Lifeboat Foundation: Safeguarding Humanity
Toggle light / dark theme

Blog

Tag: technology

One of the things that I’ve always liked about Star Trek, is the concept of a galaxy spanning civilization. I would expect that before we ever get to that point, we will have a civilization that spans our solar system. Having a solar system spanning civilization has many advantages. It would give us access to resources many times greater than what is found here on Earth. It also provides the opportunity for civilization to expand, and in a worst case scenario, help ensure the survival of humanity.

Millions of people living in spacious environmentally controlled cities on planetary surfaces and in rotating cylinders in free space, with industry that extends from Mercury to the comets is to me, a grand vision worthy of an ambitious civilization. But trying to make that vision a reality will be difficult. The International Space Station has the capacity to house just six people and cost approximately $100B to put in place. With a little simple division, that works out to about $17B per inhabitant! If we used that admittedly crude figure, it would cost $17 trillion to build a 1,000 person habitat in Earth orbit. Clearly, the approach we used to build the ISS will not work for building a solar system civilization!

The ISS model relies on building everything on Earth, and launching it into space. A different model championed by Dr. Philip Metzger, would develop industrial capacity in space, using resources close to home, such as from the Moon. This has the potential to greatly reduce the cost of building and maintaining systems in space. But how to develop that industrial capacity? Remember we can’t afford to launch and house thousands of workers from Earth. The answer it would seem, is with advanced robotics and advanced manufacturing.

But is even this possible? The good news is that advanced robotics and advanced manufacturing are already being rapidly developed here on Earth. The driver for this development is economics, not space. These new tools will still have to be modified to work in the harsh environment of space, and with resources that are different from what are commonly used here on Earth. While learning to adapt those technologies to the Moon and elsewhere in the solar system is not trivial, it is certainly better that having to develop them from scratch!

Advanced robots are already having a very positive impact on our economy and play a significant role in what is referred to as next shoring. Next shoring is the move to bring manufacturing closer to the customer. For U.S. customers, that means the return of manufacturing to the U.S. This only makes business sense if the manufacturing costs are as low or lower here, than elsewhere. It is evident that the labor share of manufacturing is lower in those countries that have a high degree of automation. We are getting closer and closer to the cost of materials and transportation being the main drivers in manufactured goods. This is just what we would like to see happen for our solar system civilization. Developing materials and transportation systems from local resources through automation will drive down the cost of opening up the solar system.

While this is great news for developing space, there are implications for our terrestrial civilization. Remember the push for automation in manufacturing isn’t driven by a space need, it is driven by Earthly economics. That means getting to market faster with a better product and at a lower cost. The implication to our terrestrial civilization is twofold. First, manufacturing corporations see greater productivity per employee. This makes sense in that you can increase productivity by adding robots while maintaining or even reducing the workforce. This equates to greater profits and happier shareholders! The downside of that increased productivity however, is a reduction in job growth, if not an outright decline. The very technologies that will make a solar system civilization possible may very well stifle the job market here.

Are people worried about this? You bet they are! This issue became apparent at the 2015 SXSW Festival in Texas. At that event a protest (a staged marketing stunt as reported in IO9) to “stop the robots,” occurred. Much to the surprise of the organizers, this protest generated a lot more attention than they planned, and was picked up by multiple news organizations. It would seem that this interest is driven by very real personal concerns that people have about losing jobs to robots.

Now this is where things get interesting. Economics is driving the development of advanced robots. These advanced robots enable space development but can potentially hurt the job market. From a systems viewpoint, we cannot champion the arrival of advanced robots as a boon for both industry and space development, without considering the potential downside.

People need jobs, and not surprisingly, they particularly like important work. We need to welcome the benefits that advanced robotics bring and at the same time, we need to be proactive in stepping up to the challenges that come along with the benefits. There are lots of ways to address this issue, but it is apparent from the concern shown at SXSW, that this is a conversation that needs to begin sooner rather than later.

We do live in a changing world, which is changing at an ever increasing pace. As leaders, we can chose to either react to the changes being brought on by a growing robotic workforce, or we can chose to lead the transformation of our institutions to successfully accommodate that change. If we chose to lead, the first step, as identified by Professor John Kotter, is a sense of urgency. That sense seems already to be building. Next steps are to develop a vision for ways to accommodate the necessary changes, and building coalitions necessary to implement it. It might be wise to start looking at these steps now.

