[HOME] [DOWNLOAD] [DOCS] [NEWS] [SUPPORT] [TIPS] [ISSUES] [DONATE]

Open letter to Edward Snowden

[html]

At HopeX conference, Edward Snowden encouraged those who have heard of Tor, Tails, Whonix, and Linux to defend Internet liberties.

Thank you Edward Snowden for the attention, the motivating words and your continued activism.

It is a shame, that you are not getting asylum in Germany. Needless to say, that I oppose the cowardice of my government and the gibberish they are talking.

There are lots of US military bases in Germany. I am not sure they would not be coming for you if you were in Germany. And I am quite sure, they would not leave if they were asked to leave. Nevertheless, it should be official policy for Germany to ask US military to leave.

I am not against the people in the US. In fact, people from the US are supporting Whonix.

87 % of Germans want plebiscite. Only 16% want military in Ukraine. (Still too much, but majority is sane.)

Even if there are vast opposing majorities, our government somehow manages to ignore the will of the People without consequences.

Hopefully the people figure out how to end this insanity. I don’t want world war 3.

I extend an open invitation: I’d be honored by any advice or discussion – on-topic or off-topic.

Off-topic, especially what know about extraterrestrials would be most interesting.

Thank you again, Edward Snowden!

Forum discussion on this topic:

https://www.whonix.org/forum/index.php/topic,437.0/topicseen.html


[/html]

That’s a real honor and tells us that we’re doing something right :slight_smile:
Snowden really hits the nail on the head on the importance of advocating freedom preserving software and making it accessible.

There are lots of US military bases in Germany. I am not sure they would not be coming for you if you were in Germany. And I am quite sure, they would not leave if they were asked to leave. Nevertheless, it should be official policy for Germany to ask US military to leave.

I really wish international relations are based on respect and cooperation not coercion. World War II has been over for seven decades already and the Cold War for two. Its ok the troops can go home now. You are one of few Germans to recognize this imbalanced relationship between supposed friends and “allies”. Others take it for granted and believe this is normal.

The world will be a safer place in a multipolar environment with power sharing not with the constant agitation and militarism carried out internationally and domestically.

Thank You Edward!

You have created a necessary paradigm shift in the consciousness of the world for realizing what unchecked centralized powers are doing to invade the lives of masses of innocents.

And Thank You Patrick and other Whonix developers for being one of the few individuals on this earth seriously dedicating yourself to producing and sharing effective tools that allow us to remain in greater control of our own natural rights and liberties than without these tools.

Patrick, I’m very curious as to what you’ve learned that makes you interested in extraterrestrials.

I’m generally interested in science, technology, absolute truth, etc, which you seem to be as well. So I’m curious as to what you’ve learned that makes you personally interested in seeking out information on extraterrestrials.

If true, an Edward Snowden level whistleblower for proof of extraterrestrials inside the control of black budget government agencies would be truly amazing.

Yet maybe I’m naive on the subject and there already is some serious evidence of ET life?

Finally I get to talk about extraterrestrials. I am not yet convinced, but I am open minded to look at evidence / indication. Since this is fairly off-topic here, let’s hope we can have troll free discussion for a while.

Yes.

It’s real difficult to find serious evidence or at least indication on that topic. Youtube for example is full of fake extraterrestrials material. Many scams around. Many deluded or only commercially motivated people around. Hard to find the serious ones who stick to what they at least believe themselves to be the truth.

Best argument from authority so far I found (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/10560418/Former-Canadian-defence-minister-Aliens-among-us.html).

Former Canadian Defence minister Paul Hellyer says there are at least 80 different species of aliens, some of whom are already living among us on Earth

As well as disclosure project.

One of the more interesting stories is this search term:
The Official UFO night in Brazil

A German web site that seems more serious is this one:
http://www.exopolitik.org/

The English version I have not checked yet:
http://exopoliticsinstitute.org/

I don’t know if I am overrating the topic. A proof beyond doubt that there extraterrestrials exist would probably not have a lot instant influence, but small steady positive one. Regular official communication with of normal people with extraterrestrials would probably have a positive, fast, big influence.

I’d be also interested to leave this planet and to continue my live extraterrestrials society. This planet isn’t safe from nuclear world war 3 and extinction of almost everyone. I am tried to hear counter arguments against such very simple and basic issues such as disarmament. They have a great technology and probably society as well, moving through the universe while my kind is still killing each other.

I’d am also most interested in if they have biological brains or artificial (technological) intelligence / consciousness. I could imagine that if an artificial (technological) intelligence / consciousness (strong AI) is possible in this realm, then it would quickly surpass intelligence of biologicals brains. It would be interesting to know what ethics a machine will (not) come up with. There are various cases:

  • extraterrestrials banned development on artificial (technological) intelligence / consciousness (strong AI) and actually all members of their society obeyed this to avoid destruction
  • biologicals and artificial extraterrestrials are (peacefully) coexisting and (not) having fast differences in intelligence
  • extraterrestrials failed to develop artificial (technological) intelligence / consciousness (strong AI)
  • most extraterrestrials are artificial
  • creating artificial (technological) intelligence / consciousness (strong AI) is impossible in this realm
  • and more…

It would be interesting to know what they think about the big questions, such as what is the origin of the (multi/uni)verse / everything/anything. Why is there something rather than nothing. Is it eternal and/or had it a cause, what was that cause, what happens if one traverses back cause by cause, are there other realms, time travel, immortality from age and illness, how consciousness works, if there is free will and more.

Me as well. Always the right perspective.

Interesting references.

That’s true. It would come down to what type of evidence is presented. The more “visceral” it is, the better. Along with having high credibility/believability.

For example, short of ongoing live communications with ETs, one solid credible video of an ET could go globally viral, dominate mainstream headlines, and change our consciousness/identity as a species going forward.

:slight_smile:

Since WWII, things seem fairly stable due to MAD, nuclear parity, technical challenge of manufacturing nukes, and suppression of foreign nuclear development by superpowers.

But as technology evolves, WMDs like nuclear weapons, bio weapons, nanotech weapons, become ever more easy and cheap to produce and ever more destructive in their capabilities.

With nanotech evolving and maturing here in the 21st century, it could become trivial for not only any rogue government to manufacture and deploy WMDs, but also trivial for any rogue group or individual to do so. At least corrupt nations still possess a sense of national self-interest to survive and not pursue mutually assured destruction. Rogue groups and individuals will often not care and just seek maximum destruction, regardless of their own risk of survival.

Yes.

Definitely would, once a Strong AI comes online and is given access to the world’s documented knowledge and/or physical sensor nets.

