how we choose to model it, to see it.

It comes down in the end to what we choose to value most.

Do we accept the metrics of our recent past (Money, Capital), or do we go deeper to Individual Life, Individual Liberty – applied universally?

How simple a model do we try and squeeze the complexity of experience into?

The world has not been a stable place in geological time scales. There have been many times in geological history that human beings could not have survived on this planet, and even in relatively recent times (last 100,000 years) times when the total human population was probably less than 100 individuals.
So if we plan on staying around in numbers, we need to develop and deploy technologies capable of managing climate, and all the other risks. And that is all relatively easy in a technical sense, but only in a context that is fundamentally cooperative; that fundamentally values individual life and individual liberty, universally; and demands of each of us responsible action in both social and ecological contexts.

I am cautiously optimistic that such is possible, and will be achieved in the next couple of decades; but it is by no means a certain thing. It will take active choice by each of us, active trust, and active willingness speak and act our best approximations to truth, and those are particularly difficult when we do not have social agreement.

[followed by]

Hi Liberto

As I said above, climate change is perfectly natural in a sense, and is the norm for geological history. It is unusual for recent human history (recent in this sense being since we invented writing).

We have plenty of potential remedies for climate change.

There are many possible technical solutions to managing climate. In an engineering sense it is relatively easy to do, once we get technology to the point of fully automated production (and we are very close to that).

It seems to me that “Nature” doesn’t “want” anything, but it is a very complex system that can respond in an almost infinite array of possibilities. What we each choose to do can have a significant impact on which of those “possibilities” becomes real.

We could easily have “remedies”, and it will take active choice to make them real. That means choice at the personal level, of being willing to question our cultural truths at every level of culture, to be willing to make a choice for long term over short term benefits. And that is by no means certain, as I have observed over the last 9 years since curing myself of terminal cancer, and talking to others with a similar diagnosis, most would rather die than consistently (every day, without exception) make real effort to change habits and put up with short term discomfort for a few years.

It takes effort.

It takes commitment.

It requires persistence.

It requires being willing to be different, to do something with no direct historical precedent. That is uncomfortable for anyone, more so for some than others.

Posted in Nature, Our Future | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Quora – Is super-intelligence impossible?

Quora – Is super-intelligence impossible?

What do you mean by super intelligence?

Better than human level? Yes – certainly, and we are not there yet, and not as far away as many would like to think.

Intelligent enough to answer any question? No – not logically possible. The universe we live in has many different sorts of complexity and uncertainty in it that are not “knowable” even in theory. So it does not matter how “intelligent” any system is, it will still have to deal with multiple levels of uncertainty and risk. That just seems to be the nature of the reality within which we exist (however much we might want to hold onto the

Posted in understanding | Tagged , , | Leave a comment