What will the year 2065 be like?

[CrimsonBlaze]

Well, given that Singularity is set to take place in 2030, by 2065, we'd probably all have an android or two as best buds, the internet would have mega evolved into an interesting complexity, while, nonetheless, a powerful beast, people might be cryogenically freezing themselves or loved ones for a future present, and we might actually have people preparing to download their conscious into a machine or robot body.

Also flying cars and light sabers; can't forget about those.

The singularity is massively overrated in my opinion. Computing Forever made a great video on the matter.


Now that isn't to say we aren't going to make better computers as time goes on, but many of the ideals given to what the singularity will do, such as immortality and god like A.I. are just fantasy.

Well, damn.

First off, great video and I greatly appreciate it (definitely broke me out of my "Singularity" trance that I've been on for many years).

Secondly, I do see how people are slowly (embarrassingly slowly in all honesty) realizing how social media and consumer electronics are become a burden than a blessing to their daily lives.

Still, I'd settle for a army of super intelligent, all powerful, energy efficient, nigh indestructible, dangerously efficient yet non-lethal androids that will serve as the vanguard and sentry to all that is good for the human race.

 

[McElroy]

Well, given that Singularity is set to take place in 2030, by 2065, we'd probably all have an android or two as best buds, the internet would have mega evolved into an interesting complexity, while, nonetheless, a powerful beast, people might be cryogenically freezing themselves or loved ones for a future present, and we might actually have people preparing to download their conscious into a machine or robot body.

Also flying cars and light sabers; can't forget about those.

The singularity is massively overrated in my opinion. Computing Forever made a great video on the matter.

(youtube snip)

Now that isn't to say we aren't going to make better computers as time goes on, but many of the ideals given to what the singularity will do, such as immortality and god like A.I. are just fantasy.

All he says is that having a 2010s smartphone interface glued onto our faces would suck, because social media is too prevalent and taxing on us. It's like a baby's first video about the singularity which criticises the guy's own off-the-mark conclusion. He presents some mundane crap and only tangentially references a bit of the more fantastical things.

I don't know how cooky that singularity-preacher he mentioned in the video is, but technological singularity means that computers/AI learn or develop tools which they'll use to improve technology (themselves) even further which in turn makes the newest tech more and more incomprehensible to us humans. THAT is what people predict might happen in the coming decades, but what changes that will bring into our lives is speculative fiction.

OT: I'll be 72, 20-years from retirement. Woo *cough* hoo!

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Marx is stupid, maybe we'll find a new kind of alternative to capitalism. A good one, y'know.

This is meant as criticism not as an insult. When people say things like "Marx is stupid" without backing it up with evidence, the comments are seen as childish ad hominem attacks. Give us a reason to dismiss Karl Marx beyond what might just be a lingering bit of the "Red Scare" left in your mentality, or perhaps we should dismiss you.

His mode of production and his work with Engels display a certain level of believing in structural-based economic determism and yet many of his adherents (such as Lenin) threw a hissy fit when called out about it!!! ...

I got nothing, personally ... in truth, Marxist theory wass fantastically prophetic. We saw the Taylorism that Marxists were talking about come the 20th century, and the subsequent alienation between labourer and their means of production. If anything, I say scrap machines doing people's work and remove wage-slave endorsed taylorism. Sure it will increase the cost of production, but at the same time more people will be able to actually afford it, and the added boost of people in society naturally improving through the diversification of skills through industriousness is always a good thing for a society to have.

The solution isn't merely paying people the rewards of an automated society, it's about creating reasons for people to feel invested in themselves and their society. So government owned, human-centred manufacturing is optimal. Don't just stick a person on an assembly line and pay them peanuts, let them act in every measure (within reason) in the the industry they work in and allow the workers to directly benefit from the industry they service.

I'd rather a society where a person has a reason to get out of bed, have their mind and body challenged 10 hours a day, and be treated with respect for it ... than someone merely paid ever increasing amounts of money for what little, soul-draining labour that can be eked from their existence. Naturally there is a certain distinction between automation and tool that merely make something safer, but there is leagues difference between a powerdrill and an automated factory. How much suffering is increased or decreased should be the primary argument towards whether there should be automation, not merely an argument of how much cheaper it is.

