Singularity Utopia: Post Scarcity Awareness As An Antidote To Despair

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Ian Yeoman. Ian Yeoman said: RT @singularityblog Singularity Utopia: Post Scarcity Awareness As An Antidote To Despair http://bit.ly/gNj3Nl [...]

Food grows on trees, and yet many people in this world are starving. Increasing ability to produce goods has not, in itself, resulted in increased social welfare. The idea that technological advancement without socio-political re-organization will result in a utopia seems to me to be the central fallacy of most singularitarians. Human greed is potentially infinite, while the earth — along with the solar system and the visible universe — are finite, so no improved efficiency of harnessing these finite resources will be able to satisfy human desire; human desire will simply grow in accordance with what’s available. Human desire must be brought under control before improved control of material resources can make any difference.

-Mikem

Mikem you say the universe is finite, but recently I was reading about new universes.http://www.technologyreview.co…/Astronomers have apparently found evidence of new universes. If this apparent evidence is proved true there will surely be enough matter for everyone, and if we have not yet found new universes I am sure we will eventually have the brainpower to either find new universes or to create them. Our own universe is a very big place even if it is finite. Considering the advancement of computing power, which will eventually lead to highly advanced Artificial Intelligence and neural augmentation, we will easily be able to create or enter an infinity of new universes in the future. Already our primitive human brains have achieved wonders. Yes you are correct to state suffering, injustice, and inequality continues in the world, but we are progressing and wealthier nations are making commitments to help poorer nations. Artificial Intelligence will help humans to become wiser therefore our desires will become sane in the future, we will see an end regarding mindless greed. Technological advancement will automatically entail a socio-political reorganization without any specific need to plan for it. Wikileaks and Anonymous are good examples of how technology is liberating people. Note this quote from an Anonymous Press Release: “We understand that money is required to promote the arts and sciences, but we cannot allow the law to be used to enforce an empire of tyranny, harassment, and abuse. If the people decide to promote the arts and sciences, then we call for governments everywhere to promote them directly rather than through the creation of enforced monopolies. If the law does not adapt to the new realities brought by new technologies and the Internet, then the march of technology will rob them of the ability to uphold the law. We thus call for governments everywhere to promote freedom of information whatever, wherever, and however it may arise. Governments which refuse to change with the changing world risk being left behind by it.”

“Artificial Intelligence combined with molecular nanotechnology will allow available resources to be utilized with ultra-efficiency, therefore all resources will effectively be unlimited i.e. free.”

That’s what most people forget about when talking about politics, recourses and economy regarding the Singularity.

I’m glad you stated it.

Singularity 2045, “medical technology will stop people growing old and all illnesses will be curable”How do you think we get to the point where “all illnesses will be curable”? Some futurists propose that it be done by running experiments in simulated worlds. That we will be able to simulate the world, sped up, and understand diseases.It is not enough to simulate the body in order to understand disease. Arguably, one must simulate ‘the environment’ since the role of ‘environment’ ((which includes ‘way of life’ in developmental stages, region of world lived in (subject to specific toxins etc.)) on disease is quite large. There is disagreement between futurists with regards to how broad and to what level of detail these simulations would need to be in order to get any real answers. I don’t doubt that we will have the computational power to simulate the world in sufficient enough detail to cure many diseases-eventually. Whether we sort out how to do this effectively, and actually do it, by 2045 is another question. But perhaps more importantly, is there any reason to be so sure that we will cure everything ‘for always’ by 2045, or ‘by ever’?New diseases will be created for bio-terrorist purposes, or be the result of genetic engineering gone badly wrong, or be brought about as unanticipated reactions from the body to ‘new tech’ medications, new tech environments etc. It is both unlikely and unreasonable to propose a state of ‘diseaslessness’ for human beings. And even more unlikely and unreasonable to say so strongly “all illnesses will be curable” by 2045. Part of the reason many scientifically minded people don’t listen to Singularitarians is because they are known to make unreasonable claims such as you have in this post. I would revise what you wrote to say “many to most diseases will be curable”.

Mikem,

While I agree with what you have written about desire being unlimited, the article itself focuses on scarcity. I think its important to figure out what ‘scarcity’ would even mean in a post-Singularity world. Will there be a scarce number of holographic telepresence machines at first, and therefore exist a role for government in distribution of these kinds of ‘resources’? Arguably, ‘scarcity’ for things needed for survival, like food and water, will not be an issue in the time of advanced technology.

I agree Nikki that properly defining ‘scarcity’ would be a good first step to improving our discussion on this matter. Some things will be so easily created as to be practically free (e.g. enough food and medicine to provide for every human alive), while other things will may remain scarce despite molecular nano-technology and AI (e.g. sufficient energy reserves to match the demands of future post-humans, and more intangible things like status and relative wealth).

Stem Cells are already making great progress http://bigthink.com/ideas/26456

Over the next 20 years Stem Cells will propel us towards the cusp of immortality, AI and surgical nanobots will complete the picture. 2045 is the latest date for immortality. I feel sure based on current evidence 2045 is an easily achievable deadline. I suspect we could easily achieve immortality by 2035.

New diseases created by Bio-Terrorists will be countered in a manner similar to how our computers have anti-virus software. Humans will update their immune systems therefore new bio-threats will be a minor inconvenience at worst.

