Humanity Does Not Steer, but Should Enjoy the Ride by Stephen Ashworth

Stephen,

Well-organized thoughts on a prescribed direction of space exploration and exploitation. However, as a type 0 civilization, we seem to have meager capabilities for space with a technology limiting human survival, speed of spacecraft and the high cost of launching vehicles. As you suggest, our endeavor is not exactly conscious, and perhaps with a conscious effort, we might advance quickly. It is true that a plasma propulsion system can reduce a Mars trip to some 3 months rather than 2 years, but still harmful radiation is a survival factor. I assume you are speaking of solar-system travel to asteroids and other close sources of resources. What time frame do you pose for a survival that steering for the future must consider.

I like your approach but like my essay, it is difficult to foretell a viable approach once you describe our current steering problems.

Jim

Hi Stephen,

I like how you have considered the potential confrontation of different groups who have different views of how we should prepare for and build the future.It would, as you explain, be difficult to unite mankind with a single purpose without imposing views upon people, compulsion. Compulsion to support for example a technological trans-human pathway would be as bad, as I see it, as compulsion to follow an extreme religious fundamentalist pathway. Though both have supporters who see that pathway as correct and desirable. The path we really do not want is unlimited growth in economies (using up resources more quickly) or populations (requiring more resources).

Migration to space will not solve the population problem, all the while there is growth, but the idea will give hope. There may be resources that could be mined but rather than doing that, which requires a lot of energy, it might be better to learn restraint and to reuse the resources we already have and invest the money for space programmes into developing resilient, self sufficient, sustainable Earth societies.

I can see the goal of space migrations being something that all mankind could get behind with appropriate political-social engineering. Though at present the cost and current technology are limiting factors.It would be necessary to sell the idea to the people making the cost and dangers seem acceptable and the migration a natural progression in mankind's development that gives hope for the future survival of the species.

I think your essay is well written, relevant and thought provoking. Good luck,Georgina

What an excellent essay, Stephen.

Though I disagree with the premise that humanity cannot steer its future -- I can see how the assumption of hierarchies forces that conclusion. I argue the opposite in my own essay, which hopefully should shortly appear -- that laterally distributed, not hierarchical, information in a complex system makes self determination possible. I hope we can get into a lovely discussion of these contrasting models. Thanks for a great read!

Tom

I meant to say "lively," yet perhaps "lovely" fits!

It's interesting that a denial of the question should rate so highly (currently top) among those trying to answer it. When you're able to catch up, Stephen, I'd like to critique your essay a little. Would you be willing to reciprocate?

Dear Author Stephen Ashworth

Rarely seen a thoughtful analysis and focused as you.

I also noticed: Humans should not (and can not) directing future.

Let come Future by measures of Future will use to choose us?

Best wishes with the highest point - Hải.CaoHoàng

Respektlosigkeit zu Regierung und Wirtschaft ist nicht sinnvoll.

Hi Stephen,

You write superbly! That was a pleasure to read. Like many others though I object to the somewhat fatalistic elements presented. Rather than simple observers, are we not participants in the process you propose? If so, then our choices, part of the system or not, will profoundly alter the outcome, and though we should be extremely wary of power-hungry people highjacking the reigns of power, should we not still attempt to steer in a direction informed by morality (and not simply an 'inevitable' future)?

None the less, I found the concepts you present still very interesting! Thanks once again for a superb read,

Ross

A wonderfully written essay, Stephen, even if we do come from opposite sides of the fence on this issue. You critical comments and vote on my own post would be greatly appreciated.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2063

What I will say here is that I recently read Lee Billings' Five Billion Years of Solitude which has shaped my view on these issues. Billings quote a scholar Tom Murphy who calculated that if the world would grow at a meager 2.5 % per year our energy requirements would demand the entire Milky Way galaxy covered in energy capturing Dyson Spheres. He quote Murphy: "We know in some detail what human beings were doing 2,500 years ago. I think I can safely say what they WON'T be doing 2,500 years hence".

Our current path is unsustainable over the medium term, and the explosion of growth since the industrial revolution may prove shorter than many expect.

Thanks for a thought provoking essay.

Best of luck!

Rick Searle

As the title implies, this essay rejects attempting to answer the question; instead, it adopts the familiar stance of awarding almost moral force status to "evolution" which is considered as beyond human control, notwithstanding the claim that we will now take control of our literal evolution as biological or technological creatures.

Basically, the idea is that humans must choose human extinction so that some "more evolved" critter can take our place and carry on the great project of evolution. This is taking the familiar fear that Darwin's theory would banish God and carrying it one step further: Evolution as God, as the source of moral order.

E.g.:

"Several lines of technological progress, particularly nanotechnology, information technology, robotics, genetics and medicine, are together converging on a new definition of what it is to be human, or perhaps on a range of new definitions, and this increased flexibility will be valuable as humans adapt to living in novel engineered environments away from the planet on which they originally evolved."

OK, first, the goal to which these technologies are converging is "a new definition of what it is to be human"?

And why are we interested in redefining such an important word? We know what it means. We are this species, Homo sapiens.

