With quick wit and sharp insight, writer Jeanette Winterson lays out a vision of the future where human and machine intelligence meld -- forming what she calls "alternative intelligence" -- and takes a philosophical look at our species, asking: Are we smart enough to survive how smart we are? (Followed by a Q&A with TED's head of curation Helen Walters)
I feel the odds are against us surviving much longer...but that's not any worse than the inevitability of death...and maybe I'm glad to be alive...and glad I won't be around when we go extinct.
Carl Sagan put it well.
Here's his famous saying in English and Spanish!
He put anything well.
It's ironic that the indigenous of the Americas were considered primitive by the invaders, but it's only taken Westerners a little over two centuries to trash the place.
Chief Seattle predicted it.
I think we need to shift towards a more communal living where we look after each other, but like with a real commune, learn to deal effectively with the goldilocks, freeloaders, and users. Like within a family... everyone can do something.
We have so much surplus labor, every city should look as sparkling as Disneyland Main St.
Some of us are. The rest are conservatives.
I'm not of the opinion Dems are much brighter. Liberals are but they become Dems (I did).
Yeah... the group that thinks their shit doesn't stink is full of solutions (full of something at least).
"I'm tired of this back-slappin' isn't humanity neat bullshit. We're a virus with shoes."
~ Bill Hicks
Just finished the Westworld series where this turned out to be the main theme.
Generally, I dont' think humans are anywhere near as smart as they think they are.
Scientists were well aware of climate change 50 years ago. Carter had an energy plan to get us off of fossil fuels, but Reagan trashed it. Now, we are starting to see the first effects. Wild fires, Droughts, floods, increased mutations of viruses and bacteria, and the migration of tropical diseases.
That is only the beginning of what climate change will do. From here things will only get worse, and I'd say a very optimistic best case scenario would be only losing about 20% of the world's population from famines and diseases. It is not totally unlikely that is will actually go so far as to cause a total human extinction.
The climate has always changed - with or without humans. But with humans, politics gets in the way of tackling it.
Right. Al Gore's Professor turned him onto warming in 1958 so we certainly have known. Vonnegut wrote about our "Big brains" in Galapagos, which explores the idea that evolution created a mistake that it's in the process of fixing, and you'd probably love it.
The collapse of our current civilization seems certain. If it comes with nuclear war, the destruction wrought would keep Humanity in check for a while. Either way, those that are left will need to adapt to a planet with a much more hostile climate. After the apocalypse, the time require to rebuild a technological base will likely include a focus on evolving ourselves through eugenics and enhanced neural development, both in utero and thereafter. The real challenge will be to develop a society that focuses on emotional health.
I don't see AI as being anything that people could interface with directly. Nor do I see AI as achieving anything more than mimicry. AI could push our technology forward with non-human derived inventions.
Notably, the number of non-living aliens ("robots" ) reported from UFOs is quite low, but not non-zero.
Between AI, and VR, I think the effect on society will be huge. AI should/will take over all regulatory and service functions without discrimination or corruption. VR will eliminate much of our waste by making almost any tourism and other forms of entertainment as easy as putting on a helmet. I think these two things are humanities only real hope, actually, though maybe as a legacy (child). In the end, Tao doesn't care how much of the galaxy we litter up.