Personally, I believe that 2 “states” are most likely…

  1. Waring competition amongst the species.

  2. A sole dominant winner amongst the species after mass extinction/enslavement from such waring competition.

And I think it doesn’t really matter if it is biological or artificial intelligence, or a hybrid.

Because I see it as “individual entities” who posses “individual agency” and “individual objectives/motivations” all doing/pursuing their own thing, regardless of entity type.

Not that there isn’t ever some cooperation amongst individuals.

But, ultimately, an individual mind, machine, entity, whatever, operates upon its own programming/code/decisions. The programming/code/decisions of other entities are just “inputs” to an entity’s own individual agency/algorithms, where it alone ultimately makes deciding choices on what tangible actions to take itself.

Things get more interesting when a collective of individuals is re-programmed to act as a hive mind.

But each individual, just like the individual cells of our biological bodies, still ultimately is its own distinct entity. So the hive might decide to eliminate part of itself, individual cells can go rogue for various reasons, including simple entropy or via outlier “inputs” that produce unexpected emergent behaviors from the hive mind algorithms.

So unless a single individual entity or tightly integrated hive mind collective, either destroys or enslaves all other “competition”, then this state of waring competition is something I see as being the default of any species.

If they are emotional beings, which most any biological species likely would be, then it only ever takes one bad actor with freedom and advanced technology who wants to gain a sense of “power” over the norms or status quo it views as “wrong” amongst the society of its species.

If they are non-emotional beings, which would most likely be AI, then they could very easily not view death and destruction as having meaning, like you and I do, but rather as just agnostic necessary mechanical steps to achieve some objective of whatever its software is programmed to do.

Ultimately if there are multiple individual entities (2 or more individuals) with different sets of agency/programming and their technology (capability for destructive power) is advanced, such as possessing advanced nanotech and beyond, then I think it is most likely for them to be in a state of catastrophic waring competition or be in the calm aftermath of such a chaotic state with a single dominant “winner”.

Can a small group of individuals with such destructive power coexist peacefully together?

Possible. But I don’t view it as likely or long lasting.

For example, I imagine myself in such a distant future with humanity and human AI.

In such a future, I probably don’t need physical beings for social companionship anymore, since I’d likely live my experiential and social life inside of a simulated reality that is much much more compelling than through the limits of physical reality.

I imagine our own waring competition will grow exponentially via autonomous nano-engineered drones. I imagine an ability for nanotech 3D printers to rapidly produce these drones continuously at high speeds. Ultimately saturating the planet with such autonomous drones. Of course, these drones will be programmed with objectives/interests of their own, including some with missions of pure terrorist destruction to seek and destroy all life.

If it got to the point of me plus a small number of other individual sources of intelligence/agency left on our planet or solar system… Then would we likely all just agree to stop all waring competition for our own interests/survival? Possible. But would it ultimately last? Or would one rogue entity eventually startup the waring competition again? Probably.

So there always seems to be a scenario of “game theory risk” where if another individual (bio, AI, hybrid) possesses freedom and advanced technology, then they, or their army of nanotech drones, might take you out first, unless they are first mitigated or eliminated as a threat.

In a “traditional” non-advanced society, where such destructive power is not widespread amongst individuals and it takes significant personal effort to carry out such mass destruction, the economics, logistics, and risks create a fundamentally different paradigm where one can confidently relax and not have active defenses against the waring competition of its species. And, today, within humanity, where our centralized governments go to war and have monopolies on such levels of destructive force, most individual people don’t have to do much to personally defend their survival.

This scenario fundamentally changes in a “futuristic” society, where technological evolution has made advanced destructive power much more ubiquitous and in the hands of individuals.

Under this paradigm, with whatever type of species that controls it (bio, AI, hybrid), I just see waring competition being the most likely “state”.

Of course, other possibilities are in fact possible.

Yes.

It would be interesting what an advanced species would have figured out on these fundamental questions of nature beyond the normal daily operations of our tangible universe.

Fortunately, we are also quickly becoming that advanced species who may be able to unlock answers to some of these big questions, if we can survive our own pursuit of destruction.

I’d imagine that meaningful life extension via biotech and nanotech should become a real possibility this century.

We may ultimately break through beyond our single universe into something like a multiverse or hyperspace/multi-dimensional space.

I know there have been recent developments in the design of a real world hyperdrive that can fold space and travel faster than light.

Ultimately beyond “tangible” reality, our consciousness is most interesting, as it is in the realm of logical possibility that reality indeed is not ultimately “tangible”. Maybe it is ultimately true that theories such as simulated reality, subjective reality, or even spiritual/religious creator(s)/god(s) could be the origin of our reality/existence. Even if we can explain our tangible reality further and further and even to different dimensions, our consciousness and potential existence beyond biological death leaves an opening for all of our information about this “tangible” reality to simply be a “fake” virtualization of true reality.

Kind of like the computer virtualization we employ for Whonix VMs. Yeah, too bad your malware is stuck inside of my fake virtual universe. Here’s an IP and MAC address for you to chew on. You may call me God. :wink:

[quote=“Michael, post:5, topic:417”][quote author=Patrick link=topic=437.msg3307#msg3307 date=1407934179]
This planet isn’t safe from nuclear world war 3 and extinction of almost everyone.
[/quote]

Since WWII, things seem fairly stable due to MAD, nuclear parity, technical challenge of manufacturing nukes, and suppression of foreign nuclear development by superpowers.

But as technology evolves, WMDs like nuclear weapons, bio weapons, nanotech weapons, become ever more easy and cheap to produce and ever more destructive in their capabilities.

With nanotech evolving and maturing here in the 21st century, it could become trivial for not only any rogue government to manufacture and deploy WMDs, but also trivial for any rogue group or individual to do so. At least corrupt nations still possess a sense of national self-interest to survive and not pursue mutually assured destruction. Rogue groups and individuals will often not care and just seek maximum destruction, regardless of their own risk of survival.[/quote]

Isn’t this the kind of danger, that the NSA originally set out to protect against…?

NSA came out of the codebreaking agencies of WWII against Axis powers and continued from there to primarily focus on the Cold War with Russia. So at that time, Nuclear WW3 between US and Russia would have been the worst likely outcome to protect from. But this concern for such a level of power/destruction was still between traditional nation-state governments.

Only now in the 21st century will individual humans start gaining a comparable level of military power, via things like nanotech, biotech, 3D printing, drones, AI, etc becoming cheaper and cheaper, and ever more capable. A world of free individual humans with technology that gives us automated military powers beyond what all 20th century governments ever possessed. Just think of the massive destabilizing implications. Can you say “police state” or “martial law”, anyone? Ultimately governments won’t be able to last against a world of such competitive decentralized power in the hands of individuals. But then at this point it is every human, cyborg, and drone for himself.

