Is Privacy Holding Back Humanity?

[JJMcClure]

No other organism in the history of life on Earth has been able to adapt to and manipulate its environment to anywhhere near the same extent as Humanity. Rather than having any single or group of 'behavioural advantages', the one defining feature of Homo Sapiens is that it is able to adapt its behaviour to suit a massive range of external pressures. On the one hand- this throws very positive light on the idea of this future society: eventually, things will have to change and off world development is almost a certainty, bar a cataclysmic event before such a time. On the other, the saying 'greed is good' has never been as true as it is for scientific advancement. The vast majority of technological innovations over the course of history have been developed precisely because of greed or disagreements in ideology- one only needs to look at the history of computing to see that perfectly identified. Without conflicts, without the need to excel and do better than our neighbours, we have nothing to drive us forward. Sure- change may well happen, but at a greatly reduced rate. .

So you’re arguing that without conflict or just plain old fashioned greed we’d be ‘vastly’ hindering our progress as a species?

What I’ve been arguing throughout the thread is an alternative to that frankly depressing and somewhat embarrassing outlook. Imagine an alien coming to our planet and you have to explain to our visitor that our most wonderful scientific advancements came about when we were trying to figure out new and more exotic ways to kill each other or get rich for no other reason than the lifestyle it can afford us…… A lifestyle of indulgence and leisure that in the culture I’m describing, everybody could have.

When you want to enjoy yourself, you go out and pick a fight? If you didn’t have to work you couldn’t find anything else to do? Imagine being freed from paying bills and jobs you don’t like and worrying about the future, there’s nothing attractive about that for you?

This, for me, is the key problem with the future society outlined. If, and I don't totally rule out the possibility, it did arise- I think that would signal the final days of humanity. With everything 'done for us', there would very quickly develop a devestating brain drain- with no need to provide for ourselves, why would there be a need to learn?

Or, with nothing to do but learn (if that’s what floats your boat), imagine how fast we would progress in our understanding of the universe and in a society freed from this planet the population might expand to a point that makes the current 6 billion look like a tiny number. With all those new brains, the sky is the limit in what we could achieve.

Throughout our history people have been inspired to learn for no other reason than the enjoyment of understanding, why would that change.

[Saul]

Scarcity caused the need to trade, remove scarcity and you remove the need to trade. To illustrate why I think trade is one of the primary causes of most of our problems I need to ask you question, what would you say are humanities biggest problems right now?

Yes, you can say that scarcity has caused the need to trade, as the means to solve the problem. And indeed if you remove scarcity completely, trade becomes redundant. But how does that make trade the problem? It's as much as problem as medicine is a problem to a disease.

If you can see where this is heading then I challenge you to identify a global problem that in some way doesn’t come back to power, greed or resource scarcity.[/FONT]

I agree, and that is exactly why we need tools to minimize these problems. Free trade (emphasis on free) is one such tool so the most logical solution would be to use it first at its full potential, then seek additional ways.

[mgallone]

So you’re arguing that without conflict or just plain old fashioned greed we’d be ‘vastly’ hindering our progress as a species?

In a nutshell- yeah. No, I don't believe it's an endearing or laudable trait. Unfortunately it's just a fact of our existence that our technology is the sum of centuries of greedy/ambitious (depends on your viewpoint) individuals looking to expand their own influence and wealth, and conflicts between diverse groups.

If you didn’t have to work you couldn’t find anything else to do? Imagine being freed from paying bills and jobs you don’t like and worrying about the future, there’s nothing attractive about that for you?

Of course it's an attractive idea, but with every single person in existence being in the same situation, what would there be to do? There would be no one to produce the entertainment or products that we use to enjoy ourselves, and even if there were- competition and the laws of markets would instantly come back into effect. The only way such a society could function in economic terms is to have either a series of monopolistic producers, or perfectly competitive markets in which no one offering is any different from another.

Throughout our history people have been inspired to learn for no other reason than the enjoyment of understanding, why would that change.

Maybe so, but by far one of the main driving factors behind people getting a good education is to enhance their future career prospects and increase their earning potential. If I can circle back to my earlier point of conflict and greed being behind a large number of developments, it would be fair to say that a significant proportion of the other advances have been developed 'accidentaly' by people setting out to do something else entirely- normally for monetary or power gain. The number of people who learn for the sake of understanding, to a level where they can benefit society as a whole, is a relatively small fraction of the overall population- and then we get to the issue of:

with nothing to do but learn (if that’s what floats your boat)

This means that those who chose to learn everything they could would have a huge information advantage over those who didn't- and why should they share their ideas and new developments with everyone else free of charge?

