[Tanny (OP)]

Greetings all,

Where is the knowledge explosion taking us?  To ongoing improvements in the human condition?  Or to a collapse of modern civilization?   This question seems fundamental to the scientific enterprise, and I'm hoping to meet scientists willing to confront it directly.   

As a place to start, my "theory" might be summarized as follows.

Science, and our culture more generally, has a "more is better" relationship with knowledge which is simplistic, outdated, and increasingly dangerous.  This "more is better relationship served us very well for a very long time, but it's success has created a revolutionary new situation which we must successfully adapt to if we wish to continue.

An ideal solution for me would be to find some branch of science (or academia) which directly addresses the question of this thread, and is willing to engage the public in dialog.  Failing that, I'll take what I can get.   

Ok, that's a beginning.  If there is interest I welcome comments and challenges and will provide further argument upon request.

[guest39538]

Greetings all,

Where is the knowledge explosion taking us?  To ongoing improvements in the human condition? 

Hello Tanny , I am just a member of the public but have a science interest.  Can I ask what knowledge explosion  are you referring too?

[Tanny (OP)]

Next question:  Is there a part of this forum which is moderated?  Or is the above discussion representative of what I can expect here?  Thanks.

[guest39538]

Next question:  Is there a part of this forum which is moderated?  Or is the above discussion representative of what I can expect here?  Thanks.

You have posted in a new theories section. All the sections of the forum are moderated.  It looks like  attractune is a new member who only wants to troll.  The moderators will sort them out in given time. 
There is some good discussion on this forum, but like most forums there is also the people who just want to spoil the discussion.
Just ignore them is the easiest way.

I did ask you a question:Can I ask what knowledge explosion  are you referring too?

[Kryptid]

I think the knowledge explosion being referred to is the (relatively recent) massive growth in the technological capabilities of humans and the resulting increase in our knowledge base that comes with it. With more knowledge you can build better technology. With better technology, you can gain more knowledge. It's a positive feedback loop. Computers alone have massively assisted us in this manner.

No doubt great changes are on the horizon if our technology continues to improve at an exponential rate. The creation of super-human AI, the manipulation of human biology, the colonization of other planets, the discovery of alien life, the creation of autonomous, self-replicating machines, the rise of a post-scarcity economy... things like these would be paradigm changing for the human species. A lot of these things are analyzed on the YouTube channel run by Isaac Arthur. His stuff is pretty good. Check it out: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZFipeZtQM5CKUjx6grh54g/videos

[Tanny (OP)]

I think the knowledge explosion being referred to is the (relatively recent) massive growth in the technological capabilities of humans and the resulting increase in our knowledge base that comes with it. With more knowledge you can build better technology. With better technology, you can gain more knowledge. It's a positive feedback loop. Computers alone have massively assisted us in this manner.

Thanks for this concise well written summary Kryptid.   

Yes, the positive feedback loop you refer to is important because that's what is fueling the accelerating nature of the knowledge explosion.   What this means is that not only will we need to adapt to new technologies, and the social changes they drive, but we will need to do so at an ever faster pace.

It's clear that one of our great strengths is that we are a very adaptive species, but it doesn't automatically follow that therefore our ability to adapt is unlimited.  As example, let's say we're driving a car at 30mph.  If the car starts going 80mph we can adapt to this substantial change.  But if the car starts going 3,000mph we will surely lose control.  What we are looking at with the knowledge explosion is an "information machine" that seems to be accelerating without limit.  If that is true, and if our ability to adapt is indeed limited, then it's not hard to see that a crash could be inevitable.

No doubt great changes are on the horizon if our technology continues to improve at an exponential rate. The creation of super-human AI, the manipulation of human biology, the colonization of other planets, the discovery of alien life, the creation of autonomous, self-replicating machines, the rise of a post-scarcity economy... things like these would be paradigm changing for the human species.

Yes, and most of these changes will be for the better.   So it's completely understandable that we look forward with joy to continuing the progress of the last 500 years. 