I would say my claims are not unreasonable but only time will tell the truth. I stand by what is written; I have no intention of rewriting anything. In addition to all the current sci-tech evidence regarding how we will progress there is also the concept of Self Fulfilling Prophecy to consider:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy

In a universe where we can create new universes, or enter pre-existing separate universes (http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26132) there will be no scarcity whatsoever. When I say “everything” will be free in a Post-Scarcity world I mean everything! There will be no scarcity, nothing will be scarce, there will be unlimited abundance of whatever you desire. Supreme mastery over science and technology will allow us to achieve anything. The only limit is your imagination and even your imagination will become limitless via the help of neural augmentation. Before we fully explore the concept of new universes our own universe will provide effectively limitless matter and energy for anyone who needs it.

Singularity Utopia,

I agree that there exists a lot of excitement regarding stem cells, and nanobots etc.

I like how Kevin Kelly describes the traps of futurists when it comes to disease in his interview here on Singularity 1 on 1, claiming that futurists often get caught up in ‘thinkism’, where in which you believe that you can solve a problem just by thinking about it. Where instead you need to run experiments in combination with thinking about it, and these experiments take time. If you believe computer power is ubiquitous and infinte, then this might be possible via simulation to run a million experiments in a simulation and find the solutions to all diseases, test those solutions in the simulation, and apply them.

One must acknowledge that much of what causes disease comes from the external world, and so you would need to simulate the whole world, too. And of course the world in these futuristic times would be changing rapidly etc. etc. So there are many obstacles to what you propose, although of course it is possible, and probably likely.

I do believe that acting optimistically about the future, will, through means of self-fulfilling prophecy, give it a greater chance of coming true. But this again falls victim to ‘thinkism’; albeit in a different way. One is still accountable to ‘the world’, in the ‘reality’ sense in this case, and the limitations that that ‘reality’ puts on things. The reality is that these future technologies have unbelievably dark aspects associated, many dark potentials, and there are many ways in which the lead up to the Singularity can be traumatic, or have something occur, such as run away nanotechnology, that might knock it off course for a few years.

I think it is more reasonable to make sure to factor in (in discussion) at least the most likely obstacles. Otherwise you are walking by faith, and not by sight, bumping into things, and leading others to do so as well. Computer processing power will be a powerful force when it hits the almost vertical part of the exponential curve. But can we be confident that it will solve everything? We cannot. We are better off I think being epistemologically modest about these things until we understand them more.

Cautious, rational optimism, acknowledging the amazing potentials of advanced technology, while simultaneously acknowledging the potential obstacles and difficulties is a better way to approach these things.

As a person deeply involved in things Singularity, I sometimes get accused of using it like religious person uses religion. And while I am very confident that there are many important distinctions between religion and the Singularity, if one is not careful, they end up acting in a way that makes the two less distinguishable.

One thing that distinguishes the two is the commitment to reason, objectivity and empiricism that we see with the Singularity that we don’t find in religions. As Ray put it at the S. Summit in 2007, “It didn’t start with religion, it started with science”. An observable commitment to the principles of science is important in order to maintain the distinction between the two.

People need to know about the Singularity, not just to avoid despair, but so that they can prepare for what is to come and focus on the right things in their personal and business lives. Leaders in the Singularity movement need to acknowledge the potential perils, so as to guide technology in the best possible way and steer away from the potential threats it entails. Genetic engineering gone badly wrong is a very real threat. Nanoweaponry is another. Utopia might be highly likely, but to say it with such certainty, I feel, paints a biased perspective.

Very powerful Nikki! Thank you for putting so much time and effort into making a very sound argument!!!

Dear nikki_olson.

This issue is not mere ‘excitement’ about Stem Cells, or bio-computing, or nanotechnology. Very tangible examples of progress do exist based on very clear and unquestionable Stem cell evidence. This is absolutely NOT “thinkism” (whereby people believe problems can be solved merely by thinking about them them). The problems regarding aging and disease will be solved via scientific progress already made, and via progress we are expected to make.

It is not necessary to simulate the whole body (and the whole world) to cure diseases and halt the aging process. If you merely project the current achievements already in existence, regarding Stem Cells, into the future by 20 or 30 years (using already established medical research methods) then it is extremely likely such Stem Cell advances will extend the life of everyone by *at least* 20 or 30 years, and if injectable DNA repair bio-computers have not been perfected 20 or 30 years from now such bio-computers will definitely be perfected 40 or 60 years from now. Already in the year 2010 (last year), logic gates for bio-computers were created using Yeast Cells, DNA, and E. colil bacteria; this is tangible progress already made, not mere thinkism.

“Thinking” is a very important human attribute and we should incisively condemn any attempts to denigrate “thinking” because thinking can solve problems merely by “thinking” about the problem. The human mind is a complex and wonderful phenomenon. Thoughts we think can profoundly alter the world. For more information about how your thoughts can skew reality I suggest you should explore deeper the concept of “Self Fulfilling Prophecy” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy

Absolutely I agree we are all accountable to the world but when you talk about the limitations which reality imposes upon our minds you shouldn’t make the mistake of failing to recognize the limitations our minds can falsely impose upon reality.

You say “reality” (your perception of reality) is that “these future technologies have unbelievably dark aspects associated, many dark potentials, and there are many ways in which the lead up to the Singularity can be traumatic…”

Consider this: what is the reality of a knife? A knife is used safely by many people to eat and prepare food. Knives are also used to create things. A minority of people use knives for killing and violence but there are methods to stop or punish such violence therefore most people accept the “reality of knives” as a good thing. Rarely when a person sees a knife in their home or at the shops do they think about the “dark potentials” regarding knives. Your focus on the “dark potentials” of nanotechnology is a skewed view. Yes dangers do exist and those dangers will be competently addressed but it is ridiculous to fear the dangers of nanotechnology.