I think the underlying issue with this vision of society is that it could either stagnate very quickly, or go the other way and take us back to precicesly where we are now, with power in the hands of the few.

[Clinton]

Doesn't trade drive the innovation that has made our lives immensely richer than that of our predecessors, increased our lifespans and given us more comforts and pleasures? Isn't trade what powers most R&D activity (and the improvement in our knowledge and understanding of the universe)?

JJMcClure, what would replace that driving force for betterment of the species? Or do you see us reaching a state where no improvement is desired and mankind is in a contented stagnation?

[JJMcClure]

Of course it's an attractive idea, but with every single person in existence being in the same situation, what would there be to do?

This is the bit I don't get. If I didn't have to work I could easily fill every moment of everyday with things that I actually want to do.

There would be no one to produce the entertainment or products that we use to enjoy ourselves,

There wouldn't be products, that's an antiquated way of thinking , and yes there would be entertainment because there will always be people who love to entertain and anyway there are a zillion ways to entertain yourself especially given that we're talking hundreds of years into the future here, imagine what forms of entertainment might be available.

Maybe so, but by far one of the main driving factors behind people getting a good education is to enhance their future career prospects and increase their earning potential. The number of people who learn for the sake of understanding, to a level where they can benefit society as a whole, is a relatively small fraction of the overall population- and then we get to the issue of:.

The entire sum of all human knowledge would be available to anyone at any time (I love the way this ties in with other concepts I've discussed) and if you want to become a mathematician or something that's your choice, you can do anything you want.

This means that those who chose to learn everything they could would have a huge information advantage over those who didn't- and why should they share their ideas and new developments with everyone else free of charge?

No they wouldn't because how would it be an advantage? This whole way of thinking is what I'm talking about changing, you're actually making my point for me here. There's no economy, there are no products, no money, how is you having taken the time to learn something I didn't learn an advantage to you? Good for you. Everything would be shared because there would be no advantage to keeping secrets. It woudn't be remarkable, it would just be normal.

[benitez17]

No argument from me, that’s what I’ve been saying throughout the thread, we need to change the way we think.

Right, but I believe that is very unlikely to happen.

Why not? And what would the negative repercussions be?

I can imagine highly intelligent robots existing, and I also can imagine power struggles between the decisions made by AI and made by humans. Other concerns are stagnation, overreliance on a very small segment of the population who understands how the AI and machinery work, and what would happen if the machinery stopped working.

Calling it a conspiracy theory doesn’t automatically invalidate it. Money makes the world go round and who has the most money?

No, but it doesn't automatically validate it either.

GW owned an oil company, he shot down every environmental legislation he could that would have constrained oil company activities, his dad started the first Iraq war, and GW junior started the second (a war all about controlling oil supplies), the Bushes are tied to John D. Rockefeller and Standard Oil throughout their family history, oil companies provide funds for political campaigns and seemingly can do whatever they want (like the Gulf spill) without any repercussions…

Without even getting into serious research I can make a case worthy of closer examination for the oil companies being the most powerful businesses on the planet and GW being their puppet.

What I don't want to do here though is have a discussion about oil companies specifically. For the sake of the argument let's say that the greatest power on this planet is wielded by the organisations with the most money and that power is achieved through resource control. That's not a conspiracy theory, that's fact because that's the basis of economics.

I am sure the energy sector was pleased that Bush beat Al Gore. You're going way beyond that and claiming that the oil sector made sure that he won.

First and most obvious point is that even sea bed resources are finite, they won’t last forever. There are practically infinite resources off planet. As long as resources are finite you have the need for trade and all the power horse trading and greed that goes along with it, it’s not the answer, it just causes more problems.

Secondly, seabed mining poses technical challenges similar to those that would presumably be used in an argument against mining asteroids.

Thirdly, I have no doubt that we would cause even more environmental devastation mining the seabed because that’s what we do, because of greed and shortsightedness and the seabed is in our backyard whereas the asteroid belt is 150 million miles away in space where pollution would be irrelevant.

How would you improve existing energy methods? We’re so stupid we build nuclear power stations over destructive plate margins and then we’re surprised when there’s a major disaster and why? Oh yeah, money and greed.

You're making a lot of assumptions there. I'd rather work to improve proven methods (like solar) than invest hundreds of billions in unproven theories prematurely.