But if it's an argument between whether or not I want a society that has a wide range and diversification of individual skills, who are involved in the very processes of civilization, and merely a machine that would decrease our participation in our communities ... even if I'm receiving benefits for the latter (which is unlikely, but let's say that automation actually helps the average person achieve greater resources and more free time), I still think there's a better argument in the former. A smarter human is preferable to any machine, intelligent or not.

So I quite like Marxist theory. It's romantic, and it leads to better people. Win-Win. I disagree with Marxism because it assumes that you need a central authority to make things fair, however. Hence why I'm not a Marxist myself. I don't think political hierarchy is necessary once you achieve a worker-centred trade federation.

 

[Generalissimo]

We all know what 2065 will be like.

Spoiler: 5... 4... 3... 2... 1.

you probably used that as an excuse to insert the thunderbirds theme. I am entirely Ok with this.

 

[Cycloptomese]

I believe that it will finally be legal to marry your sexbot.

 

[Politrukk]

Honestly, I don't think it'll be very different from right now, how we might do things will change, but we will be doing the same things then as we are now. I don't think we will be on Mars, or Venus, any time soon, and I don't think we will go back to the moon unless we find something of justifiable value there. Yeah, I'm not an optimist.

I guess the biggest problem with the supposed "moon colony" is that there's nothing there that we can really use.

 

[JohnZ117]

Snipped

The singularity is massively overrated in my opinion. Computing Forever made a great video on the matter.


Now that isn't to say we aren't going to make better computers as time goes on, but many of the ideals given to what the singularity will do, such as immortality and god like A.I. are just fantasy.

Watched the video. Am quite unimpressed. First of all, the word is nu-Cle-ar. Mispronouncing it lowers your credibility nearer to the levels of George W. Bush and Sarah Palin in my mind.

Second, Ray Kurzweil is not the Transhumanist movement, and yet the poster sees fit to mention only him. Look around the 'net and other spaces for other, less obsessed sources before you criticize the whole thing. Also, the Borg and Skynet, while wonderful Fictional villains, were at most warnings of what could happen, not inevitabilities. All advancement should be done cautiously, but it might be more perilous to stagnate due to fear.

Third, to all who think Nature is as wonderful and glorious as this man seems to think, I say "Here, drink this hemlock!"

 

[viranimus]

How adorable. Such idealism and hope.

The future has already been written.


And it is coming on a far faster schedule than predicted.

Here is my prediction, we keep increasing our technological advancement not really to improve humanity but for ridiculous commercial ends and endless consumerism as the population continues to skyrocket to unsustainable levels and the level of resources dwindle resulting in an eventual "rebalancing" that forcibly culls the fat of the herd down to a tiny fraction of what it is now that leaves those future humans to have to adapt to conditions like uninhabitable lands, actual scarcity, lost knowledge. In 50 years you will start to see this future emerging with likely some sort if not multiple cataclysm.

But hey, its 50 years, Ill be more than dead, so yanno, who is going to tell me I was wrong? I kinda doubt I will care even if they did.

 

[Zontar]

Watched the video. Am quite unimpressed. First of all, the word is nu-Cle-ar. Mispronouncing it lowers your credibility nearer to the levels of George W. Bush and Sarah Palin in my mind.

"Nuclear" is probably the most regionalized word in the English language. The way it was pronounced in the video is how 80% of the British and Irish I've ever seen say it, and how we in Quebec say it is "New-Clay-Air" instead of the "New-Clear" that is supposedly the "correct" way of saying it.

Your way of saying it sounds as wrong to us as the way we say it sounds wrong to you is what I'm saying, and if it lowers the credibility to you, then you're cutting off a massive part of the people who have degrees in nuclear physics and nuclear engineering.

Second, Ray Kurzweil is not the Transhumanist movement, and yet the poster sees fit to mention only him. Look around the 'net and other spaces for other, less obsessed sources before you criticize the whole thing. Also, the Borg and Skynet, while wonderful Fictional villains, were at most warnings of what could happen, not inevitabilities. All advancement should be done cautiously, but it might be more perilous to stagnate due to fear.

He criticized Kurzweil because he's one of the most well known and outspoken on the matter, and a lot of the criticism thrown at him apply overall to the movement as a whole, especially the elements of ignoring the potential downsides to it.