Like any complex problem, multiple approaches will most likely be needed in order to address workforce disruption. With broad discussion, planning and leadership now, we can mitigate the downside issues, while enabling a strengthened economy now and a bright future among the stars.

Mark

At the most basic level The FIRST Robotics Competition, founded by inventor Dean Kamen, looks to the future by developing the next generation of the world’s engineers. Many of the students at FIRST go on to work at very influential titans of technology, or at future oriented organizations such as NASA. This documentary on FIRST Robotics is our eighth main piece in our Galactic Public Archives series in which we explore compelling visions of our future from influential individuals. So far, we’ve covered an interesting collection of viewpoints and topics regarding our possible future, ranging from the future of longevity, to the future of search and even the future of democracy. FIRST seemed like a natural opportunity to explore another ‘puzzle-piece’ of what the future might look like. And of course, the competition features Robots, which are an integral piece of any self-respecting utopian or dystopian future. What we did not realize as we started our exploration of the program was that FIRST is not attempting to be a humble building block towards the future. Although only time will tell to what degree it succeeds, it aspires to be a catalyst for much more far-reaching change.

In a society that praises the utmost competitive spirit in all the wrong ways, Inventor Dean Kamen noticed less and less youth using this spirit towards opportunities in math and science, instead aspiring to become celebrities, or sports superstars. In turn, he provided an answer to make kids excited about changing the world through technology. Kamen’s endeavor, FIRST Robotics offers teens a chance, in competition form, to use their skills and teamwork to problem solve a piece of machinery to life.

FIRST was modeled off the allure of professional sports leagues but without – hopefully — the dog eat dog spirit. David Lavery, FIRST Robotics Mentor and NASA Engineer, grew up during the Cold War when competition through technology meant joining in on the race to the moon. An interesting aspect of FIRST’s philosophy, is that as much as it embraces competition, students are also forced to realize that your greatest competitor could – in the future — work as one of your greatest collaborators. This generation may be bombarded with news about Kardashians as opposed to scientists, astronauts and cosmonauts — but what FIRST aims to cultivate, is a hunger to make a difference – made possible now more than ever due to widespread access to information.

Directly and tangentially, the experiment of FIRST both tackles and raises an entire swarth of deeper questions about our future. What values will our culture celebrate in the future? What will the repercussions be of the values that we celebrate today? How much time do we have to solve some of the great challenges looming on the horizon? Will there be enough individuals with the skills required to tackle those problems? To what degree will the ‘fixes’ be technological vs. cultural? How will the longstanding ideological struggle of competition vs. cooperation evolve as the next generations take over? What is the future of education? What is the proper role of a teacher? A mentor? Where does cultural change come from? Where should it come from? It’s an impressive list of questions to be raised by a competition involving robots shooting frisbees. We hope you find it as compelling as we did.

One of the major aspects that can make or break a creative person according to FM-2030 is the environment. In his book “Are You A Transhuman?”, he asks the reader to grade their own surroundings: “Does your home environment stimulate innovation — cross fertilization — initiative?”

We bet you can see where this is going.

The answers are, once more, “Often, Sometimes, or Hardly Ever”, with “Often being the answer choice that gives you the most points — another 2 to tally up to your score if you’re already proving to be more transhumanist that you thought. It might seem obvious, but it’s true — environment can play a major role in the stimulation of creativity. FM says that “It is difficult to be precise about creativity — how much of it is inherited and how much is learned.” If an environment is one that “encourages free unrestricted thinking… encourages people to take initiatives… open and ever-changing”, it is a dynamic environment that can stimulate creativity in an individual.

People who work with telecommunications are susceptible to views that are far different than their own, and the sciences, though structured, force a person to think creatively to find answers. By the same token, people who have a good balance of leisure time and work are also cultivating a greater internal environment to stimulate creativity. And in case you were forgetting the reason creativity is important to FM-2030, perhaps take a look at his quote that sums up the chapter perfectly, below.

This archive file was compiled from an interview conducted at the SENS Research Foundation in Mountain View, California, February 2013.