[JJMcClure]

JJMcClure, what would replace that driving force for betterment of the species? Or do you see us reaching a state where no improvement is desired and mankind is in a contented stagnation?

Do you mean what would replace killing each other or greed? How about having fun

I don't see us reaching a point where no improvement is desired and even if it happened, if we reached a point that you call 'contented stagnation' (which I might give a different spin and call 'peak of our potential' or 'heights of our development' or 'super civilisation' etc etc) what would be so bad about that? What do you see in our long term future that's better? Where do you think we will be in 1000 years, or 10,000 or a million years?

[JJMcClure]

Right, but I believe that is very unlikely to happen.

As long as that's the prevailing attitude then I'm sure you're right.

I can imagine highly intelligent robots existing, and I also can imagine power struggles between the decisions made by AI and made by humans. Other concerns are stagnation, overreliance on a very small segment of the population who understands how the AI and machinery work, and what would happen if the machinery stopped working.

I already said that the AI would have to be self replicating and sustaining, i.e. the AI entities would be capable of building and repairing other AIs. Humanity wouldn't have to do anything except enjoy their lives.

No, but it doesn't automatically validate it either. I am sure the energy sector was pleased that Bush beat Al Gore. You're going way beyond that and claiming that the oil sector made sure that he won..

Like I said, I'm not going there because it's too much of a digression. The point is that current economic trade system is set up in a way that allows a small minority to control the majority. It's just survival of the fittest with money as the environment and greed the survival pressure. The result is poverty and suffering throughout the world, you don't want to change that? You think we can change that with the way things work now? I don't.

You're making a lot of assumptions there. I'd rather work to improve proven methods (like solar) than invest hundreds of billions in unproven theories prematurely.

Good job I'm not asking for your money then and I'm not certain where you get the costing from? Hundreds of billions? Let's suppose it did actually cost that, do you know what we've spent on the latest gulf war? Trillions, not billions, and all to control the supply of a fuel source that's inefficient, dirty and about to run out.

200 billion would easily fund the first mission to a nearby asteroid. We work on Von Nueman technology so that the first mission uses resources it finds on site to construct the next mission at a fraction of the cost of the first and so on and so forth. It's called boot strapping. Do you have any idea what resources are contained in the asteroids and their economic value? I'm not going to link anything, I'll assume that if your'e interested enough you'll do your own research.

[JJMcClure]

Yes, you can say that scarcity has caused the need to trade, as the means to solve the problem. And indeed if you remove scarcity completely, trade becomes redundant. But how does that make trade the problem? It's as much as problem as medicine is a problem to a disease.

Yeah sure, if we stop trading the problem won't go away, in fact our soceity would collapse. What I'm doing is trying to get people to see that the way we live now isn't the only possible way to live and I'm doing it by questioning one of the most fundamental behaviours we exihibit. Our entire lifestyle is built up around the economics of trade and most of humanities problems can be traced back to it.

I agree, and that is exactly why we need tools to minimize these problems. Free trade (emphasis on free) is one such tool so the most logical solution would be to use it first at its full potential, then seek additional ways.

As long as the need for trade exists there will be people who exploit it for personal gain and we'll be stuck where we are now. I don't believe that humanity can ever change as long as we trade so we need to remove the need to trade and the way to do that is through resources.

[Saul]

Yeah sure, if we stop trading the problem won't go away, in fact our soceity would collapse. What I'm doing is trying to get people to see that the way we live now isn't the only possible way to live and I'm doing it by questioning one of the most fundamental behaviours we exihibit. Our entire lifestyle is built up around the economics of trade and most of humanities problems can be traced back to it.

Again, trade is not the problem, it's our current solution. I fail to see the logic behind your argument entirely. Our most fundamental behavior is the reaction to the problem. OK, change it with a different behavior - but what does it change? The problem is still there.

As long as the need for trade exists there will be people who exploit it for personal gain and we'll be stuck where we are now. I don't believe that humanity can ever change as long as we trade so we need to remove the need to trade and the way to do that is through resources.

Yes, exactly, the need for trade. Or to be abstract, the need for solution. Sure, it is exploited, but what makes you think a different solution won't be exploited? You talk about removing trade as if it was the problem, and I don't understand you. What will you replace it with? Collectivism? Hasn't it failed already? You're gonna try it again and somehow expect it will work this time? Resources are a goal, not a solution, you need a system to get them. What system will you use to get them?