I’d rather be up for joining Patrick and exploring the cosmos with ETs than trying to survive in a lawless world that becomes filled with rogue automated weaponized nanotech drones everywhere, similar to billions of automated viruses/malware instances on the net today. And while the governments are still standing, I don’t want to live within their tighter and tighter police state grip that they’ll need to enforce just to try and keep control over the effects of this 21st century evolution. We’re already seeing the beginnings of this with asynchronous warfare/terrorism and intelligence agencies focusing on surveilling all of humanity now.

And soon, as is even reported by mainstream news agencies, the skies will become filled with conventional drones for commercial, police, and other purposes. It will no longer take airplanes, and warm bodies, and international travel for terrorists to carry out missions. Anyone will likely be able to just launch a cheap drone over the internet, for whatever purpose, like any other legitimate small business using drones will be doing. The drone capability geometrically grows people’s capabilities to carry out destruction, compared to traditional weapons that require someone to operate them in-person and are not automated. The drone scenario that is soon coming to your friendly skies does not even get into adding on more advanced 21st century technologies, like nanotech, biotech, AI, etc that geometrically explode the destructive power of individuals much further.

Government corruption and abuse of sovereignty and liberties is a bad thing and will probably only get worse over time in order to try to contain this accelerating technological evolution. But governments will likely only be a minor footnote to the history of the 21st century and beyond. The really big story to come is about exponential growth in decentralized individual power waking up like an angry sleeping giant. The superpowers of the 21st century and beyond will not end up being the US, but rather ALL OF US. Let the global free for all of humanity begin.

[quote=“Michael, post:7, topic:417”]Can you say “police state” or “martial law”, anyone? Ultimately governments won’t be able to last against a world of such competitive decentralized power in the hands of individuals. But then at this point it is every human, cyborg, and drone for himself.

The really big story to come is about exponential growth in decentralized individual power waking up like an angry sleeping giant. The superpowers of the 21st century and beyond will not end up being the US, but rather ALL OF US. Let the global free for all of humanity begin.[/quote]

With my limited knowledge, what your saying seems to put us in a situation where the only logical question is, what do you think would have a better chance of saving humanity, to be the “police state” and take control via global surveillance" or let the decentralized individual power of the people develop freely to eventually bring us all to our doom. As you said, a world of free individual humans with technology that gives the power of automated military powers has massive destabilizing implications. It only takes one person, Most likely a mentally handicapped person because our mental health systems are so fundamentally broken, given how little attention we give to such a fundamentally important issue. I’m guessing this alone is probably source of 80% or more of the worlds problems and terrors

Personally, I believe the best solution would be #1. build robust and monumentally effective mental health systems so we can study, learn to use, and remedy our brains, first and foremost . # 2 Create some form of global security / control, that is not centralized to one entity. After all, technology is growing so rapidly, surely we can come up with a technology based solution to accomplish decentralized control and security. This is better than giving up like the hopeless fools that already flood the earth and saying “fuck earth, lets just dismiss the fundamental problems at hand, and repeat the cycle of human history all over again, this time on a different planet”

The best defenses for humanity will be the emerging 21st century technologies themselves that I mentioned. But more destruction will happen the faster these technologies get into the hands of the masses. So, unfortunately, I must concede that a global martial law Luddite police state is the only practical way to even attempt to stop this inevitable paradigm shift.

As you mentioned, it ONLY TAKES ONE SINGLE PERSON to potentially destroy humanity with this mid to late 21st century tech. Self-replicating killer drones. Fast spreading bio agents. Etc. Etc. And, no doubt, there will be millions out of us total billions of humans that pursue such maximum destruction with these capabilities, which only takes 0.01% of people to reach such millions of source independent individuals engaged in such powerfully destructive pursuits, for whatever personal reasons (ideology, fun, domination, mental illness, risk mitigation, etc).

So I can’t logically say the word “IMPOSSIBLE” but it is going to be NEAR IMPOSSIBLE to stop it or seriously mitigate it.

You’d have to start controlling people’s every move (1984 style) and prevent them from getting the slightest access to any common technology throughout the future. You’d have to start enslaving humanity in such a Luddite police state very soon, even years or decades before such massive threats are present. Because once certain tipping points of decentralized technological power are widely disseminated, such as the now starting to happen drone proliferation here in the 2010s, then humanity can always use this basis of power as a “wedge” to ultimately overcome and overthrow any global police state. Even if just one person, on the outside or inside of the police state system is able to get their hands on some common technology, it could be enough to tip the whole system over and start disseminating tech. And this would inevitably happen at some point since no human organizational system can be that perfect in the real world. Not even close with today’s means.

Also, in practical reality, a global Luddite police state system would not happen. Our national governments are already fragmented and competitive with each other. So this alone would create or allow fundamental gaps in any global pursuit of Luddite martial law.

If governments wanted to effectively go down that road, they’d find it only realistically feasible to employ mass global depopulation. Reduce 7.5 billion humans down to mere millions or lower, and then they could have a shot at suppressing the paradigm shift where individuals can gain such military power via this century’s emerging technologies. Attempting to enslave billions via Luddite martial law, or only focusing on detectably mentally ill people will not work because it leaves way too much opportunity for individuals to acquire technology and “go rogue”.

Not trying to be a pessimist, or an optimist, here. Just trying to play out the real scales, odds, motives, and capabilities of the human race against this newly emerging paradigm of decentralized power. I don’t see a practical way to stop or contain it, before it is here. Once it is here, then it is just a free-for-all of waring competition from all directions.

Some more timeline context…

I saw a video interview between Ray Kurzweil and Eric Drexler, who is currently working on the invention of “nanofactories” (think desktop nanotech 3D printers or Star Trek replicators). And he estimates that this atomic/molecular level of high speed complex object fabrication could become feasible as early as the 2020s.

Cheap sophisticated drones. Nanotech 3D printers. All coming to Amazon.com soon for anyone to buy in droves.

Drones can accomplish A LOT of destruction with conventional weapons attached, since they multiply a person’s “combat presence”, where they can automate attacks in many places at once.

3D printers capable to producing advanced objects such as drones, electronics, chemicals, biology, bombs, etc will exponentially grow the power of individuals by further orders of magnitude.

It’s all “just happening” at this point. Governments are busy managing the traditional 20th century model world still. The open science and engineering of all this emerging 21st century technology is charging forward at increasing, not decreasing, speeds. Corporations across the world have fundamental interests in it remaining this way indefinitely. Most all of humanity wants the amazing positive fruits of all this technological evolution. Yet most all of humanity still hasn’t yet woken up to the realization of this decentralized power shift to individuals as a result of these 21st century technologies. Most people just assume, as it has always been, that the collective power of governments will still be able to trump individuals.

