Four years ago, Bill Joy warned that some of the most exciting new technologies on the horizon - genetic engineering, nanotechnology, robotics - could kill us all. That horizon has gotten appreciably closer, and Larry Lessig has recently reminded us of the dangers. He also put them in the context of contemporary international relations, which, obviously, don't offer much solace about the chances that a disaster will actually happen. In a sure sign we really should think about it all, insurance companies have even begun to hedge the costs. Lessig's analysis of the situation suggests that no police powers, however intrusive, could possibly protect us. GNR technologies will be well within reach of small, otherwise unremarkable groups of dedicated killers. And if we can't control the killers, it seems, our only option is to reduce their incentive to kill us. That's becoming a tough row to hoe.
I'd like to argue for a third option: Run away. Run away into the comparatively safe haven of virtual worlds.
As the intensity of the Iraq affair deepens, it is worth reflecting how much safer we would be were we known to others only through our online activity. Replace sites of congregation with virtual counterparts; build virtual Manhattans and Disneylands; hold meetings in virtual hotels and have trysts in virtual brothels. Spread the people across the globe and let them connect to one another through avatars alone. What can al-Qaeda do? Corpse-camp us until they're banned?
We hear much of the health dangers of net-dependent lifestyles. Netizens are said to be addicted, overweight, asocial, emotionally stunted. Yet we've learned that, in fact, Tinysex and everything else that happens online really does have an emotional richness to it, a richness that will be enhanced as game design begins to take advantage of affective computing. The isolated computer nerd has been replaced by the deeply-enmeshed multiplayer gamer and the social software maven. Interfaces like Eye Toy and DDR point to a future of gamer fitness. Just link these interfaces to Counter-Strike and watch as ripped gamer teens begin to pummel their RL TV-junkie adversaries into submission. As for addiction - if, given the above, everyone worth knowing is online, time offline becomes the problematic category.
OK, so if we move into cyberspace, we lose the body-to-body thing. Deplorable. Or is it?
Lessig, when referring to the horrors of GNR terrorism, describes them metaphorically as a nasty form of P2P activity. It's an interesting metaphor but overlooks a critical implication: GNR is a problem for P2P between bodies, not motherboards. Eliminate bodily P2P networks and you'll solve a number of problems. No dense accumulations of living, breathing souls for terrorists to annihilate. No need to worry about rogue nanobots or genetically engineered critters spreading through human contact. No need to travel to a place like Iraq to find work as a contractor. Indeed, no need to send armies there, or anywhere. No need to drive around in those gas-guzzling SUVs that keep us all entangled in the affairs of a nutty culture. Indeed, no need for dependence on any globally-concentrated power source; virtual world nets run on local power, not oil.
Yes, if we move online, we will still have to worry about software viruses, power outages, and spam. There will be griefing to deal with. And we'll miss the human touch. But perhaps the day is coming when such things will be seen as the lesser evils.
Perhaps we could also recognize that the 'we' you are presumably referring to (western countries?) are a lot better at murdering innocents than anyone trumpeting radical Islam.
Beyond that though, how do you propose removing a bodily network? How do you propose your computer gets built? How do you propose the huddled masses in overcrowded India, where you can't walk 2 feet without crashing into someone else, do that? Mass killings in the name of preventing mass killings? ;)
--matt
Posted by: Matt Mihaly | May 28, 2004 at 00:14
Shameless plug here. I made a blog on this very topic. I haven't gotten any hits as far as I know, but I also haven't told anyone about it. If ya read it, I will write it. The technology is just about in place to take this sort of thing as far as you want to take it. Check out the blog for more info.
As for my personal take on this, I think it's the future. I really do. We don't have to find any new planets, we can just hook ourselves up in a spaceship and point to the edge of the universe. Barring universe shaking disasters, we'll live forever. I don't see how it can fail. And as I've written, it's really not that far away.
Now, to rebut the non-believer:
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by a bodily network. The whole 'virtual universe' could be stored on one machine eventually. But until we get 'the machine that needs to be built', grid computing is going to take care of such problems handily. And I don't see why anyone needs to die at all to get it done. It won't even be expensive.
All we need is a lot of disk space, a good physics engine, and some way to stimulate the senses. This really isn't that far out.
Posted by: MM | May 28, 2004 at 01:09
> From Edward Castronova
> As the intensity of the Iraq affair deepens,
> it is worth reflecting how much safer we would
> be were we known to others only through our
> online activity.
When 90% of virtual worlds revolve around killing? I recall the unofficial army slogan, something like: "Travel all over the world, meet new and interesting people, and kill them." Most virtual worlds could use the same tag-line.
I know you didn't intend this implication, but with all that's going on in Iraq, Israel, Sudan, Indonesia, Columbia, etc., killing people doesn't seem particularly entertaining.