You ask if we can be confident that computing power will solve everything, and I reply “yes we can be confident”. Being confident in your ability is a logical process. Confidence is NOT about blind faith. Confidence entails recognizing the powerful ability of the human brain to solve problems. There is a great evidential based history of the human brain’s ability to solve problems, therefore based on the evidence of our brains I am confident we can rise to any challenge. Confidence has allowed us to put men and women into space, perform brain surgery, heart transplants, and unlock the wonders of Stem Cells to name but a handful of achievements. Obstacles must certainly be considered but all obstacles are minor concerns, minor setbacks, in the face of human confidence. If humans were cautious we would never learn how to walk or perhaps we would be hiding in trees like apes. When a human learns to walk they will bump into things and sometimes they will fall over but rapidly we learn to run, we grow up.

Only an idiot would compare the Singularity to religion, and I am very confident I can refute all such religious slander where people attempt to smear the Singularity a religious ideology; but that’s a different discussion.

The current lack of intelligence in the world is a great source of despair for many people. There are many reasons why people despair. The Singularity will cure all aspects of despair but the Singularity is a bigger issue than merely curing despair. I focus on the current despair which people frequently feel because despair is currently a big obstacle regarding humans unleashing their confidence. The logical consequence of intelligence exploding is utopia, this is not mere bias, utopia is an inevitable consequence of extreme intelligence. Are you confident in the power of your brain?

“The issue is not mere ‘excitement’ about Stem Cells…”

Yes. There is lots of promising research.

But part of being a good scientist and futurist lies in knowing the limits of the inductive, empirical method, and operating in terms of educated probabilities when required rather than certainties. At some point in a person’s projections of the future, for each prediction, the confidence with which they can predict with certainty based on current knowledge and research breaks down, and it becomes more reasonable to infer ‘likelihood’ rather than certainty. It is not a question of optimism vs. pessimism in this circumstance; it’s a question of good scientific principles.

Arguably, as a general rule, predictions of the near future have a higher probability of being correct than predictions of the far future. There are a number of reasons why this is the case. Part of it has to do with the biases we have built into our thinking about the future. See Robin Hanson’s ‘Overcoming Bias’ for good lessons on biases that get in the way of effective futuring. I recognize that you are not attempting to spell out exactly what will happen in 2045, but you are remarkably confident in the way you apply current knowledge to far future contexts.

It is not difficult to find examples of ‘promising’ research that ended up being disappointing once we learned more of the details. There is good reason to expect this will happen again and again until we have a better understanding of reality as a whole, in far greater detail. But we are nowhere near that point, and so we should expect to be surprised for a few more years at least.

Again, I suggest epistemological modesty for the things that we don’t quite understand yet. We should definitely expect to be surprised by how progress in medicine will play out. That doesn’t eliminate the ability to be optimistic, just the ability to be so certain about the ‘when’ and ‘what’ of the future.

I would argue that not being epistemologically modest about the future of medicine actually gets you into more trouble, because it leads you to thinking you have answers about things where you don’t. And that’s when you start screwing up; when you believe you know more than you in fact do. When you can’t tell when you are failing, or you can’t tell that you are wrong, you make slower progress, you waste time, and potentially do harm.

The best example of where this has occurred in the Singularity community is with consciousness. We don’t yet know what consciousness is, and we really didn’t know in the 60s when AI research began. But many futurists even back then had already decided what it was. And then based their designs for AI around it. And made projections about the future that ended up being very wrong. It’s obvious that there wasn’t enough epistemological modesty in the AI community regarding ‘consciousness’ back then. There is much more now. Why not just say ‘We don’t know what consciousness is’, like good scientists, and start working on the problem from that standpoint, testing theories, etc. Ray Kurzweil showed a remarkable (and somewhat surprising amount) of modesty regarding “What the Mind is…” in his Summit speech this past summer.

We will have to agree to disagree about the understanding of disease and the role of the world in disease creation and perpetuation. I see where you are coming from, and it is easy to see how many diseases could be ‘figured out’ without the drastic means I suggest of simulating whole worlds. But I don’t think that applies to all of them. And I am not willing to think it’s as simple as treating the ‘effect’ of the world on the body with nanobots. We are in a complex relationship with our environment, and I am fairly sure there will be surprises along the way with regards to how the ‘body-world’ relation changes as we start to manipulate our DNA. I can anticipate how you might get around this argument by saying that with infinite computer power we will know everything.

““Thinking” is a very important human attribute and we should incisively condemn any attempts to denigrate thinking”

-I very much agree.. The term “thinkism” does not discourage thinking, but discourages situations where in which thinking ‘oversteps its boundaries’ so to speak, where it tries to do a job that requires empiricism, for in such cases, you inhibit your chances of being correct. Specifically with this I was discussing the understanding of medicine. You need to do experiments, and these experiments take time. And they will likely be done in a simulation, sped up.

“when you talk about the limitations which reality imposes upon our minds you shouldn’t make the mistake of failing to recognize the limitations our minds can falsely impose upon reality”

-I wasn’t saying reality imposes limits on our minds, although that is indeed true. What I was saying is that reality imposes limits on what can and cannot be true. You can conceive of things that cannot be true-reverse gravity for instance. In the end, reality dictates the limits of what is possible, not the mind. No matter how much you want gravity to work the opposite way, certain external principles get in the way of this becoming a reality. You might find ways around it, but you are still operating within the principles of the objective world.