The problem I am attempting to point is the "existential scale" of some of these technologies.  By that I mean, technologies which have the power to crash civilization.  Let's use an example to illustrate.

In the 20th century we threw conventional explosives around with wild abandon and caused a massive amount of damage.  But, conventional explosives simply aren't powerful enough of a technology to crash civilization, so no matter how insane we got we could always recover and rebuild. Nuclear weapons on the other hand are an "existential scale" power which erase this ability to recover, rebuild, and learn from our mistakes. 

Nuclear weapons are just an easily understood example of the underlying problem.  The knowledge explosion is going to create more and more existential scale powers at an ever accelerating rate, and each of such powers will have to be successfully managed every day for ever.  A single failure with a single power of this scale will bring down the house.

Such vast powers will not necessarily be militarized.  They will most likely be created with the best of intentions and come with many benefits.  As example, genetic engineering is not inherently evil in the same way nuclear weapons are, but the power to change life is so vast that it still presents an existential threat.

The larger point I'm asking readers to focus on is this.  If this challenge is not understood and met, there may not be any point to all the amazing scientific research currently underway, as whatever is learned is likely to be swept away in a coming crash of civilization.

A lot of these things are analyzed on the YouTube channel run by Isaac Arthur.

Thanks for this link, much appreciated, will check it out.

Also, I would very much like to learn about any group of scientists who are focused directly on the issues above. 

[Kryptid]

Becoming a multi-planet (or preferably, a multi-star system) civilization would be one solution to prevent extinction by our own hands or by natural events. That way, we won't have all of our eggs in one basket. A disaster on one planet would not necessarily result in a similar disaster on another.

[Bored chemist]

I must be missing something.
How does information do harm?

[Tanny (OP)]

Becoming a multi-planet (or preferably, a multi-star system) civilization would be one solution to prevent extinction by our own hands or by natural events. That way, we won't have all of our eggs in one basket. A disaster on one planet would not necessarily result in a similar disaster on another.

This suggestion is interesting, in that it shows how confident we are about our technical abilities, and how little confidence we have in our ability to edit our relationship with knowledge. 

What you say is of course true, but not that reassuring.  As example, let's imagine that we already had an established colony on Mars which could support itself independently.   Does that really make us feel that much better about a global nuclear war on Earth?   

And then there is the issue of timing.   Establishing a truly self sustaining colony on Mars or elsewhere is likely to take a century or two.  Mars is not that friendly of an environment for humans, and the challenges involved will be steep.  Given that we currently have the ability to crash civilization in about an hour, and it could happen literally on any day, do we have enough time to migrate elsewhere?   

Any anyway, who really wants to live on Mars?  There are no other human friendly planets in this solar system, which means we're talking about inter-stellar travel to find a real replacement for Earth.  This could change, but we currently have not the slightest idea how to travel such distances in a realistic manner.

All that said, I do find your suggestion quite useful, as it illustrates how deeply embedded the "more is better" relationship with knowledge is in the human psyche.  I've been discussing this for years all over the Net, and one thing I've learned from that experience is that it's really difficult for us to imagine any other way to be human than "more is better".  This observation deepens my concern, as it makes even more clear that adapting to the new realities the knowledge explosion has created is going to be an awesome challenge.

[Tanny (OP)]

Hi Bored Chemist,

I must be missing something.  How does information do harm?

Information typically equals power.  That's usually why we are seeking new information, to access the new power that will flow from it.   

And so the question becomes, how much power can human beings successfully manage?   Our "more is better" relationship with knowledge assumes that we can handle an unlimited amount of power.  Is that true? 

We currently have over 3,000 hydrogen bombs aimed down our own throat and can erase most of modern civilization in about an hour.  Two highly suspect human beings control most of that power, and the fate of all humanity lies in their hands.  Is that successful management? 