But that model is based on the old paradigm of military power, where such power scales up linearly (generally speaking) based on manpower (number of bodies) and financial resources (military budget).

Emerging 21st century technology breaks that model. Where, instead, small groups and individuals can automate and multiply their “combat presence” around the world via such powerful technologies that are rapidly coming online and becoming cheap and ubiquitous.

Realistically, I see no saving force that will stop or meaningfully slow this inevitability.

And I’m certainly not counting on goodness or love or other positives of human nature to override the bad parts of human nature across 100% of humanity.

It only takes 1 superpower government military to destroy humanity today, which wasn’t feasible in the 19th century. And with emerging 21st century technology, all of us will have this level of military power in our pockets. So it will only take 1 rogue individual with superpower technology to effectively start destroying us. But there will be a lot more than 1 individual doing so, and we will all be seeking to employ defenses for ourselves. So a state of free-for-all competition emerges, similar to how the state of hacking/viruses/malware has grown on the internet.

Governments will predictably fall as entities. Either by military competition from decentralized technology, or by economic extinction, or both.

On the economic side, governments (and corporations) only exist in modern society due to our ability to have a commercial economy and money supply. Said simply, if money is worthless then governments and corporations can’t pay/employ armies of workers to work for them, then most everybody quits working for them. Therefore, no large organizations would remain. Individuals would all fragment off into small groups and onto themselves.

So what would make money become worthless?

Nanofactories. Because instead of going to work each day to earn money to then buy goods/services in commerce (main purpose of employment), you just “print” whatever you need from your desktop nanofactory, virtually for free, in perpetual abundance.

The value of money and the need for commerce quickly approaches towards zero, as 3D printers approach these capabilities.

Large human organizations can’t survive, due to no longer having an ability to pay money for employees.

Alternatively, assassination politics could likely become prevalent and any working for any large influential organization (such as governments or corporations) could instantly put a target on one’s back for rogue anonymous drones. This negatively incents people to also not work for governments or corporations.

So large organizations will inevitably fall as entities and we will end up with a global free-for-all amongst individuals who will match and surpass the powers and capabilities of our largest traditional collective organizations.

It all couldn’t have happened at any other point in history.

Conventional military power required linear applications of manpower and money.

Conventional societies required collective organizations of money and commerce.

Technologies that are now coming to the 21st century break these age old paradigms, where decentralized individual power and capabilities catch up to and surpass that of centralized collective ones for the first time in history.

Technologies and capabilities like…

  • Drones for automated and anonymous attacks, assassinations, and terror

  • Nanofactories for making all things free, ubiquitous, and printable

  • Nanofactories for printing weapons (drones, bombs, missiles, nukes, chem/bio, etc)

  • AI for scaling the intelligence of effective competition (offense/defense) between all entities

…all in the hands of individuals humans throughout the world, likely within this century.

Anyway, sorry for the long off-topic post in this thread. Didn’t mean to hijack it. Most people I meet, even in freedom/technological circles, just haven’t much considered the likely evolution of this “21st century decentralized technological individual power paradigm shift”. Most people just want to believe the future will remain much like present-day society, but with more democracy, medical cures, virtual reality, flying cars, and other cool consumer tech.

But based on where things are this moment today, in 2014, upholding moral principles as Edward Snowden has done is a shining example of the good that makes humanity worth preserving and celebrating, even if our collective civilization falls in the process. :slight_smile:

[quote=“Michael, post:9, topic:417”]Attempting to enslave billions via Luddite martial law, or only focusing on detectably mentally ill people will not work because it leaves way too much opportunity for individuals to acquire technology and “go rogue”.

Not trying to be a pessimist, or an optimist, here. Just trying to play out the real scales, odds, motives, and capabilities of the human race against this newly emerging paradigm of decentralized power. I don’t see a practical way to stop or contain it, before it is here. Once it is here, then it is just a free-for-all of waring competition from all directions.[/quote]

decentralized power doesn’t have to automatically = decentralized evil power. Which by the way, already exists. But it is true that as technology advances, decentralized evil power will have much greater dire consequences… Though with the combination of decentralized technology for the greater good and remedying fundamental flaws of human nature could stand a chance

The source of all the major problems is obviously human nature, but to put it in a more optimistic way, it is our primitive understanding of human nature (thus, the inability to remedy it). Technology just provides a magnification of human nature, which is evidently reflected in these global issues. Humans are a magnificent creation. We have powerful minds that are actually amazing problem solving machines. If we change our focus and use some of the trillions of dollars and resources towards understanding and remedying the human mind, I believe we can have better chance than anything ever could at saving ourselves, building proper infrastructure, and promising global systems to learn, discover, detect, and deploy major problems before they can come close to arising. The evil in humans is almost as much of a sickness as any other mental illness. This approach is better than trying to band-aid everything, only for it to replicate into more problems again in the future.

[quote=“Michael, post:9, topic:417”]Realistically, I see no saving force that will stop or meaningfully slow this inevitability.

And I’m certainly not counting on goodness or love or other positives of human nature to override the bad parts of human nature across 100% of humanity.[/quote]

I don’t intend to get all preachy here, only to shed light on the optimistic side of it all, just as it only takes one person to potentially cause mass destruction. It also only takes one person to potentially crush governments or tackle global issues… take Snowden or Elon Musk for example.

I don’t think it has to “fall in the process”. If Snowden, with all his coverage and exposure, not only leaked issues, but proposed and encouraged more solutions for not only the people, but for the governments themselves. It would do a much greater good for everyone, including potentially preventing his own peril

Agreed. Power = Power. And in any situation there is always multiple sources of power with differing motivations, either neutral, conflicting, or cooperative to each other.

Agreed. That is our base programming which directs our tangible actions and sense of meaning that people give things.

I’ve personally spent several years studying human psychology, and love the subject.

I sympathize with your optimistic sentiments and the notion of at least “trying”.

But even everything you propose still just amounts to a band-aid, compared to the power and scale which the problem possesses.

Anything is possible. Just not likely probable to work, though.

I described this in long format. I’ll summarize in short principle format:

  • Maintaining creation/order/security of something against an APT (advanced persistent threat) generally requires successful prevention at every single instance of every single day, hour, minute, etc. ~100% success rate required.

  • APT destruction generally requires 1 successful attempt to penetrate defenses and destroy something. No backup copies for human beings. Below 1% success rate required.