About Dr. Aubrey de Grey: The first Emperor of China, Qin Shi Huang, decided in the 200s BC not to die, and assembled China’s best thinkers and searchers to solve the problem of death. Things did not work out for him. As of the early 21st century, historical efforts at reliable health in old age displayed a reliable pattern of failure. While the eventual crystallization of the scientific method and resulting technology had greatly improved many people’s life expectancy, the longest possible lifespan of an individual had proved to be a much more stubborn thing. Dr. Aubrey de Grey shot to controversial prominence in the 2000s, proposing that for the first time in history, developments in a wide variety of fields made it plausible to advocate for health technology which would significantly tackle age-related disease — possibly allowing the old to live with a higher quality of life and the same low ‘risk of death’ as the young.

Wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey_de_Grey

SENS Research Foundation:
sens.org/research

The audio in this archive file was compiled from a 1984 meeting of futurists, transhumanists, and progressives. The main topic of the meeting was the most appropriate ways to engage or advance these philosophies within government. For example, one significant point of discussion centered around whether running for office was an effective way to drive change.

In the course of the discussion, the primary viewpoint FM-2030 espoused was that some aspects of government — especially the concept of leadership — would become obsolete or be replaced by other aspects of society (see Part 1). However, he also expressed what he believed the core of a ‘true’ democracy might look like. This archive file is assembled from excerpts of that section of the discussion.

The audio in this archive file was compiled from a 1984 meeting of futurists, transhumanists & progressives. The main topic of the meeting was the most appropriate ways to engage or advance these philosophies within government. For example, one significant point of discussion centered around whether running for office was an effective way to drive change.

The excerpts in this archive file collect many of futurist FM 2030’s thoughts over the course of the discussion.

About FM 2030: FM 2030 was at various points in his life, an Iranian Olympic basketball player, a diplomat, a university teacher, and a corporate consultant. He developed his views on transhumanism in the 1960s and evolved them over the next thirty-something years. He was placed in cryonic suspension July 8th, 2000.

This archive file was compiled from an interview conducted at the Googleplex in Mountain View, California, 2013. In the discussion, Amit Singhal, a key figure in the evolution of Google’s search engine, broadly outlined the significant hurdles that stood in the way of achieving one of his long-held dreams — creating a true ‘conversational’ search engine. He also sketched out a vision of how the initial versions of such a system would, and also importantly, would not attempt to assist the individuals that it interacted with.

Though the vision was by design more limited and focused than a system capable of passing the famous Turing test, it nonetheless raised stimulating questions about the future relationships of humans and their ‘artificial’ assistants.

More about Amit Singhal:

Wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amit_Singhal

Google Search:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Search

This archive file was compiled from an interview conducted at the Googleplex in Mountain View, California, 2013.

As late as the 1980s and the 1990s, the common person seeking stored knowledge would likely be faced with using an 18th century technology — the library index card catalogue — in order to find something on the topic he or she was looking for. Fifteen years later, most people would be able to search, at any time and any place, a collection of information that dwarfed that of any library. And unlike the experience with a library card catalogue, this new technology rarely left the user empty-handed.

Information retrieval had been a core technology of humanity since written language — but as an actual area of research it was so niche that before the 1950s, nobody had bothered to give the field a name. From a superficial perspective, the pioneering work in the area during the 1940s and 50s seemed to suggest it would be monumentally important to the future — but only behind the scenes. Information retrieval was to be the secret tool of the nation at war, or of the elite scientist compiling massive amounts of data. Increasingly however, a visionary group of thinkers dreamed of combining information retrieval and the ‘thinking machine’ to create something which would be far more revolutionary for society.

In the case of Google’s Amit Singhal, it was a childhood encounter with a visionary work that gave him his initial fascination with the dream of the thinking machine — a fascination that would result in his evolution to be one of the individuals who began to transform the dream into a reality. The work that he encountered was not that of a scientific pioneer such as Alan Turing or Marvin Minsky — it was a visionary work of pop culture.

