Why would it be such a bad thing if humans never make it off this rock?

Great Debates
41

Oh yes, you’re right, sorry, I read the OP and then came back to respond a couple of hours later. I blame my headache. :smack:

To start with, if ‘humanity’ is wiped out, then an awful lot of real-life humans will be too. It’s not just abstract ‘billions,’ it’s real mothers, fathers, children, sisters, friends. I won’t know any of them personally, but I didn’t know anyone in the Turkey earthquakes either, and I still sympathised with them. Attempting to preserve humanity also necessarily means preserving the lives of billions of real people.

gobear’s Babylon 5 quote made the second argument:

‘When that happens, it won’t just take us. It’ll take Marilyn Monroe and Lao-Tzu, Einstein, Morobuto, Buddy Holly, Aristophanes …’

I won’t be remembered in 1000,0000 years’ time, but it’s likely some of these people will be. Their stories will be wiped out too - and all our histories, all our progress, all our mistakes, everything forgotten forever.

Finally, as xtisme said, on the information we have now, we are the only sentient species in the universe. Therefore preserving humanity could also mean preserving sentience itself. It is one thing to argue that humanity isn’t worth saving, it’s another to argue that sentience itself should be destroyed.

So ‘preservation of the species’ includes individual humans at the micro level, sentience at the macro level, and all of civilization in between. That’s an awful lot to lose.
*generic you, not you specifically

42

you wewre too vague for me to pick up the Terminator analogy. the problems with robots all over the universe under one hive mind is the robots have a chance to get separated from the hive and develop individual personalities or miss their chance to get upgraded to Hive Mind 3.11 and could run amok. A quick system error and robot turns on robot. Plus robots built by men are inheriently flawed because of their creator, and the robot built robots still suffer from the human creator ancestors’ imperfections. Plus ED-209 can’t even walk down stairs!

Humans must survive, sure we are violent sociopathic thugs, but we can create things of beauty that make you get on your knees and weep.

43

Who said anything about a hive mind? I’d think that’d be the worst of the setups, if only because communication in space is limited by the speed of light. Just simulate the human brain, take away boredom, anger and jealousy (after all, robots won’t have to claw their way to the top of the evolutionary ladder) and voila! Instant utopian society, just add communism.

I didn’t buy it when descartes said it, I don’t buy it when you say it. There’s nothing inherently impossible about creating a more perfect/smarter/kinder being. Your parents did not dictate your every thought when they raised you, they only provided a platform for you to grow, and suggested a direction to grow in. Robots can be the same.

Plus, robots don’t need to breathe. Cheaper that way.

44

It wouldn’t be a bad thing.

Why would it be a good thing?

I posit that it’s neither. It’d just be a thing. Species survival is fundamentally an moral-neutral thing.

But then again, consider the following sequence:

1: Why would it be such a bad thing if (hence: WWIBSABTI) homo sapiens is extinct in ten thousand years?

2: WWIBSABTI: homo sap. is extinct in a thousand years?

3: WWIBSABTI: homo sap. is extinct in one hundred years?

4: WWIBSABTI: homo sap. is extinct in ten years?

5: WWIBSABTI: homo sap. is extinct in one year?

6: WWIBSABTI: homo sap. is extinct in ~36 days?

At which order of magnitude there does it matter, if it does? Why does it cease to matter at orders of magnitude beyond it?

45

**
take away all the good parts of the brain, why don’t you? Without those traits, robots will be ill-equiped to deal with the real world. If robots are not jeleous of our cool new megalaser, teh will not build one of their own. if robots are not angry at how we will treat them in the future, they will never strive to change how we view them (either by grass roots political action or revolution), without boredom, robots will never seek out more stimulation. And why shouldn’t robots evolve? it is more likely that robots will change drastically over time as they are adapted to do different tasks as these tasks are demanded of them.

they will be better but never be perfect. They will just become more effecient at what we make them do.

46

**But as others have pointed out; it is most unlikely that we’d ever be in a position to evacuate the planet - the people here will be wiped out regardless

I see the point, but still, so what? - it is only us that regards these things as important; if there is no more us, there is nobody to mourn the loss - is there in fact any loss in such a case?

**Better, but sentience doesn’t actually do anything, really, not anything that makes it an asset to the universe - in fact perhaps the underlying point on my mind here is that nothing can really be objectively considered an asset to the universe.