Consider the sloppy logic involved.   We limit the powers available to children based on the realistic understanding that their ability to manage power is limited.  This is obviously sensible.   But when children turn 18 and become adults we then say, ok, the sky's the limit, let's give ourselves as much power as we possibly can as fast as we possibly can!!!   What about human history persuades us that adult humans can successfully manage any amount of power they can get access to?

Here's the heart of the issue, imho.

In the past the powers we had were sufficiently limited that we could make mistakes, and then recover and learn from the mistakes.  So sure, there were plenty of big problems, but we always were able to recover and continue.

The emergence of existential scale powers creates a revolutionary new situation.    Existential scale powers remove the room for error and the opportunity to recover and learn from mistakes.  Once we've crashed civilization we'll be back to a survival of the fittest 8th century situation.  Science and progress will come to a screeching halt because everyone who survives will be focused on finding food and not getting killed by their neighbor.  Game over, at least for a very long time to come.

We aren't adapting to this dangerous new reality.  We still think that we can blunder along as we always have and fix whatever we break.  We're wrong. 

This isn't wild futuristic speculation.  It could literally happen tomorrow.  We're already in this revolutionary new era and have been since at least the 1960's.

[Tanny (OP)]

Well, things are kinda slow here, so time for a rant.  You know that old story about the emperor having no clothes?  Do you ever feel that way about the intellectual elites? 

As may be becoming clear, I have an incurable obsession with this topic and have been writing about it online for at least a decade.  Whenever the opportunity arises I reach out to academics and scientists whose work seems related to this subject.  Many of them have quite impressive careers, with many books published, many degrees, in depth knowledge of their field, many talks at conferences etc.

And NONE of them ever get what's being discussed here. 

They think they do, but when you go to their websites and scan through their hundreds of futurist articles etc you never find answers to questions like...

How are we going to successfully manage the existential scale powers that will be generated by the knowledge explosion?

How are we going to establish a perfect record of managing every such power every single day forever?  This question is crucial because failing to manage a _single_ existential scale power _a single time_ is all it takes to reach game over.

There definitely are futurists who concern themselves with the details of specific technologies, but seemingly no one who is laser focused on the global bottom line.

How are we going to manage the awesome powers that will spring out of the knowledge explosion?  How will we manage them perfectly, every day, forever?

I would actually love it if somebody, anybody, could tell me what I'm doing wrong here.  I would welcome the moment when I go "Aha!  So THAT's what I'm not getting!"

After ten years of discussing this everywhere I can I've learned this. Everybody tends to think they can debunk these concerns.   But nobody actually can.  And it doesn't matter a bit how many degrees they have.  The only difference between the general public and the intellectual elites is that the elites can present their arguments in a more polished manner. 

The emperor has no clothes.

Turn your head and don't think about this too much, because the farther in to this you go, the more troubling it becomes.

[Bogie_smiles]

You do have a valid concern, and the concept of a solution certainly will be on the minds of those intelligent people you look to rally to the cause. I understand the concern too, and am hopeful for solutions, but my supposition is that the imposition of solutions would be quite undemocratic, and without any global consensus. That means that agreeing on the solutions, and implementing them globally might be more difficult than living through the future without imposing any untested and draconian solutions to avoid something that may not actually unfold if allowed to play out.

My approach to your concerns is a faith in the human ability to survive, but I do agree that there is no guarantee that we will. I also ultimately have a faith that natural evolution leads to “the height of evolution”, meaning that societies would naturally work their way over the hurdles, and produce higher levels of intelligent life forms over time, better able to resolve the problems through a wise and informed consensus of like-minded individuals (individual free thinkers who all recognize the greater problem).

Call it faith in the natural evolution of intelligent beings, and hope that it is the nature of evolution to reach the “heights” necessary to overcome the existential threats that we create for ourselves.

[Tanny (OP)]

Hi there Bogie, thanks for contributing to the thread.

I understand the concern too, and am hopeful for solutions, but my supposition is that the imposition of solutions would be quite undemocratic, and without any global consensus.