So while optimism can lead us to achieve the very upper limit, the very best of all possibilities, the upper (and lower) limit(s) still do exist. This is how the mind is accountable to reality. We have influence over outcome, but only insofar as those outcomes are in accordance with what is possible.

In principle, terrible things are possible with nanotechnology. Another reality is that there are malicious people in the world who are willing to sacrifice their own and other’s lives for the sake of causing harm to an enemy. So while positive thinking will influence the outcome, the reality is that very real danger is a real possibility. To deny this is naïve I think.

“Rarely when a person sees a knife in their home or at the shops do they think about the “dark potentials” regarding knives”

-True. But if one is in a ‘context’ with a knife and someone they didn’t trust to have their best intentions at heart, they would think of those dark potentials. In the world at large, there are people whose intentions are not of the interest of humanity at large. That’s why we fear the bomb. A nuclear bomb sitting in your family’s living room is far less scary than one resting in your enemy’s hands. Danger with regards to technology, and the perception thereof, is ‘context’ dependent.

But this brings me to a very important distinction that needs to be made regarding nanotechnology and earlier risky technologies (such as nuclear warfare)

With nanotechnology and genetic engineering comes what has been called the “democratization of evil”, or, the ability for many people to do large-scale damage to humanity. In the past, the power to do great harm to mankind has resided in large governments and corporations. The bomb required a uranium processing plant, for instance.

But with nanotechnology, the ability to do great harm will reside with people who have a university education—the ability is ‘democratized’. They are being taught these technologies in order to do good, but the skills they possess can also be used to do terrible things. Never has this been true at any other point in history. And as Bill Joy says, “we can’t assume everybody’s sane”. (Example Ted Kaczynski)

The power of nanotechnology to do harm is greater than any force we’ve seen yet. It is certainly greater than a knife.

But then you might say, well, no one dropped the bombs that ended the world. It’s likely to think no one will do the same with nanotechnology.

In some ways, the ability to do harm with future tech is not, as a previously argued, context dependent, it is worse. In some cases future technology can lead to harm even in positive contexts. It could occur accidentally while we are pursuing good things. One example would be creating through genetic engineering a virus, a white plague that we didn’t not have the ability to respond to in a timely enough manner. This could occur by accident, and could slow down progress to 2045, wipe out a continent etc etc. Its far easier for smart and self-replicating nanotechnology to get away from us than it is a knife.

I don’t suggest a mode of panic and fear as a response to this upcoming reality. Nor do I suggest halting research (that would never work, and these technologies will provide far too much good to justify stopping research).

The paradox, as Bill Joy describes it, is that sudden realization of the existential risks attached to these new technologies lead us to question ‘where we went wrong’ in our scientific enquiry in the west, where in which we didn’t actually do anything wrong. Each step we took forward in developing these technologies led to enormous wealth. At no point along the path did we make the wrong choice in developing these technologies. He argues that its like ‘climbing a hill’, where each step you take with science leaves you in a better place than you were in before, but that when you get to the top of the hill you realize you have brought upon yourself enormous dangers and risks.

Joy believes, as do I, that the best response is to find smart people to think about these things. To be careful not to underestimate the risks. To promote a balanced perspective so other people can start thinking about these things so that we increase our chances of a Singularity that is sooner and with fewer casualties along the way.

I believe that despite all the existential risks that future tech presents us with that we can be confident in humanity to survive. As Natasha Vita-More said here on Singularity 1 on 1, “that’s what we do, we survive”. It is in our nature, it is our will, to survive.

“If humans were cautious we would never learn how to walk or perhaps we would be hiding in trees like apes. When a human learns to walk they will bump into things and sometimes they will fall over but rapidly we learn to run, we grow up”

-I agree. Part of being highly intelligent and wise, which are human virtues that distinguish us from apes, is that we have the capacity to take greater risks because we can calculate the risks. Factoring in consequences in our decision making process is part of being “grown up” as you put it. Being too optimistic, leads to miscalculated risks, which lead to real, and in some cases irreversible problems when dealing with future tech things with big consequences.

“Only an idiot would compare the Singularity to religion…”
-I agree. But when you lose sight of the founding principles of the Singularity, which are rooted in good science and engineering principles, then you lose the clear distinction. Already the Singularity serves many of the same functions of religion; it gives meaning, hope, understanding of the world etc. etc. The key distinction is in method of obtaining this knowledge. Being devoted to empiricism etc. is important.

“despair is currently a big obstacle regarding humans unleashing their confidence”

I agree. Having knowledge of the Singularity can limit despair and potentially lead to greater confidence and therefore greater action to reach the Singularity, and ,via the self-fulfilling prophecy, a sooner Singularity. But only if that Singularity is near and we can be certain in it.

It’s difficult to act with certainty regarding future contingents because it does not seem practical or in our best interests to do so. (even though it is) We are built to care more about the more immediate future, perhaps because we are wired more like our ancestors who only lived for 35 years at most. I see what you are trying to do. If you can make people confident in the Singularity 2045, you can overcome the aforementioned obstacle. 2045, I would argue, is not ‘near enough’ to be considered ‘near’ in the motivational sense. But adding that second part to you argument, the part that argues that if you work on it, it will come nearer, that helps with motivating people I suppose.

At the end of the day, Singularity Utopia, (I looked you up btw…can’t figure out who you are but know many of your friends—found your blog stating that people shouldn’t be concerned with who you are…intriguing) we are on board for the same cause, and have many of the same beliefs. Perhaps we’ve even spoken before at one of the Summits.