The comparison to the Borg and Skynet are valid given some of the things people in the trandhuman movement have been advocating. Sure not all call for things of that nature, but it's common enough to address.

Third, to all who think Nature is as wonderful and glorious as this man seems to think, I say "Here, drink this hemlock!"

You know, in a few other videos of his he actually does bring up how people often mistakenly compare him to a Luddite.

People like him (and I) aren't anti-technology, we're just making the observation that 5 million years of human evolution tends to lead the default body be better then the mechanical alternatives which not only have yet to create a prosthetic of equal quality to the natural alternative, but it's doubtful any of us will live to see something like an artificial heart which is better then a natural one, which is probably why research is aimed not at making better mechanical ones but replicating living tissue instead.

When we're talking about messing with things like the brain, something we don't even completely understand how it works, it's a frightening thought to have that replaced by machines which are much more prone to braking down. That's not even getting into the Agamemnon issue of how much of the brain can you replace before you stop being a person and are instead a biological android.

 

[JohnZ117]

Watched the video. Am quite unimpressed. First of all, the word is nu-Cle-ar. Mispronouncing it lowers your credibility nearer to the levels of George W. Bush and Sarah Palin in my mind.

"Nuclear" is probably the most regionalized word in the English language. The way it was pronounced in the video is how 80% of the British and Irish I've ever seen say it, and how we in Quebec say it is "New-Clay-Air" instead of the "New-Clear" that is supposedly the "correct" way of saying it.

Your way of saying it sounds as wrong to us as the way we say it sounds wrong to you is what I'm saying, and if it lowers the credibility to you, then you're cutting off a massive part of the people who have degrees in nuclear physics and nuclear engineering.

Then how do they pronounce nucleus, nuclear, nucleate, nucleation...? And, aluminum only has 1 "i," and Jaguar is a native South American term with 2 syllables. ;P

Third, to all who think Nature is as wonderful and glorious as this man seems to think, I say "Here, drink this hemlock!"

You know, in a few other videos of his he actually does bring up how people often mistakenly compare him to a Luddite.

People like him (and I) aren't anti-technology, we're just making the observation that 5 million years of human evolution tends to lead the default body be better then the mechanical alternatives which not only have yet to create a prosthetic of equal quality to the natural alternative, but it's doubtful any of us will live to see something like an artificial heart which is better then a natural one, which is probably why research is aimed not at making better mechanical ones but replicating living tissue instead.

When we're talking about messing with things like the brain, something we don't even completely understand how it works, it's a frightening thought to have that replaced by machines which are much more prone to braking down. That's not even getting into the Agamemnon issue of how much of the brain can you replace before you stop being a person and are instead a biological android.

You compare what has taken 5 million years to the proverbial "blink of an eye," so of course we are going to come up short, unless we are talking tools, weaponry, flight...and technology. Then again, evolution took 5 million years to come up with us, and we are still a flawed "design," in part because it is un-directed. Get a way to manage the process, and we get a creature that can barely jump, and have them fly to the moon. You say "messing around" (a possible straw man fallacy), I say exploring, learning, and understanding ways to improve on what we have.

 

[Zontar]

You compare what has taken 5 million years to the proverbial "blink of an eye," so of course we are going to come up short, unless we are talking tools, weaponry, flight...and technology. Then again, evolution took 5 million years to come up with us, and we are still a flawed "design," in part because it is un-directed. Get a way to manage the process, and we get a creature that can barely jump, and have them fly to the moon. You say "messing around" (a possible straw man fallacy), I say exploring, learning, and understanding ways to improve on what we have.

There are limitations on such things due to the laws of physics. Energy storage, for example, will make any artificial organ that isn't biological in nature (cells created in a lab) be more efficient then a mechanical one due simply to the fact that it is impossible to make a self contained unit. When it comes to replacing organs, biological replacements are inherently superior to mechanical ones just for efficiency purposes, to say nothing of maintenance.

And that isn't even starting the can of worms that is brain cyberization, and the question of if making a cybernetic copy of a human brain is even physically possible (as of yet no evidence points towards 'yes' being an answer) and assuming doing so is possible then there's the question of how much can be changed before you stop being the person you are and start being a copy of that person. Though given how many people will die from the tests required to even test these questions it's possible we won't get to there for a long time anyway.

 

[Drathnoxis]

It'll be a lot like the year 2064.