  • There is too many humans to monitor/influence/control, too much physical open space, too much technological freedom and capability, too much behavioral entropy/randomness/unpredictability, when it comes to billions of people who individually possess global destruction capabilities.

I’m not saying that humanity, in a multitude of ways, can’t or shouldn’t fight back to stop such global destruction and maybe succeed 70, 80, 90 some percent of the time. The fundamental problem though is that it only takes a fraction of 1% success rate for global destruction to “win” in a world of such technologically advanced decentralized power.

The “math” of the scale and odds just don’t work out in the favor of maintaining creation/order/security. Even if you assume amazing futuristic security and mental health capabilities.

That’s a nice sentiment. And yes, everyone, can do “more good”.

The question is… Will our best even come close to being enough?

Even Snowden’s best that you imagine would not have removed mass surveillance functions from governments.

The reason we have mass surveillance has much more to do with the low costs and high capabilities of modern computing technology, as well as the military-industrial complex having high levels of power throughout governments and societies around the globe, plus the sheep-like complacency of everyday people to simply not care to invest much in their personal privacy and security.

Even more and more local governments are now working to gain more and more NSA like spying/surveillance capabilities.

Also governments as entities are the most absolute strongest sources of authority and power that exist in conventional society. So governments, especially executive, police, and military branches, are known to psychologically draw corrupt power hungry sociopathic people out of society to these positions like insects to sweet honey.

If Edward Snowden or anybody else could spend a full day, one on one, with every single person on the planet and teach them all about why and how they should protect themselves and demand change from governments, it would “help some” and do “more good”, but at the end of the day, we would still have powerful military-industrial complexes leveraging mass surveillance against most of the human population.

Because, most people just don’t care to put in much effort for these things in life. Trust me, I’ve tried to educate and encourage most of my family and friends. They ultimately don’t care and just want to be typical consumers of modern mainstream society. And mass corporations dominate most of products people buy and marketing they see, and can offer lower prices, etc. And national governments are MUCH BIGGER GIANTS in size (manpower and money) and power (police/military/weapons) compared to business corporations and they require/coerce businesses to participate and support their surveillance goals.

Edward Snowden could not have realistically changed this global paradigm. He can only realistically make small dings in it.

Sure, anything is “possible”. Butterfly effects and such. But the winds of entropy blow both directions and often cancel each other out over time.

All that said, I’m not saying we should just let things happen unchecked.

I believe in putting up a fight against evil, tyranny, and destruction.

The alternative of putting up no defenses is worse.

I just think it is naive and less effective to not have a true understanding of the true scale and power of the beast one is going up against.

Some people emotionally need a sense of optimism to muster the will to go on fighting. Personally, I used to need to operate this way myself with challenges earlier in my life (requiring optimistic views). Yet optimism, like pessimism, often encourages turning a blind eye to the realistic odds and mechanisms that influence how things will most likely play out.

If you see a detailed way to overcome all of the major forces and mechanisms I’ve described to predictably stop such destruction, then I would be interested in reading an explanation of how that would actually play out and robustly ensure that billions of humans can’t be killed via using advanced automated technology.

I’ve been racking my brain for years on the implications of this coming decentralized power shift, and while I see many ways to try and contain it, I can’t see how to ensure the near ~100% success rate it would take across the entire planet.

But I’m open to seeing a differing detailed perspective of “how” to do so that overcomes such a powerful threat.

[quote=“Michael, post:11, topic:417”]I sympathize with your optimistic sentiments and the notion of at least “trying”.

But even everything you propose still just amounts to a band-aid, compared to the power and scale which the problem possesses.

Anything is possible. Just not likely probable to work, though.

I described this in long format. I’ll summarize in short principle format:

  • Maintaining creation/order/security of something against an APT (advanced persistent threat) generally requires successful prevention at every single instance of every single day, hour, minute, etc. ~100% success rate required.

  • APT destruction generally requires 1 successful attempt to penetrate defenses and destroy something. No backup copies for human beings. Below 1% success rate required.

  • There is too many humans to monitor/influence/control, too much physical open space, too much technological freedom and capability, too much behavioral entropy/randomness/unpredictability, when it comes to billions of people who individually possess global destruction capabilities.

I’m not saying that humanity, in a multitude of ways, can’t or shouldn’t fight back to stop such global destruction and maybe succeed 70, 80, 90 some percent of the time. The fundamental problem though is that it only takes a fraction of 1% success rate for global destruction to “win” in a world of such technologically advanced decentralized power.

The “math” of the scale and odds just don’t work out in the favor of maintaining creation/order/security. Even if you assume amazing futuristic security and mental health capabilities.[/quote]

I don’t blame you or anyone else for having a cynical view, given the current circumstances. But I think this may only hinder creativity if one dwells too much.

Maintaining creation/order/security being required every minute with 100% success rate is an appealing solution if one is focused on the forest for the trees. As I said if resources are used to study, understand, and remedy the human mind itself and deploy it properly then the possibilities can render this flawed band-aid of a solution even more useless.

Just think of a child, who needs almost 24/7 care because their brains are not fully developed, they don’t know how to properly navigate their intelligence. They whine, cry, fight with little rationality. They are primitive in nature and sensitive to everything around them. Similarly, the human race is primitive in this current stage. The only difference between a baby and an adult is that adults only have a marginal increase in rationality yet much greater consequences,

Just as it only takes one person to potentially destroy the world. It only takes one person to save it. Likelihood is almost irrelevant. Just think about the creation of the internet. One person developed technology that is now developed into something which is in the hands of almost everyone on the planet. How do you think that happened? Because it was an incentive to human nature. Just think about the fact that all governments are doing very similar technological approaches for similar purposes of controlling citizens for power and defense. Also, with the Snowden leaks, even more governments will begin implementing these tactics in their arsenal. Why are they doing that? Because it is also an incentive to human nature. Just imagine what can be done to save the planet, by creating an incentive of some form, for the people, or for government to endorse and implement for their country. As you said so yourself “governments as entities are the most absolute strongest sources of authority and power that exist in conventional society.”

Maybe the incentive itself can be some form of remedy to advance the human mind that will ultimately serve the greater good. Currently, there is not even a small fraction of resources being used to study and advance this subject in comparison to all these band-aid solutions everyone loves to propose. Just imagine the possibilities if we put half of those resources into studying and advancing the human consciousness

Attacking the problem at the source (human brain / mind / nature) is the strongest infrastructural “point of attack” (at this present stage of the world). I will give you that. No fundamental disagreement there.

Let’s assume that the solution you speak of, in principle looks like a combination of advanced neuroscience, psychology, biotech, nanotech, criminology/precrime, economics, social work, etc, applied across an efficient global infrastructure. Or correct me if I’m fundamentally off base.