47

2 things:

  1. We may be able to spot the asteroid, but we may not be able to stop it before it hits Earth. Even considering a “planned trajectory change” in the asteroid would mean a signifigant prescence in space. Wouldn’t this be all the more reason to make space exploration and colonization a top priority?

  2. Asteroid collision isn’t the only event that can cause a catastrophic mass extinction. There are many other events that could wipe out humanity (disease, nuclear holocaust, ice age, runaway greenhouse effect, etc…). Wouldn’t the chances of a mass extinction be increased when factoring this in? You may say that our technology would save us. Wouldn’t technological innovation be hastened by figuring out how to effectively live on (and terraform) other planets?
    As to why humanity should look to be saved, I don’t think there really is a logical reason. We as a species simply feel the need to survive and propagate (Yes, I realize there are some who feel the need to do neither).

48

Well, they would build a mega laser cuz they can get some use from it, or perhaps just cuz it’s cool. Jealousy is only a good thing in a society that is largely competition based. Fear and anger are the same. And competition = conflict != peace. That’s why we humans will never have world peace. Because those bastards across the fence have greener grass, when I deserve it more!

I’m not worried about robots being considered inferior beings when the time comes. We have too much fiction dedicated to showing possible disastrous effects or such, as well as the ethical quadries we can get into. Hell, there are already groups dedicated to preserving robot rights, when such robots are developed ASPCR

Besides, they wouldn’t need to chance humanity’s view of them, if everything works out the way I think it will. We use robots to explore space, no humans because of the expense, humans blow ourselves up, robots inherit the universe.

Lack of boredom means a more productive unit. There is a need for boredom in society, just to keep it advancing, but not for lesser jobs, such as factory line manufacturing.

I don’t believe I’ve said anything to suggest that they shouldn’t evolve. They should.

Our job is merely to show them the path, not to walk them down it.

We seem to have conflicting views of what would constitute AI. ATM, I feel that cortical simulations hold the most promise, and that classical programmed AI is a dead end.

Citeseer.com if you’d like to read up on it. Just search for cortical simulations, etc.

49

because we seem to have a grand idea about the importance of the human race, and it’s place in the Greater Plan.

We refuse to believe we could be the result of a fluke, a mere coincidence.

Ofcourse that’s impossible, the universe revolves around humans. Or so we’d like to think.

50

The meaning of life is to continue living, as comfortably as possible. Therefore, our goal should be to ensure that life continues on in the stars, should something happen to earth. We’re not important, we probably have no great place in and Plan, but we wish to spread by our very nature, and be remembered. If humans can’t do it, let robots stand in our proxy.

51

The ‘robots’, that is to say the AI, will be very different to us-

if they need boredom (say, to stimulate innovation) they will have it-
if they need to concentrate on some simple task for centuries on end boredom would be positively dangerous, so away it goes…

There could be so many new emotions available to a self-modifying AI that they would be totally different to humans.

I do think the ‘robots’ will keep specimens of humanity around, with luck-
it might be useful to have a control population of healthy human minds to calibrate themselves against, to stop themselves from getting too alien;
and hopefully take a representative population of humanity (both as yardsticks, and as pets) with them to the stars.
We are not absolutely essential, however.

SF worldbuilding at
http://www.orionsarm.com/main.html

52

I think that it is pretty reasonable to say that, as humans, we shouldnt even care whether or not our species continues as it is. It has happened billions of times before (evolution), so why should we be the one exception to this infinite rule of life?

-Jadoku himself

53

try hanging around with some real people. Robots will get treated like crap by millions because no one will care. There are rules against harming animals and it still happens. There are rules against harming people and it still happens. Robot harm will happen. The danger is the robots are the one thing that could harm back, and most people are too stupid to care.

54

Because i say so. and i can potentially have the technology to make it so. Take that, pterodactyl!

55

Hell, there’s racism, sexism, every kind of -ism where people will hate and kill each other over single difference, whether race, religion, nationality, ethinic backgroud, gender, sexual orietation, etc, etc. I really don’t have a problem believing that Robots, even if demonstately sentient, are going to be treated like tools at best and abominations at worst, by segments of the population.

