0 members online
Immortality

Afn

6 Million People

Our current population is 6.5 billion people. If life extension technologies create super extended life spans there will not be enough arable land to feed, cloth, house and give a lower middle class to working class lifestyle to all 6.5 billion of us.


I propose a radical solution to our problems. Mass extinctions. Remember the dinosaurs? As robots replace human labor, we will not need so many people on this planet. Wars are good. They kill people. My position is clear, we need a global scale war to kill as many people as we can so we can create the society that will be able to shepherd humanity into the post-singularity.


As radical as this idea may seem, wars are good for capitalism. Technology and and innovation advances faster in war than in peacetime. Soldiers killed on the battlefield, or in an office building like the 9-11 trade center bombings, create insurance payoffs, and can lead to massive job openings in a troubled economy.


If it is true that we are just as little as 50 years away from radically extended life spans. Most work that we consider worth human effort will be automated and the human element eliminated from the position. We can not have 5 billion people with nothing to do, no employment prospects or ability to create wealth. Hence, we will need an enviromentally friendly way to eliminate millions of people.


I propose we engineer a plague, or find some other way to reduce human population levels to about 1 million per continent. To create a world of only 6 million of us. Perhaps, such a plan is already in the works. There is an easy way to engineer a plague. Nuclear war is a possible solution, because governments around the world can blame the terrorists, and millions of lives lost will make way for new life.

the Robots with human level intelligence would eliminate millions of positions, Multi-core processors in a few years with the correct software could replace most white collar positions. Even if the new 100 core computers cost $25,000 or less, white collar work would be eliminated. The cost advantages of using a machine or robot to do intellectual or physical work will create a no-job society. Why pay a human when a robot or computer can do it better, cheaper, faster.  

Who do we selectively eliminate? Anyone without a post graduate degree? Anyone with a criminal conviction, perhaps? If we selectively eliminate at a 1 to 1000 ratio, there would be room to grow. Gas chambers are politically incorrect. The goal is not to exterminate entire species of people, just to eliminate the masses without the population elimination be considered to be politically incorrect.

I give you this post as a point to ponder. As technology advances and the mass production of robotics elminates human labor, at some future point mass exitinctions would give humanity the potential to reengineer the planet for super-longevity.

Selective elimination will allow for us to enter the singularity with enough land and resources for greatly extended life spans. My thoughts are radical. Wars exist. People are killed. If we have a global pandemic that was engineered, or nuclear war, or a bio-engineered grey goo. Mass extinctions would clear the land and the planet for a post-singularity future where everyone lives in a garden of eden.*


(*Biblical reference to the garden of eden not intended. )

Published Thursday, April 05, 2007 8:22 AM by Afn

Comment Notification

Join or sign in to track comments

Comments

 

SomaSynth wrote on April 5, 2007 3:43 PM

You're a little late for April fools there. I hope there's no deranged apocalypsist reading this that takes it seriously.

 

Afn wrote on April 5, 2007 5:45 PM

Eliminating people when robots perform most intellectual tasks is not deranged thinking. At some point in the near future, we will NOT need millions of people. So what do we do with them?

Creativity is not unique. In a perfect world we can give 4-5 billion people extended lifespans and a middle to upper class lifestyle. Let's hope that our planet can sustain that level of economic activity and sustainablity.

 

Sgaileach1 wrote on April 5, 2007 5:48 PM

Oh right, sustainability is just SO hard to figure out.  Put limits on childbirth per interval of time, retool the social welfare system to provide enough for consumers to buy and be happy without having to do anything or work at any of the jobs that no longer exist (replaced by "robots") and put the remaining volunteers to subsidized work building ecologically salubrious new infrastructure and all the gadgets we'll be buying...  

Nope, just can't get my head around that one.  It just doesn't mesh with my simplistic master-slave mentality.  Better just stop making money and kill everything instead, that makes way more sense.

 

Sgaileach1 wrote on April 5, 2007 6:03 PM

Creativity is not unique?  Isn't that a lot like saying chaos isn't random since we can predict it will be chaotic?  Honestly, where are you pulling that nonsense from?  Sounds like you could use some self esteem, nihilism and atheism are little more than crutches for the weak minded.

If we can pull our collective heads out of our greed and vanity induced stupor long enough to evolve a sense of compassion and creative ingenuity about handling these issues, to the benefit of all including the almighty profit margins, this planet will have no problem supporting us for many centuries to come.  Given even existing infrastructure most generous estimates put a healthy cap at around 15 billion.

At that point there ARE other planets out there we might at least consider looking into.  

 

adbatstone wrote on April 5, 2007 6:25 PM

Good idea. Why not start with Melbourne, Australia? That place is the worst hellhole in the world and a total waste of space.

 

adbatstone wrote on April 5, 2007 6:27 PM

http://www.vhemt.org/

Voluntary Human Extinction Movement: "Stop breeding".