My key point, and key reason for objecting to your post the other day is with regards to the ‘ideology’ you are putting forth; namely, that it is too optimistic. You are better off, I think, talking in likelihoods, probabilities, and potentials wherever there is no cause for certainty—as with “all diseases being cured”, for instance, since uncalled for certainties are unscientific and lead to error. Like I said, leaders in the Singularity movement need to paint the whole picture, and move forward in research with the whole picture in mind, and the appropriate amount of modesty.

I do admire the boldness with which you approach the subject, and your enthusiasm is obviously humanitarian in nature, which is very admirable. Thank you for the great post and great discussion.

Dear nikki_olson

I am already aware of Robin Hanson’s ‘Overcoming Bias’ and I emailed him around two or three months ago asking him if he would publish, on his site, my critique of Overcoming Bias but I guess he was biased thus, as far as I’m aware, he never accepted my offer; I received no reply.

I have a short critical essay on the back-burner regarding Overcoming Bias, Less Wrong, and the Singularity Institute; which I will publish sometime in the next few months. My essay will expose the flawed logic and deficient rationality of these so-called rationalists. It is exceedingly ironic that such groups claiming to advocate rationality are actually very irrational. It is ironic that these groups who want to overcome bias are actually enslaved to their unaware biases. Take “Less Wrong” for example: http://lesswrong.com/ LessWrong is the rationalist equivalent of a person with cancer cutting back on smoking cigarettes. The smoker with cancer cuts back on smoking cigarettes and says to him or herself: “smoking 3 a day is less wrong than smoking ten a day.” The truly rational solution is not to smoke. Instead of the defeatist and pessimistic Less Wrong viewpoint, a truly rational philosophy would be More Right.

So you can see I am already aware of Robin Hanson’s ‘Overcoming Bias’ and other related groups.

Regarding certainties. We could say nothing is certain until it happens. You can’t even be certain of your own beliefs because there is a possibility you could be deluded. You may have plans for tomorrow but tonight you could die in your sleep. The word “certain” does exist and I will continue to use it despite the uncertainty regarding certainty. There is always the possibility for doubt in any circumstance. My certainty regarding the Singularity is based upon intelligence. I look at the facts, the evidence, in a rational and logic manner; and after carefully weighing all the evidence I’ve determined a utopian Singularity is a certainty, as certain as anything can be. While looking to the future I also feel people should have a clear view of the present. Regarding good science; if you are considering good scientific principals then you must consider the impact of all factors if you want to have a clear and truthful picture of a situation. Consider the factor of myself. You are not intimate with the details regarding my ability to alter the future. You are not intimate with the workings of my brain therefore, when I state utopia will occur, I am in a better position to judge my ability regarding the creation of utopia. You don’t know who I am. You don’t know the level of my education. You state the more we speculate into the future the less precise we become.

You state there are biases we have built into our thinking about the future. What if we could see the future? I am not saying I can see the future but I am saying what if. Imagine if I could see the future? If I could see or feel the future then I could say with certainty that I know the Singularity will create utopia and that the deadline is 2045. It has recently been suggested via scientific method that we can actually feel the future:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19712-is-this-evidence-that-we-can-see-the-future.html
http://www.dbem.ws/FeelingFuture.pdf

Whether or not we can see the future is an issue I will not fully tackle here. I will not claim to I can see the future, my reason for raising the matter is that I simply want you to keep an open mind regarding possibilities. Perhaps you have an unaware bias regarding the future? Keep an open mind regarding my ability to shape the future into the pattern I desire. Keep an open mind regarding my absolute confidence in my ability, thus when I state I am sure utopia will occur I hope you can see how this could easily be true.

You say examples of ‘promising’ research have ended up being disappointing once we learned more of the details; you you think Stem Cell regeneration will end up being disappointing?

Yes the power of nanotechnology is greater than a mere knife but everyone with have access to this great power therefore people will easily be able to defend themselves from attack. Medical science can cure people who have suffered from knife attacks or gunshot wounds but sometimes people do die. People sometimes die in car crashes but cars are made to be reasonably safe. As the power of our tools increases so will the power of our safety measures. Medicine in the future will be able to cure people who have suffered a nanobot attack although some people may die similar to how some people die in the year 2011 if they are stabbed. Controls regarding nanotechnology are sufficient to prevent accidental and intentional catastrophe therefore it is NOT easier for smart and self-replicating nanotechnology to get away from us than it is a knife. You are shooting yourself in the foot when you make such assumptions.

Being too optimistic, leads to miscalculated risks, and being too pessimistic means you fail to seize opportunities therefore rational optimism will be falsely labelled as being too optimistic.

I briefly mentioned how the Singularity is not a religion and I stated it was a different discussion but you insist upon raising it here so I feel compelled to set you straight regarding your religious bias. Your religious bias (I am not saying you are religious) causes you to suggest the Singularity could be compared to religion because it provides hope and understanding of the world. Heart transplants provide hope for people with heart disease but heart transplants are not religious. Logic provides understanding of the world but logic is not religious. You could say evolution provides hope and understanding but evolution is not religion and it doesn’t share similarity with religion. If commonalities do exist it is only on a general level where all things human are similar. Anything could be said to share similarities with religion because “everything human” shares the “human” similarity. This is all about the religious bias of people who want to see God in everything from evolution to the Singularity. You say there are similarities but I say you are seeing what you want to see based upon your conditioning.