As you may have heard,  ICANN just won the Nobel Peace Prize for their work in creating a global treaty for banning nuclear weapons.

http://www.icanw.org/status-of-the-treaty-on-the-prohibition-of-nuclear-weapons/

Of course none of the countries that have nuclear weapons are interested in signing, but it's a start at least.

That means that agreeing on the solutions, and implementing them globally might be more difficult than living through the future without imposing any untested and draconian solutions to avoid something that may not actually unfold if allowed to play out.[/font]

I would agree that any effective solution will be seen as draconian and that building a consensus for anything other than more of the same will be beyond challenging.  I've been discussing this for ten years all over the net, a kind of market research if you will, and the one thing I've learned is that the "more is better" relationship with knowledge is very very deeply rooted in the human experience.   The more one discusses this the more clear that becomes.

My approach to your concerns is a faith in the human ability to survive, but I do agree that there is no guarantee that we will.

I suspect that the human species will survive, but that modern civilization will not.  Whatever happens there will probably still be living humans, who will probably wish they were dead.

Your faith, which is widely shared for very understandable reasons, is based on the record of the past where humans did indeed survive many great challenges.  What many don't recognize is that the knowledge explosion is quickly creating a revolutionary new environment.  Existential scale technologies are radically different because they remove room for error and the ability to learn from our mistakes.  Get it wrong once, game over.  We've never faced that before.

As example, consider all the amazing work being done by very intelligent people all over the world in too many fields to begin to list.  All of that work depends for it's value on a single thing, our ability to avoid global nuclear war.  If we fail at that one challenge, everything all these smart people are working on is a waste of time.    Thus, there's almost no point in talking about anything other than nuclear weapons.

I also ultimately have a faith that natural evolution leads to “the height of evolution”, meaning that societies would naturally work their way over the hurdles, and produce higher levels of intelligent life forms over time, better able to resolve the problems through a wise and informed consensus of like-minded individuals (individual free thinkers who all recognize the greater problem).

I do agree that even if humans go extinct nature will patiently craft some new form of intelligent life, over very long periods of time.  Intelligence is probably a permanent feature of Earth (short of a massive asteroid strike) but human intelligence is highly suspect.  It's debatable if humans even are intelligent.  As example, would we label as intelligent a man who walks around all day everyday with a loaded gun in his mouth, and who rarely wishes to discuss the gun?  Or would we label that man insane?

I would like to be wrong about all this because I'd like to see progress continue as much as anyone else.  But to have faith we will get through this requires answering the following question...

How will we successfully manage every single existential scale technology every single day, forever?

Remember, due to the scale of such powers, we don't need to do just a good job of management, we need to do a perfect job, permanently.

---------------

PS:  For what it's worth, I found a good futurist blog to discuss this on yesterday...

https://frankdiana.net/2017/09/08/what-are-your-thoughts-about-the-future/

[Tanny (OP)]

Have you ever become totally obsessed with an idea to the point where you might fairly be labeled nuts?  I can't seem to let go of the following....

Billions of people around the world, including millions of hard working scientists, are investing their lives in the attempt to further build human progress.  The scale of this enterprise is vast, with too many projects underway to even begin to list. 

And this whole gigantic human apparatus depends on a single thing.  That we succeed in avoiding nuclear war.  If we fail at this one thing, none of the other many great accomplishments matter.

And so I ask my friends the Naked Scientists...

How do scientists, who generally present themselves as masters of logic, find the time to talk about anything but nuclear weapons?

A thousands years of human progress, and a thousand yet to come, all of it in the hands of some Pakistani general whose decided he's tired of living and it's time to once and for all settle the argument with India.

[guest39538]

A thousands years of human progress, and a thousand yet to come, all of it in the hands of some Pakistani general whose decided he's tired of living and it's time to once and for all settle the argument with India.

Why not an American or North Korean leader?  You seem rather specific there in naming Pakistan .