56

Our culture always amazes me with our ability to be so self-centered. Sure, species preservation is important to us. That’s because it us we’re talking about. It’s genetically hardwired into us. All this talk of a grand plan and preserving sentience is moot. If an extinction level event occurs, wiping out the human race, another species will arise to take it’s place. Life in general is very hard to wipe out entirely. Millions of years from now, intelligent octupi could be far more advance than we’ll ever be. Life continues, and we are just one species among millions.

We think we’re special because we can think. Because we have these technological marvels that make us so powerful and comfortable. I contest that for all our brains, the majority of our culture is screwed anyways. Look where our technology has gotten us. Sure, we live longer and multiply like rabbits but now overpopulation is (in my opinion) the number one problem in the world. Technology has brought us antibiotics but also the atomic bomb. Countless humans kill each other each day for no evolutionary advantage. I challenge you to find another species that does that. Spreading to new planets with old problems is only a stop gap. Earth II will be just as screwed up as Earth I, which thereby necessitate an Earth III, in a vicious cycle. I contend that we need to learn to live in some kind of harmony or equilibrium. I’m not saying that we all have to hug all day long. Violence is a part of nature. But it needs to be reigned in and balanced.

57

Space colonization.

Space colonization.

Yeah, but if Earth III - Earth MMCDXVII are simultaneously colonized, humanity stands a much greater chance of survival.

I challenge your view that we do that. I suggest that every crime humanity commits is done in the name of evolution. Be it for humanity, for society, or just for kicks, everything is done for a reason, and every reason contributes to evolution. We may not be evolving the way you want us to, but tough shit. We’re still evolving. Evolution isn’t something that we make happen, it’s not any particular thing we do. We don’t say “Hm… think I’ll evolve toward climbing trees better.” It’s something that’s integrated into the very nature of things, something that we are. Geez. Stop thinking evolution is a direct path to world peace and a state of sheer nirvana. It isn’t.

58

By no means do I assume that evolution is a direct path that has any type of goal or destination. Quite the opposite. Man is not the pinnacle of evolution, not the goal, only one step in a long long road.

By evolutionary advantage, I mean the futhering of ones own gene pool. In other animals, nothing kills just for the hell of it, or because they don’t believe in the right god. They kill to survive and further their own genetic material. They kill for food, or in defense of themselves or their territory. Or they kill to benefit their genes directly. A male lion that has defeated another lion for “ownership” of his pride of females will kill all the cubs fathered by the previous owner. Ensuring the survival of his children. There are no serial killers in the wild, besides us.

I admit that space colonization may temporarily solve the problem of overpopulation. However, if we keep growing exponentially as we have been, we’ll fill the entire universe in a couple thousand years. That’s assuming our technology will allow us to spread fast enough. Otherwise we just have 20 crowded planets instead of one. Like a virus, there is a limit to how far we can spread. It’s evolutionarily disadvantageous for a virus to infect and kill every host in the population, then both host and virus become extinct. An equilibrium must be reached. I’m not against colonization per se but I just think we should get our act together first.

And I still don’t see how space colonization solves the problem of us blowing ourselves up with the atom bomb.

59

Killing someone for the hell of it furthers your own good. That’s why you enjoy it, and why fatty foods taste good. Sometimes, like Mcdonald’s, evolution can backfire and be detrimental, but don’t believe for one second that evolution played no part in putting those feelings there.

Killing someone for society/god furthers your people. In how many wars does one said ut up posters that say “they’re just like us, only different!” None! Wars are fought by demonizing the enemy. You don’t kill “other humans,” you kill evil, baby eating child molesting hellspawn! That way, your people get ahead, even if they may not be directly related to you.

Do you have any idea how big the universe is?

Okay. You work on your utopian stuff here in earth. I’ll be living in space, just in case you blow yourself sky high before you get it to happen.

When the Do’Urden Utopian Society vanishes in the puff of smoke along with the rest of Earth, I’ll be elsewhere, hopefully making babies to colonize more. Problem soved.

60

I am not advocating an utopian society. Just one that fits the sucessful model exhibited throughout nature. Killing randomly does not benefit you directly. I’m talking you, not your people. Evolution favors the individual. Look at the rest of the planet. Really look and you’ll see we are the exception.

Yes, I know how big the universe is. Do you know what exponential means?

And soon after I go poof on Earth I, how long do you think it’ll take before you go too. Your bringing the same problems with you.