Regarding the motivational sense of 2045 not being bear enough. I insist it is near enough, in the motivational sense, and once you consider the “awareness campaign” is at a very early stage of development I hope you will agree. I don’t expect to really kick this issue into mainstream until 2018 or 2020 and by then the 2045 date will seem a lot nearer.

At the end of the day only time will tell if I was right regarding my utopian forecast and in the meantime I hope you will keep and open mind.

I am glad you found the blog post regarding the identity of Singularity Utopia, which states people shouldn’t be concerned with who I am, and yes I agree the concept of utopia is intriguing.

Thank you for your compliments and I appreciate your feedback which has given me this opportunity to clarify a few points.

Re: “I have a short critical essay on the back-burner regarding Overcoming Bias, Less Wrong, and the Singularity Institute; which I will publish sometime in the next few months.”

Hey Singularity 2045, as long as your argument is not a personal attack on the above institutions, but engages in a worthwhile debate, as I suspect that it does, then I could certainly consider publishing it on http://www.SingularityWeblog.com if you are interested.

It seems that your first guest post has created an interesting and heated debate and this is what a symposium is all about…

Singularity 2045,

“Sadly some people do give up hope. Regarding the shootings in Arizona by Jared Lee Loughner on 8th January 2011, Jared complained in YouTube videos about Government mind-control and debt. Jared wanted to create a new currency but instead of a new currency there is a better option.”The views Jared Lee Loughner shared on his Youtube account regarding “government and debt” his wishes to create a “new currency” alternative are reasonable when one observes the economic calamity the United States has experienced over the last 30+ years. The currency in America today, and the world reserve currency, the United States Dollar, is based upon Keynesian theory of macroeconomics. Keynesian theory has been in place in America since the 1970s and has
allowed for massive expansion of credit by the Federal Reserve central banking authority. This has massive expansion of credit has created artificially low interest rates resulting in boom and bust cycles, volatile financial markets, and is ultimately assisting in the devaluation of the US Dollar.

“We will soon see an era where there is no currency. I feel awareness of Post-Scarcity could have averted Jared’s despair therefore to make the world a happier place I have created some Post-Scarcity symbols for people to share.”

Making the statement that had Jared been aware of the purely hypothetical “Post-Scarcity” his despair and heinous crime would have been averted seems like an unlikely outcome to me as it is obvious that Jared had serious underlying psychological problems. His discontent with the currency of his country were probably only fraction of his overall frustrations in his life.

“Our expectations shape reality. Reality conforms to our expectations. This is the mechanism of a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy. Simply expecting the economy to collapse can cause it to collapse if enough people want it to happen, and then when it collapses people feel their expectations were justified, but in actual fact reality has simply conformed to our collective expectations.”

Being caught up in post-scarcity with regards to the currency and the economy only serves to defer attention away from the financial problems that exist today. Merely thinking about the collapse of the economy and the currency, and holding this belief that the self-fulfilling prophecy will come true sooner than later is not a rational way to solve problems of today.

In Ray Kurzweil’s CTF Essay ‘Nanotechnology Dangers and Defences’ he stated that “totalitarian outcome is unlikely because the increasing decentralization of knowledge is inherently a democratizing force.”. I see the same applying to the economy and the power of money creation. One possible scenario we may want to consider is the utilization of alternative currencies that have no centralized authority, and are thus not susceptible to a totalitarian outcome. One such service doing just that is Bitcoin (www.bitcoin.org). Bitcoin is an encrypted [allowing for privacy and security], peer-to-peer digital currency. There is no central authority [bank] to issue new money or keep track of these direct individual transactions. Instead, tasks are managed collectively by the nodes of the network.

Other scenarios to consider: localized currencies such as those outlined in LETS (http://www.gmlets.u-net.com/design/home.html), currencies based upon commodities, such as those outlined in Congressman Ron Paul’s Free Competition in Currency Act of 2009, that “allows for competing currencies [which would] allow market participants to choose a currency that suits their needs, rather than the needs of the government.” Gold, silver, copper or any other forms of commodity and non-commodity based currency would be acceptable. Under this Act the free market would ultimately decide which specific currency (or currencies) to adopt; instituting the Austrian instead of Keynesian School of economics as a future system.

The “no currency through hypothetical post-scarcity” is only one of many possible future scenarios, so how can you be so sure this is inevitable?