 

Russell Blackford wrote on April 6, 2007 2:11 AM

Um, right. Maybe we could eat some Irish kids, as well - or apply it more widely to kids from other countries. That would get the global population down quite Swiftly.

 

spindizzy wrote on April 6, 2007 2:54 AM

> Put limits on childbirth per interval of time.

Responsible population control is an unavoidable necessity. Unfortunately, necessity and popular morality run counter to each other. If you haven't already, take a moment to read Garrett Hardin and some of his critics to understand how people react to the idea that procreation is not an unqualified good.

 

Sgaileach1 wrote on April 6, 2007 10:55 AM

Indeed, perhaps a more modest proposal is in order...  Seriously, I see no problem with opposition to a justly imposed limit on registered births.  You don't even need sweeping legislative intervention, just a sound fiscal policy that imposes a tax on those who fail to comply, in direct proportion to the parent's income.  The more kids you have beyond reasonable and necessary limits the costlier it will become, and if you can't afford the bare minimum quality of living standard to provide for them they are placed in protective custody.

New forms of biochemical birth control will make this much easier (on a voluntary basis of course); just flip a genetic switch and you're sterile until you switch it back, without the need to inundate your body with unnatural levels of hormones we should be able to see by now are causing all sorts of problems including unhealthy levels of estrogen in the water supply and an increased rate of cancer among young women.

The bottom line however is that something as fundamental as the right to life cannot by relegated off as a protection only offered to those of privilege who can afford an unnecessarily outrageous and proprietary price tag, and governments will inevitably need to step in and take some of the power back from these massive corporate monopolies and the imbalanced aristocracy of wealth, at least enough to fulfill their fundamental responsibility to provide for the security and wellbeing of the general populace.  Life, liberty, and happiness where it is possible to reasonably provide for it.  Exponential returns for more than 5%.

Of course if you choose to waive your right to immortality you can add an extra kid to your quota.  Whatever blows your hair back I suppose.  

 

Acrinoe wrote on April 7, 2007 8:16 PM

Radical indeed.  The only radical thing I trust is radical moderation.  I hope that your argument is merely a ruse to draw out dialog.  I find it disturbing that you might be serious.

Warfare, murder, genocide, extermination, etc. - dress it up in any language you like; it's still immoral and heinous.  You think "we" need to eliminate a large percentage of the population to create a society to "sheperd in the singularity"?  What makes you think you're going to be part of the so called elite?  Playing nice and following the golden rule (do unto others and all that) is going to be extremely important as personal power expands with technological progress.

I would suggest that any mass warfare would be one of the few things that could actually throw a major monkey wrench toward a timely progession to a technological singularity.  If the next Einstein doesn't get a good education due to his county being embroiled in war, or if he were pressed into service to kill others instead of inventing, then any real progress in will be slight indeed.  

Whine that robots will take jobs?  Good!  More people to concentrate on doing things a robots can't do.  Creating!  Inventing!  Learning!

Complain the letting all 6 billion people have an equal chance at good standards of living?  This isn't a problem, it's a good start.  Figuring out the way to do it is merely the challenge.  With more people alive in this century than in human kinds entire existance, I look forward to seeing the modern equivalents of Newton, Ramanujan, Bohr, Ford, Einstein, and Heisenberg times twenty...step forward and put thier minds to solutions.

Guess what?  One of the solutions may be to find new homes.  Get of this ball of dirt, trapped at the bottom of a gravity well.  

I have a fear that humanity's strength of numbers may be in jeopardy from the coming age of power.  Uncontrollable addiction to direct electrical stimulation of pleasure centers in the brain could lead to horrible loss of life.  Giving in to temptation and turing away from the real world and real life for virtual fantasy and playgrounds of the mind is another potential landmine.

We don't need to invent horrors our future.  They will come to us all on their own.  We will need every creative and constructive mind on the planet to be there and help find solutions.  No joke.

 

CP wrote on May 1, 2007 2:41 PM

Population levels will decline as living standards increase. Don't let the rabid leftist fanatics get you upset -- their agenda is setting up an elite dictatorship over oppressed peasants, which is the outcome of socialism.

If the vicious Moslem fanatics don't impose their version of same, people in other places will become comfortable, prosperous, and find their birthrates falling. Western countries + Japan and a couple of others will develop lifeways of living with high living standards and power over "nature" that will be quite functional. The population will fall to about a quarter of the present and stabalize there if prosperity is maintained for more and more people and the savages and leftist fanatics are restrained.

Join or sign in to post a comment
Submit
Advertise | Help | Contact | About | Terms | Privacy | Copyright © 2007 Betterhumans | Powered by Community Server | Partners:
World Transhumanist Association Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies Immortality Institute Methuselah Mouse Prize Foresight Institute Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence Lifeboat Foundation