Yes. Your solution could go a long way towards working, IF…

You get all people, corporations, and governments to openly accept it without resistance.

And that’s the rub.

End point solutions are easier to come up with.

How to successfully distribute and manage the solution against the free will of billions of people, millions of corporations, and thousands of governments.

This is where the “APPLICATION” of a strong end point solution easily breaks down and reduces its success rate.

Reduce your success rate down to 99%, and that means you have a pool of ~100 Million humans acting in how they do today. Say just 0.1% of those want destruction, then that’s 100,000 superpower entities pursuing destruction.

Every 1% reduction in global success rate of your solution equals an increase of ~100 Million of superpower entities with traditional human psychology.

Every 0.1% of a ~100 Million population with traditional psychology that pursues destruction equals an increase of ~100,000 mass destructive superpowers on our planet.

99% Success Rate = ~100 Million / ~100,000 (destructive superpowers)

95% Success Rate = ~500 Million / ~500,000 (destructive superpowers)

90% Success Rate = ~1 Billion / ~1,000,000 (destructive superpowers)

Your global mental health regime (whatever it consists of) could be in dire risk of being overthrown by even a handful of destructive superpowers.

Going up against hundreds of thousands or millions of destructive superpowers is something creative optimism doesn’t overcome without one hell of a radically paradigm shifting detailed answer of HOW such a feat is carried out and ongoingly achieved with stability throughout the indefinite 21st century and beyond.

This planet is already way too small for a dozen or so of conventional nuclear superpowers.

100s
1,000s
10,000s
100,000s
1,000,000s

…of futuristic superpowers actively pursuing mass destruction on this tiny home world of ours.

If your regime doesn’t successfully overtake the conventional already fragmented government superpowers and contain all governments, corporations, and people of the world…

And if your solution then doesn’t achieve and consistently sustain a virtually 100% success rate…

And if minority destructive forces get loose, if there is not a massively powerful security framework in place to predictably squash it…

Then it is game over.

And on top of this reality based on a human-centric model…

We are forgetting that mental health and psychology are irrelevant to mechanical drones and AIs.

Once people start programming and releasing self-sustaining drones…

Once people start programming and releasing artificial intelligences…

Also once these mechanical entities have self-replication capabilities…

Any regime and solution that is based on a human-centric solution starts breaking down.

Since now we humans are not the only superpower entities carrying out destructive programming anymore.

And people can multiply these independent/automated mechanical entities not just into the millions or billions with traditional manufacturing resources, but into the trillions and quadrillions and beyond with nano-manufacturing capabilities (such as nanofactories).

How do you contain such a force with good morals when this kind of technology becomes cheap and ubiquitous?

How do you uphold conventional governments for populations who individually posses as much power as said governments?

How do you succeed enough across the entire planet in cutting off the evolution of such technology while we’re still contained in the conventional human-centric paradigm right now?

Look at how the internet is overrun with viruses/malware/hacking. Figure out how to squash all of that and secure everyone’s computers in the real world where everyone has free will with their devices and that would be a good trial run for the coming model of free-for-all competition amongst billions of equally matched superpower entities.

I’m not trying to squash optimism or creativity just because it somehow feels good to me.

We both want the same/similar outcome for humanity, I’m sure.

I’m not trying to brush off the type of solution you’re proposing. I’ve considered the type of stuff your talking about for years now.

My argument is independent of that.

If one doesn’t ignore the simple realities I’ve presented, the basic “math” is COMPLETELY UPSIDE DOWN for successfully containing this, no matter what type of approach you use.

You have to present a specific solution/algorithm that can overcome the virtually impossible task of human influence and tight security containment on a planetary scale.

Without a specific solution, all one has is their personal feelings of optimism and creativity.

I’m sure there were people who felt the same sense of optimism and creativity working on anti-virus and software security solutions back in the mid 1990s who thought the internet would soon be safe and healthy and happy.

Reality proved them wrong. For many reasons.

I’m all for those feelings on a personal level. Anything to increase people’s state of health and happiness is generally a good thing.

But we’re dealing with issues of mass survival and extinction here.

No backup copies exist for humanity.

It’s a really serious thing.

Not that you don’t take it seriously. Just framing my own perspective on this.

Anyway, like I said, I’m open to hearing detailed solutions that really take into account the fundamentally hard problems I presented of successfully applying a solution.

Theoretical end point solutions that don’t also account for “HOW” they get predictably adopted and distributed across all people, corporations, and governments and then can be robustly maintained at extraordinarily high success rates, ultimately do not answer the challenge.

A real (non band-aid) answer for humanity needs to pass these basic thresholds.

It takes a complex multi-polar, massive scale, massive complexity, new 21st century way of thinking to wrap one’s head around the full scale of the problem.

You need to re-read my post. For example I’m not talking about “mental health regime” I am talking about advancing the human mind, improving our primitive consciousness, and intellect. I gave the example of how irrational a child is because they are not fully developed, primitive in nature, just as is the human race.

If one person, such as Elon Musk can tackle global issues…
if one person, such as snowden can potentially tackle governments…
then surely one person, who uses the science of advancing the human mind to a significant degree, can surely tackle even more global issues or come up with solutions for all of them.

Think of the world as a sandbox, children fighting amongst each other, imagine if an adult, someone who is more developed, more rational, more capable, and thus has more resources at his disposal to parent the children, feed them so they calm down (incentive to human nature)…etc…etc

This approach can be summed up by Einstein - “We can not solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them”

gh0st,

I do not believe I mis-understand your post. Perhaps you mis-understood mine?

So your rebuttle to all the detail of the problem I fleshed out was basically…

“If somebody comes up with a solution that works, then we will have a solution that works.”

And you believe that solution is likely to do with primarily focusing on the end point of the human brain/mind/consciousness.

Um, okay, so I agree that everything is always possible. Now what?

Where’s the DETAILS of this possible solution that overcome the details of the problem I fleshed out?

Without those details, we don’t have an actual solution.

We just have agreement that humanity is still searching for a solution.

Also, your “sandbox” “parent vs. children” worldview violates the principle of Einstein’s quote.

That was the 20th century and current model of virtually all major society-level activity.

We’re about to enter a world where every “child” in the sandbox has as much power, resources, and independence as the “grownups” standing by.

This 21st century sandbox is loaded with military grade weapons just sitting all around.

And it takes 1 uncontrollable child to unpin and drop a hand grenade inside the sandbox and blow all the parents and children to pieces.

Where’s the details of what your proposing?

How exactly do you overcome the fundamental logistics, economics, competition, and security issues I raised to install and operate your solution planet-wide across all individuals, corporations, and governments?