- Nathan Wosnack

Hi Nathan,Thank you for your contribution!I agree with a lot you say but have to take issue with some of your economic history and theory:1. Keynesian macroeconomics was introduced to the USA with the FDR’s “New Deal” policies of the 1930′s and especially during WWII. This was its heyday both in the USA and across the world. Not the 1970s as you say.2. In the 70′s during Nixon and especially in the 80′s during Reagan, the Chicago school of economics and especially Milton Freedman, was the philosophical and ideological basis of the so called Reaganomics, which was practiced in several shades across the world, in the USA under Reagan, the UK under Thatcher, and most extremely in Chile under Pinochet. Saying that Keynesian economics was dominant in the USA since the 70′s is something that all Nixon, Reagan, Bush Sr. and Jr, and maybe even Clinton will find offensive. I personally don’t think it is an insult at all but I do think it is inaccurate. 3. Keynesian economics has been in decline for the latter half of the 20th century and in academic circles there used to be a generational gap between the older Keynesian economists and the younger Chicago school neo-classical economists. In the last 10 years, however, with the banking and other bubbles, there has been a serious reversal back towards Keynesian theory, and in some places even Marxism.4. You might disagree but fiscal, not only monetary policy, are properly, for good or for bad, a government domain. Going back to the gold or other similar standard will simply put us back into the “golden prison” that Churchill put Britain in the late 20s and early 30s, and was forced to quickly abandon. 5. A variety of currencies will create a number of issues such increased transaction cost and thereby increase the overall macroeconomic inefficiencies, not decrease them. Plus, please do not forget that even open source projects such as Bitcoin have their biases embedded into the system by computer programmers, engineers, etc. It is just that it may be harder to see and find those… Thus I prefer the current currency however problematic it may be, as it surely is. (I do think though that gold and especially silver have been and still are a great investment 6. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we may argue back and forth about neo-Keynesian vs Neo-Classical economics. We shouldn’t forget though that this debate is based on the first axiom of economics which is the presence of scarcity. True enough for the “atomistic” economics of the 20th century, and before that. Not true at all for the digital economy where you have infinite shelf space, almost zero transaction cost, and almost zero marginal cost above and beyond your fixed costs. As the digital economy grows bigger and bigger versus the old “atomistic” one, and as more and more previously material objects turn into digital ones (following music, movies and books), and especially after a singularity, the old scarcity based economic models will be completely shattered. I honesty have no clue what and how we will replace them but have no doubt that they will not survive and am willing to bet that it would not be an archaic system such as gold or silver…

Nathan

A new currency will not solve financial problems because financial problems are based upon greed. Greed is dependent on scarcity. A new currency will not solve the debt problem. The only way to truly solve financial problems is to eliminate finances. The solution is to have no money, no currency, no financial systems. Financial systems only exist to regulate scarcity therefore by eliminating scarcity you eliminate financial systems. New currencies would not eliminate greed because scarcity would not be eliminated by any new currency. Monetary inequality and corruption are inevitable consequences of scarcity therefore regardless of currencies you will always have financial problems (monetary inequality) in situations of greed-scarcity. Elimination of scarcity is the only way to end financial problems.

Based on Jared’s behavior in his videos (based on his statements about debt, currency, and the Government), I have undertaken careful psychological analysis of the available evidence on Jared. My analysis of Jared in combination with my intimate awareness of despair leads me to conclude Post-Scarcity awareness could easily have averted Jared’s despair. Consider how it was reported Jared had been turned down for 65 jobs; consider also how Jared was allegedly kicked out of the career center for filming staff, which staff objected to. Jared is obviously unhappy and he clearly cited money and the Government as prominent grievances. If Jared was aware of how money and the Government would be eliminated in the not too distant future then I feel this could easily have given him hope thereby averting his criminality. By giving Jared hope, regarding his two major problems being eliminated, I believe such hope would avert his or any similar person’s despair. The nature of capitalism is that capitalism is a greed based economic system. The purpose of capitalism is to earn more money than other people. The idea of capitalism is to get rich. This profit orientated system is fundamentally selfish therefore a small percentage of people will exhibit extreme examples of social dysfunction. Selfishness causes people to do cruel things. A Post-Scarcity world will not be based on selfishness therefore this is another reason why Post-Scarcity can generate hope for despairing people.

Regarding certainties I have addressed this issue elsewhere and I will repeat my statements here. We could say nothing is certain until it happens. You can’t even be certain of your own beliefs because there is a possibility you could be deluded. You may have plans for tomorrow but tonight you could die in your sleep. The word “certain” does exist and I will continue to use it despite the uncertainty regarding certainty. There is always the possibility for doubt in any circumstance. My certainty regarding the Singularity is based upon intelligence. I look at the facts, the evidence, in a rational and logical manner; and after carefully weighing all the evidence I’ve determined a utopian Singularity is a certainty, as certain as anything can be.

The rapid advancement of science and technology is the only rational solution regarding solving all the problems which we face today.

Singularity Utopia,

with the risk of being a bit inconsistent in my previous remarks towards Nathan, I would like to point out something that you need to consider:

Every abundance creates a new scarcity.

For example: This blog is absolutely free for all who want to read it. It is also absolutely abundant in the sense that one user’s reading it does not diminish the ability of others to do so. At the same time in a world where we have millions of free blogs on virtually any topic what becomes increasingly scarce is the attention of my blog’s readers. Thus suddenly in a world full of “free and non-scarce limitless” information what is more and more scarce is peoples’ available time to pay attention to any of that information available…

Nothing will be scare in the future. Extreme intelligence will transcend all problems. There is currently a great abundance of information. Attention, concentration, and time will also become extremely abundant when we enter the Post-Scarcity era. Technology will allow people to subjectively slow time down therefore we can perform many years of analysis (study, research) in the space of a few seconds. When our brains have become one billion times more powerful than they currently are, then the possibilities will be limitless. The only limits of the future will be limits we choose to impose.

[...] http://singularityblog.singularitysymposium.com/singularity-utopia-post-scarcity-awareness-as-an-ant... [...]

UPDATE: New Jared video.

Today I became aware of a new video made by Jared Lee Loughner. This new video seems to corroborate my view that money-problems were are big issue in Jared’s life thereby causing him to despair. Near the beginning of Jared’s new video he says: “We are looking at students who have been tortured; their low-income pay in two wars.”

Jared also states he will be homeless because of the school.