More about Amit Singhal:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amit_Singhal
Google Search:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Search

From CLUBOF.INFO

The increasing detail at which human brains can be scanned is bringing the possibility of mind-reading appliances closer and closer. Such appliances, when complete, will be non-invasive and capable of responding to our thoughts as easily as they respond to keys on a keyboard. Indeed, as emphasized in the Lifeboat Foundation’s 2013 publication, The Human Race to the Future, there may soon be appliances that are operated by thought alone, and such technology may even replace our keyboards.
It is not premature to be concerned about possible negative outcomes from this, however positive the improvement in people’s lifestyles would be. In mind-reading appliances, there are two possible dangers that become immediately obvious.

Danger 1: “Thought police”

Brain-machine interfaces have many possibilities that deserve to be explored by science. However, there are also potentially dystopian threats presented by this technology. Even technologies like personal computers, which were seen as liberating to the individual and not aligned with powerful governments, have also become windows that regimes can use to spy on their citizens.

If hardware eventually allows words to appear on screens simply because of a thought, and the appliances are still vulnerable to hacking or government pressure, does this mean minds can be read without consent? It is very likely that any technology sensitive enough to respond to our thoughts could be programmed by a regime to intercept our thoughts. Even if our hardware was not originally designed to intercept thoughts on behalf of the authorities, the hardware would already meet the requirements for any program written to intercept thoughts for policing and political repression.

The potential negative consequences of mind-reading technology are equivalent to those of “uploading”, the futuristic concept of transferring one’s mind to computers as popularized by Singularitarians, usually following the ideas of Ray Kurzweil. There is a real threat that a technological singularity, as depicted in Kurzweil’s The Singularity is Near, could strengthen a flawed social system by giving the authorities the intrusive ability to monitor what it sees as deviant or threatening thought.

Danger 2: Accidents

It may be that manual or verbal control, still depicted in science fiction as gifts that will be with us for many centuries and taken with humanity’s distant descendants to the stars, are just more practical than mind-reading. Even when limited to practical uses like controlling a vehicle or appliance, mind-reading may simply be destined to take away convenience rather than create convenience for the vast majority of its customers.

Even if driving a car by thought can be made safe, the use of aircraft or weapons systems via mind-reading would certainly be more problematic. When the stakes are high, most of us already agree that it is best not to entrust the responsibility to one person’s thoughts. By not using the body and voice when performing a task, and by not allowing others to intervene in your actions, the chances of an accident are probably always going to be raised. Although we like to think of our own brains as reliable and would probably be eager to try out mind-reading control over our vehicles, we do not think of others peoples’ brains that way, and would be troubled by the lack of any window for intervention in the other person’s actions.

Possible accidents when piloting a complex machine like a helicopter or manning a dangerous weapon may be averted by an experienced hand preventing someone from taking the wrong action. Considering this, old-fashioned manual controls may already be destined to be superior to any mind-reading controls and more attuned to the challenges faced by humans. We evolved to talk and physically handle challenges. Given this fact, removing all the remaining physical challenges of performing a task may only complicate your ability to perform effectively, or result in a higher tendency to err or take rash actions by subverting the ability of others to challenge you as you act.

Recommendation: we should avoid strengthening an undesirable social system

I hope that these objections to mind-reading may be proven invalid, with time. It is certainly likely that some people, such as those with physical disabilities, are going to rely on improvements in mind-reading technology to restore their lives. However, there has been, and continues to be, a very definite danger that a flawed social system and government are going to seek out technologies that can make them more and invulnerable, and this is one such technology. Any potential avenue of invulnerability of governments against their critics is unacceptable and should be challenged, just as the present excess in surveillance has been challenged.

It is important to keep reiterating that it is not the technology itself that is the source of a threat to humanity, but the myopic actions of the likely operators of that technology. Given the experience of government mass espionage, which began without the knowledge or consent of the public, concerns about other unannounced programs exploiting communication technology for “total information awareness” (TIA) are justified.

By Harry J. Bentham - More articles by Harry J. Bentham

Originally published on April 22 in Dissident Voice

Interested in this subject? Subscribe to receive free CLUBOF.INFO articles by Email

The Internet has clearly demonstrated the power of networked computing. You don’t need me to tell you that effects of the Internet’s emergence have been overwhelmingly pervasive. But the Internet is also very new and still evolving. So what is the future of this medium? How will it continue to shape our lives in the 2020s? 2030s? 2040s?

Let me know what you think! @cadelllast