But I guess you would have to redefine "human" in order to make sense of the proposition that some creatures which are not Homo sapiens will make use of "this increasing flexibility... as humans adapt...."

I, personally want no part of any revolution whose completion requires the redefinition of "human."d

Don't mistake a clear view for a short distance. I count myself among the critics who say that today "extraterrestrial resources are too widely diffused over too large a volume of space for economic retrieval." Of course this won't always remain true. But it seems far from clear why humanity's future becomes better if we "spread enlightened understanding of our place in the universe and our potential for future growth using the material and energy resources of our own and other solar systems." People have limited time and attention, and the time people spend understanding this is time taken away from other things. If we are a long way away from actually using space resources, I don't see the point in forcing people today who are focused on other issues to understand that eventually we hope to expand into space.

Dear Stephen,

I have enjoyed your reading your very well-written essay. I am an enthusiast for migration to other habitable planets. However, one big hurdle, in my opinion, is the time of travel, which is enormous, compared to human life-span. It sets great challenges for technology, for it would seem generations would live and die on the way before the destination can be reached! Physics would be of great help if one day we could understand whether the speed of light is a fundamental theoretical barrier, or only a representation of our current theoretical understanding. Maybe one day when we understand quantum theory better, and we have a quantum theory of gravity, we might also understand space-time structure more deeply, perhaps enabling an easier `way out' for migration to outer space. But I think this is very futuristic and I wonder if humanity should first work to set other terrestrial problems right, so that when we understand science well enough to migrate conveniently, we are still left with enough resources to do so.

Kind regards,

Tejinder

P.S., I will use the following rating scale to rate the essays of authors who tell me that they have rated my essay:

10 - the essay is perfection and I learned a tremendous amount

9 - the essay was extremely good, and I learned a lot

8 - the essay was very good, and I learned something

7 - the essay was good, and it had some helpful suggestions

6 - slightly favorable indifference

5 - unfavorable indifference

4 - the essay was pretty shoddy and boring

3 - the essay was of poor quality and boring

2 - the essay was of very poor quality and boring

1 - the essay was of shockingly poor quality and extremely flawed

After all, that is essentially what the numbers mean.

The following is a general observation:

Is it not ironic that so many authors who have written about how we should improve our future as a species, to a certain extent, appear to be motivated by self-interest in their rating practices? (As evidence, I offer the observation that no article under 3 deserves such a rating, and nearly every article above 4 deserves a higher rating.)

Dear Ashworth,

I found it absorbing.

As the energy from such a star flows through the surface environment of an orbiting planet it can power an "information bomb". In my article STRIKING A BALANCE BETWEEN TECHNOLOGY AND ECOSYSTEM you will see how the energy from the sun ultimately represent the input source of life for all scientific explorations on earth and which must be consciously used to steer a better world. You will also see how humanity can" enjoy the ride" as you quote. I sincerely employ you to read it. It is not an over statement to say that many authors got inspirations and motivations from earlier essays like you- I have advocated against such in the general forum section anyway! I have rated your essay.

Find my direct article here http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2020

I expect your comments and rating as well:

Wishing you the best in the competition.

Regards

Gbenga

Stephen,

Time grows short, so I am revisiting and rating. Have you had a chance to check mine out?

Jim

Stephen,

Yours was one of the first essays I read, but I didn't take the time back then to comment on it.

I really enjoyed your take on the question. I wholeheartedly agree with your conclusion that "humanity should steer the future [...] through spreading enlightened understanding of our place in the universe and our potential for future growth using the material and energy resources of our own and other solar systems, [and] using that long-range perspective to cut present-day problems down to a manageable size." What you propose fits quite well with the "futurocentric education initiative" that I described in my essay.

I hope your essay makes it to the finals, and I have rated it accordingly. Good luck!

Marc

Hello Stephen,

I am in your camp and agree with your essay, but, I believe we need to be more focused on a single short term attainable goal which will inspire and motivate people in the manner in which you have written. My essay addresses the single most pragmatic and highly motivating endeavor that humanity can currently undertake; with the side benefit of doubling our odds of long term survival.

Good luck,

Don Barker

PS. what ever font or text editor you used makes it very difficult for people to copy and paste your text. I would have highlighted examples had it been easier.

Dear Stephen Ashworth

You gave interesting proofs for evolution and a hope that humanity will evolve into the universe. For instance, we see relics of our evolution, these are bacteria, galaxies, etc. Dawkins say that "the first threshold is the appearance of replicators, a population of self-copying molecules with the property of heredity." What those molecules are: DNA, or their primitive form? Does their beginning forms exist today? Why not? Is it possible to simulate them? It is an interesting question for me to find the most primitive forms of life. I heard for a virus of the palm tree, which is the smallest possible virus. Do you know something more simple? Virus is the most primitive life, according to me, although biologists think they are not life form.

Here I also see the growth of Artificial Intelligence, which is almost necessary to help us to conquer the universe, because this conquest is very demanding.

But all this mechanistic principles of Dawkins do not explain consciousness. I wrote about it the old FQXi essay ... Explanation of life need explanation of consciousness.

My essay

Best regards

Janko Kokosar