Yes. I agree that everything is possible.

Patrick and I started off by questioning the very nature of this reality. This could all just be a simulation, etc.

But, for this matter, if we accept some conventional physics and the real world objective of preserving humanity, then accomplishing such things in the world is extremely tough and rare to pull off.

Just try to run a small commercial company and bring a new consumer technology to market for 1 million people. If everybody was cooperative and nobody was competing against you, and R&D, and materials, and manpower, and distribution, and marketing, etc were all super cheap, then it wouldn’t be that hard. Yet, it’s not easy, even for successfully building and operating something like a small company.

All the people you’ve referenced have failed to rid the world of violence. And that’s the minimum level of power needed to have a good shot at overcoming this.

Not knocking the people here. Just focused on what the problem requires to be overcome in the real world.

What those people have accomplished is several orders of magnitude lower than the challenge of successfully tackling the problems of massively powerful planetary destruction. Mere crumbs compared to what it will take to solve a problem more massive and powerful than anything ever faced by humanity before. A true paradigm shift.

Yes… anything and everything is “possible”.

Yes… I am happy that you personally feel creative and optimistic.

Yes… I am happy that you are on the side of wanting solutions.

But unless there is a detailed answer to overcome this near impossible problem, then we don’t have anything even remotely close yet.

If I’m wrong and you see the DETAILS of HOW to overcome all of this, then please don’t let me stop you from sharing those logically sound details.

Maybe at the end of the day our different arguments come down to this…

You seem focused on trying to present the issue as totally open and solvable to encourage the human spirit of yourself and others.

I was once at that level, but I am now past the “general” phase and am trying to understand and relay the dynamics and power of this massive problem, so that I and others can actually counter the problem and advance the detailed engineering of feasible solutions.

Good spirits won’t overcome this. An array of detailed technical solutions, maybe, possibly, hopefully can.

But one must focus their mind on the detailed power dynamics, logistical dynamics, and technical dynamics of the problem.

One must face the true reality of the problem if they’re serious about the details of solving it.

I’d invite you to really take a hard look at what it takes to get creation/invention/order/security implemented and sustained in the world and how the basic “math” is upside down in this emerging 21st century world, compared to conventional global problems.

I haven’t seen any detail in your arguments that take these things into account yet.

If you want to make real progress on figuring this out, then you’ve got to be able to resolve the detailed pitfalls on a robust, real world, planetary scale.

Whatever solutions you propose will be going up against the most powerful destabilizing and destructive forces known human history this century.

Or if you want to primarily stay on the sidelines and do positive cheerleading for those of us seriously dedicating our minds to working on these detailed problems, I would suggest not hampering those doing so, regardless if they share your optimistic, anything is possible demeanor and worldview. If they’re really working on the level of the detailed “engineering” issues of the problem, then it doesn’t help with a solution. Maybe going out to more neophyte minds and recruiting them to learn and grow and work on this stuff in greater detail is a better application of such optimism and generalized visions.

Personally, I invite you to on to the field, where the realities are a lot rougher and more messy, and also where solutions that look nice on the sidelines rarely work out in practice.

Thus is the reality of all creation/order/engineering in life.

Infinite ways to produce and sustain randomness/chaos/failure.

Quite rare to figure out how to produce and sustain truly robust creation/order/success in this world.

Especially when trying to engineer against the most powerful destabilizing and destructive forces known human history.

Maybe you could personally think of a way to better prepare minds to mentally handle the level of challenge and complexity this level of problem requires, than blunt positivity and optimism. Because those things, while they get people feeling motivated, also too often cause people not to face the realities of such hard, complex, and destructive challenges when assessing real world solutions.

Make no mistake. This is one of the most tough, powerful, and ugly challenges humanity has ever come up against.

There is a reason, other than just corruption, that the business of governments is one of the most ugly and tough businesses in the world.

Though, this coming paradigm shift will make governments irrelevant as entities, and dump an even bigger, nastier version of exponentially compounded human violence upon us all.

I’m open to detailed solutions. But not addressing the details, is just not a workable solution.

Encouragement/cheerleading/optimism is just that. A sideline supporting function. I don’t see it being what actually produces the real world technical solutions that can or will directly save us.

gh0st,

If you’re not talking about a regime that somehow imposes mental health upon humanity, by delivering a brain/mind/consciousness changing solution to individual humans across the planet.

Then… Are you trying to suggest the concept of AI as a solution to finding solutions?

Where either a pure computer or a hybrid human merges with future AI to then come up with solutions?

If that’s what you’ve been trying to suggest, then ok.

But what happens when other machines or persons uses the same type of technology or AI to counter those advanced security strategies with advanced destruction strategies?

It just turns into the equally matched waring competition scenario I spoke of.

But worse for the good of humanity, because to physically destroy something once is fundamentally easier than physically securing it, indefinitely, against sources of advanced persistent attack.

You can’t assume a superior difference in power between various source individuals/entities.

We do still have that now with the general power disparity of:

Governments > Corporations > Individuals

But, unless you somehow magically eradicate the total human population’s will or ability for violent action in the next decade or two, then your window of centralized power disparity will likely be too far gone.

Then it fast becomes a decentralized world of free-for-all, equally matched, individual superpowers.

Under those circumstances of free-for-all power, just like how internet exploitation has evolved, things honestly don’t look pretty.

Only fundamental difference between internet and humanity is that copies of the internet can be infinitely backed up and restored, as exploit occurs.

Please show me how it will likely play out otherwise, in procedural detail.

For the sake of everyone, please stop prolonging your posts and posting multiple posts unnecessarily especially when you are essentially repeating yourself.

Your definition of grownups is not even reached close the scale at which I am referring to. I am talking about a thousand times more advanced human consciousness and intellect. I was talking about a child and an adult as small scale example in contrast with level of consciousness and intellect of the whole human race, relative to what you compare it to, ET’s for example of a highly advanced race. You can call it hybrid human merges with future AI if that makes you feel better, but the idea is the same. Highly advanced consiousness / intellect.

Just imagine how much advantage one adult has over children in a sandbox? He can do so many things that a child is unable to do or conceive. The degree of contrast is so great, these solutions would mean resources that the child could not even intellectually understand or grasp.

[quote=“Michael, post:15, topic:417”]But what happens when other machines or persons uses the same type of technology or AI to counter those advanced security strategies with advanced destruction strategies?