Despite the following mainstream news perorts quoting many parts of Jared’s recent video, none of the folliowing news reports mention Jared’s reference to “low-income pay”. From my viewpoint money seems a key issue in Jared’s life but it seems many people exhibit a willful blindness regarding how money-issues do cause toxic despair.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20110115/tts-uk-usa-shooting-video-ca02f96.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-jared-loughner-video-20110115,0,7041106.story
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41088221/ns/us_news/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1347509/Arizona-shooting-Jared-Loughners-YouTube-video-genocide-school-found.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70E1QS20110115

Socrates,

You are very welcome. I am thankful for the efforts you put into your blog, and I appreciate your patience in waiting on my response to your post.

1. Keynesian macroeconomics was introduced to the USA with the FDR’s “New Deal” policies of the 1930′s and especially during WWII. This was its heyday both in the USA and across the world. Not the 1970s as you say.

- I understand that Keynesian macroeconomics, based upon the Merchantile System of the 18th century, was introduced as a theory under Keynes’ famous “On the General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money” in the 1930′s in many ways laid the foundation and followed the tenants of Keynesianism for the economy of America for several decades to come. FDR didn’t adopt full Keynesian policies because of America’s attachment to the gold standard under Bretton Woods. True Keynesian-style economics wasn’t truly introduced into the economy of America until the 1970′s when The Bretton Woods system collapsed on August 15, 1971. While it is true that Keynesian economics was rejected by many economists in the later the famous 1970′s stagflation (which incidentally caused record highs for gold and silver up until the early 1980s), and throughout the early 1990′s with neo-Keynesianism (and now with it catching on under the Barack Obama administration through their massive bail-out initiatives), its true integration into the American economic system happened when it disassociated itself with the gold standard. On this date America severed its final financial tie to the gold standard, allowing for unlimited free flowing credit, unbound physical commodity gold - which has a store of value and naturally limits free-flowing credit and central economic-style spending. Looking back in the history of Keynes’ economic theories, he had unequivocal rejection of the gold standard, which he saw as impeding upon the financial matters of the state. The reality, however, is that a gold standard (or any standard based upon an actual commodity) prevents the liberal use of the printing press - spending causing the inflation of the currency. I fail to see how his theory was fully integrated into American society, until the country finally gave up on the gold standard.

“You might disagree but fiscal, not only monetary policy, are properly, for good or for bad, a government domain”

Respectfully, I couldn’t disagree more. Government intervention through the central economic planning; management of the business cycle which often leads to malinvestment, government spending, tax breaks and hikes (taxation without representation) are the worst things for the economy of a country. In my opinion, one shared by many other Austrian economic supporters, is that the only job the government should have when it pertains to the economy is: allowing for the printing of the money at zero-interest to citizens; as opposed to what America has now under the private central bank of the Federal Reserve. I am often troubled by views that the only way to run an economy is by government intervention and that the free market failed, when the reality is the free market a condition of society in which all economic transactions are a result of voluntary choice without coercion by the state, really hasn’t been in place in the economy since the classical liberalism days of the 18th century. Free market thinkers believe that a deductive methodology, supportive of the rationality of the free market system allowing unfettered competition (as spoken of in Carl Menger’s Principles of Economics as far back as 1871) is the best way to allow the economy to exist and ultimately thrive. This type of economic system would, after market adjustments over time, be free of unstable inflation and deflationary levels, and would ultimately result in a higher standard of living for citizens.

“A variety of currencies will create a number of issues such increased transaction cost and thereby increase the overall macroeconomic inefficiencies, not decrease them.”

Government manipulation would only serve to extend such long-term inefficiencies, whereas over time the free market would naturally choose which currency works best for it. An economy, not manipulated in any way, if given a choice between a basket of currencies, (and would) through the process of elimination, choose a currency that best suited its particular needs. Any temporarily increased transaction costs would dissipate over time when the market corrected itself, as it always does, even under scenarios of heavy government economic planning.

“Please do not forget that even open source projects such as Bitcoin have their biases embedded into the system by computer programmers, engineers, etc. Thus I prefer the current currency however problematic it may be, as it surely is.”

- While it is true that Bitcoin could have, and has had its ‘biases’ in terms of flaws (theoretical security vulnerabilities, software bugs), the code is open-source and is thus continually publicly reviewed for security and manipulation issues, and patched accordingly. While manipulation could happen in theory, public review of code can help to minimize this probability. On the other hand, it’s uncertain to what degree the economic system now is being manipulated. A system under the control of the Federal Reserve that allows for the secrecy allowed manipulation of the economy by a central banking authority who afforded the privilege of full reign of spending and currency printing by way of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Let us recall Woodrow Wilson, the US President who brought America into World War I’s famous quote, after signing the Federal Reserve Act: “I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.”. The peer-reviewed economic system of Bitcoin is, in my opinion, far more stable and trustworthy than one Federal Reserve that operates in sheer secrecy - which is completely unconstitutional. No order by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), US Congress, or any other agency has the legal authority to audit this autonomous institution’s books and processes for unscrupulous, unethical, and possibly fraudulent behavior.

“I honesty have no clue what and how we will replace them but have no doubt that they will not survive and am willing to bet that it would not be an archaic system such as gold or silver…”

Perhaps it will be both digital and commodity based, and perhaps it will be none. The hypothetical post-scarcity utopia future, a self-fulfilling prophecy theory scenario of ‘none’ could very well, happen, though I see it as nothing more than ‘maybe’. Let us be open-minded about the possibility that there may not be a post-scarcity utopia. Focusing on real-world alternatives in front of us now is important in forging a future. The mere non-rigorous ‘thinking’ about a Utopian future of ‘no economy’ will not bring the world any closer to one of post-scarcity than an unemployed man taking no action to look for a job will in securing employment for himself.

Regards,
Nathan Wosnack