I was having a conversation with my friend about this. We were discussing AI and she believes AI will destroy all of humanity just like so many others. I personally don’t believe that. I’m aware of all the theories and the multitude of ways that it could happen and I understand that with AI, in theory we wouldn’t understand its goals so we wouldn’t know how it would destroy us but again, that’s just a theory.
There’s also the constant fear of massive nuclear holocaust with WWIII but I also don’t believe that we’d realistically get to a point where we’d use Nukes on each other knowing the implications of what would happen. But it made me realize that we’re constantly fearful of mass extinction. To the point where some people fight tooth and nail and will not try to look at things from a more positive or optimistic perspective. It’s all death or you’re wrong.
Please help me understand this. I’m here with open ears.
No clue why we need AI for that, we can arrange our mass extinction perfectly by ourselves by just continuing on this road. 🤭
At this moment, I think the main issue is that we as a species don’t think enough of our mass extinction. For some strange reason, most people (at least in ‘the west’) think they’ll survive whatever happens, nuclear war, climate change,…
However, no matter the method of our extinction, I guess most people thinking about it think it would be bad. From nature’s point of view we’re just “a species” and when evolution in this direction proves to be a bad route, no big loss.
Unless in possession of a crystal ball, nobody can say what is bound to happen to our species as climate changes take place.
Like any other species we are vulnerable to extinction but as many physicist have underlined, the highest risk for a civilization is its start. After a certain point is achieved, a civilization can become technically immortal.
Yes maybe humanity will adapt and survive, but adapting in this case will mean witnessing billions of deaths and a very poor quality of life and much shorter life expectancy for the survivors. Imagine entire nations having to relocate because their homelands are now unsuitable for human life. That will not be a pleasurable experience for anybody and will lead to wars and genocide.
What qualifies a physicist to discuss the immortality of a civilization?
Here, indulge.
An per your question: the same that qualifies you or me, which is being alive and capable of observe and extrapolate possible outcomes through thinking.
You’d be surprised by most people’s ability to do so.
It’s sad how stupid people are full of certainty while the intelligent are always full of doubt.
That is the biggest concern we should have.
Then why are we taking their opinion over our own?
Typically, when people cite something like that, they defer to an expert in that field. In this case, maybe an anthropologist? There’s nothing in the training to be a physicist that prepares them to understand the early stages of civilizations forming, let alone is longevity.
Have you read the article?