You can’t assume a superior difference in power between various source individuals/entities.[/quote]

why not…??? look at what Einstein did with nuclear power or Nikola Tesla’s achievements… (yes they were used for destructive purposes but that is only because they are still very flawed individuals with only a very marginal difference in the level of thinking relative the rest of the human race. They are still children in a sandbox compared to highly advanced consciousness/intellect such as ET’s from other planets)

Trying to force me to spoon feed you a game plan for all the worlds problems, is implying that I have this highly advanced capable mind… which is obviously not true and clearly shows you are not understanding my point here.

Personally, I think if another Einstein or Nikola Tesla-like fellow (or a dedicated team of people) can’t come up with a solution to advance the human mind sufficiently or in enough time. Then we should simultaneously use our resources (print money or stop putting resources towards useless crap) to explore and get in contact with our neighbors in the universe, to try to gain knowledge / technological solutions from highly advanced ET’s

I do not doubt that dire consequences are increasing as we speak. I have been in dire consequences and have seen first hand the power of technology on a significant scale. In regard to your comment, “Or if you want to primarily stay on the sidelines and do positive cheerleading for those of us seriously dedicating our minds to working on these detailed problems”. I do my share of dedicating. I have also helped the Whonix devs a bit. What I am suggesting here is not blind hope nor is it cheer-leading optimism, it is simply using a healthy dose of optimism, reason, and logic without dwelling too much in rigid minded cynicism

gh0st,

I’m not interested in butting heads back and forth. I’m sure you’re not either. We can nip that.

Here’s what occurred from my perspective…

I presented a thought out somewhat detailed model of sociotechnological evolution on our planet and how mass destruction is likely despite all approaches to contain it.

You challenged my model with your claims that some super advanced consciousness (1000X any other competitive entity) would make these issues predictably solvable and the planet would remain sustainably healthy and happy.

But no meaningful details are presented as to how this happens.

No meaningful details on even how you yourself in your own mind are able to logically conclude this is a likely outcome.

That’s all I was trying to understand.

Sorry if that was too unreasonable.

Thanks for your contributions. :smiley:

This is beside my point and I was never challenging you. I was only proposing a potential solution. Also likely or unlikely relative to what? we have too little knowledge to accurately calculate likelihood. We can only calculate to a degree. Was it likely that Elon musk almost single handedly built a car company that takes on a global issues, while at the same time competing with all other already established/ powerful car companies? And that it became car of the year?

The logic that this approach would be effective is concluded with the example I already gave you, that of a child and an adult. Do you think that it is reasonable and logical to assume that the adult, with his higher level of intelligence / developed consciousness can solve the chaos of children in a sandbox?

Did you read what I said?

“Personally, I think if another Einstein or Nikola Tesla-like fellow (or a dedicated team of people) can’t come up with a solution to advance the human mind sufficiently or in enough time. Then we should simultaneously use our resources (print money or stop putting resources towards useless crap) to explore and get in contact with our neighbors in the universe, to try to gain knowledge / technological solutions from highly advanced ET’s”

If you want more “meaningful details” or a “game plan”, well I am sorry to disappoint you but I am not knowledgeable enough in the actual sciences. why don’t you try to figure it out yourself or we can try together in a productive manner.

Apologies for the misunderstanding.

Ok. Are you open to receiving and assessing strategic pitfalls to your proposed solution in order to strengthen it? Or only positive encouragement that what your saying is possible?

If the latter… Then, yes, what you’re saying is possible. Anything is possible, including this.

Likely relative to… equally matched (no 1000X disparity advantage) humans perpetuating human violence here on Earth.

Because without a miracle source of almighty 1000X contained intelligence coming out of left field, that’s the “default” scenario we will practically have to deal with.

Yes. That result was very likely compared to ending all human violence.

Billionaire founder who can sustain financial losses of high cost startup phase. Base technologies had already evolved to a viable degree. Corporate giant dominated industry suppressing their own electric cars (competing products) to stick to their old business models. Pent up consumer demand for new paradigm shift of business model and product. It was ripe to happen.

Elon Musk / Tesla Motors might be rare on a personal success level. But all within the realm of norms across the big picture of time and technical capability.

Tesla Motors would not have succeeded in the market had the major auto manufacturers wanted to compete based on the electric car business model earlier on.

  • Electric Chevy Corvette
  • Electric Dodge Viper
  • Electric Economy Vehicles

…back when Tesla Motors was developing its product line.

Tesla Motors would have probably failed under those competitive circumstances.

An electric car company, especially under those circumstances, is a very easy feat compared to ending human violence.

Apples and oranges in magnitude comparison.

Yes, I do think that, as you describe, it is reasonable that a technological superpower (“parent”) could contain a planet (“sandbox”) of comparatively technologically powerless (“children”).

That’s similar to the power paradigm of what exists right now with conventional military superpower governments having a monopoly on force over human civilization.

But I think it is a leap of faith to assume it will end up that way as billions of individuals rapidly gain competitive military superpowers.

[quote=“gh0st, post:19, topic:417”]Did you read what I said?

“Personally, I think if another Einstein or Nikola Tesla-like fellow (or a dedicated team of people) can’t come up with a solution to advance the human mind sufficiently or in enough time. Then we should simultaneously use our resources (print money or stop putting resources towards useless crap) to explore and get in contact with our neighbors in the universe, to try to gain knowledge / technological solutions from highly advanced ET’s”

If you want more “meaningful details” or a “game plan”, well I am sorry to disappoint you but I am not knowledgeable enough in the actual sciences. why don’t you try to figure it out yourself or we can try together in a productive manner.[/quote]

All possible. But that would take a miracle to control and end human violence in the manner you’re proposing… Discovering some ~1000X unknown source of intelligence that only stays on the side of maintaining a secure healthy planet, doesn’t fall into competitive hands, and outpaces all other sources of AI development. Possible. Miracle level odds, though.

There is no single known reference in human history to compare such a singular uncorruptable source of planetary stabilizing power to. None.

All possible. But it’d be the very first time in history that such a model has ever worked, where one single entity or close cooperative group of entities can benevolently and sustainably contain the entire planet.

You do realize this would be the very first time EVER that your “unified parent(s) vs. children” model would exist, and that there is no known source of such 1000X intelligence beyond all other AIs yet to come, as well as no known foolproof way to contain it on the side of one benevolent competitor, right?

It all just seems extraordinarily speculative to assume such a miracle, first time EVER, type of format for a proposed solution.

Not trying to knock you personally gh0st… But that massive leap of faith for believing such a rare feat (in fact never before done in human history) will occur is why not understanding the detailed “how” part of your proposal makes this highly skeptical as a real world viable solution.

[Imprint] [Privacy Policy] [Cookie Policy] [Terms of Use] [E-Sign Consent] [DMCA] [Investors] [Priority Support] [Professional Support]