Posted by: Mike Rozak | May 28, 2004 at 01:35
Some guy stealing my initials (MM) wrote:
>I'm not entirely sure what you mean by a bodily >network.
Edward referred, above, to P2P among bodies. Essentially, connections between people face to face. "Normal" social relationships.
> The whole 'virtual universe' could be >stored on one machine eventually. But until we >get 'the machine that needs to be built', grid >computing is going to take care of such >problems handily. And I don't see why anyone >needs to die at all to get it done. It won't >even be expensive.
Because there are limited resources in the world, that's why, and virtual worlds will not, in the forseeable future, be obviating our need to eat. They will also not be obviating the need for limited natural resources to make and maintain the virtual worlds.
>All we need is a lot of disk space, a good >physics engine, and some way to stimulate the >senses. This really isn't that far out.
Yeah! That's all we need! (Well, that and an entire physical world to support it but hey, why worry about war over oil or water when you can immerse yourself killing orcs or f*cking virtual supermodels 24 hours a day! It's not your problem!)
--matt
Posted by: Matt Mihaly | May 28, 2004 at 02:47
Clearly, we aren't there yet.
But consider:
We need energy, of course. Solar power is the first thing that comes to mind. Gravity is all over the place. Could there be a way to harness that as an energy source?
As for obviating our need to eat, come on now. Only because we haven't tried. It's only an energy source. Nanotechnology could make recycling of materials possible on an unprecedented level. It's not there yet, but it's got to be coming. And that's assuming the most far out and shoot em into space method. Down here on earth we can already keep a body alive indefinitely with life support.
If the biggest fear is that all the people will be bottled up and no people will be 'in the real world' then let a select few hang out,or perhaps 'leaving the network' is something we can do when we die, voluntarily. But even if 100% of the people are 'gone', there will still be robots and we can still control them.
And it definitely will not take the entirety of the physical universe to contain such a simulation. Computers already can simulate far more than their size would indicate. So what we are talking about is computers that are fast enough. So how far do you wanna take it? Univac took up rooms back in the day, and now it fits on your wrist. Things get smaller and faster all the time. This is only a matter of time, and probably a short time at that.
As far as the orcs and supermodels go, if that's what you want, fine. But the point is that you'll be able to do nearly anything. A whole lot more than your 2 examples. And many of those things are sure to be a hell of a lot more fulfilling to me than worrying about wars over oil or water or God or any of the other things that make 'real life' so fascinating.
I don't understand the opposition to it really. Is the cause so worthless or evil? Why the no-can-do demeanor? We would never get anything done thinking like that. And besides... anything beats sittin' around here.
-MM
Posted by: MM | May 28, 2004 at 04:55
by the way, on the simulation of reality:
we've got brain-machine interfaces that provide visual input, others that provide output. If we can do sight, the other senses have to be easier I would think.
And we've got artificial blood too.
Much of the required technology either exists or is being developed. All we need is someone to put it together.
Posted by: MM | May 28, 2004 at 05:00
"I'd like to argue for a third option: Run away. Run away into the comparatively safe haven of virtual worlds."
You can run, but you can't hide...
Those on the outside will eventually get you. Just because its in their human nature.
When we all jack into "GeCent" (the name I gave it in my 1993 short story) we carry all that is good and all that is bad with us. The place will be just as good or bad as the original; with all our conflicts of interests playing out all over again.
You can run from yourself, but you can't hide...
Those on the inside will also eventually get you. Its in *your* nature.
Posted by: DivineShadow | May 28, 2004 at 08:27
The problem with this is that the hypothetical fears of GNR are not obviated by becoming decentralized. Though decentralization largely limited the potential devastation of a limited nuclear exchange, A gray goo would be just as effective at killing 12 million in manhattan as killing 12 million people scattered across the Dakotas. (were such a construction possible)
Bill Joy's wish to simply put away such technologies, is well meant, but it is a thoroughly unreasonable, uninformed, self-defeating desire. To remove the threat of a technology, one cannot hide from it. One must study it and develop alternatives and defensive technologies.
Back to the focus of this blog - I'd have to say that the progression toward the increasing frequency of 'virtual' interaction is natural at this point. It needn't be considered a change that has to be encouraged through outside means.
The slower rate of adoption neatly disguises the infrastructure's unreadyness for truly ubiquitous use.
Posted by: weasel | May 28, 2004 at 09:18
My "fear" (though I hesitate to put it that way considering I'm not quite afraid of it yet) would be entropy. Systems appear to have a normal inclination towards chaos. Why would a virtual simulation be any different? Anyone read Michael Crichton's book "Jurassic Park?" His between-chapter comments on chaos theory and entropy echo loudly in my thoughts on this subject.
Also, with regards to technology:
MM: we've got brain-machine interfaces that provide visual input, others that provide output. If we can do sight, the other senses have to be easier I would think.
Actually, I'd think sight and sound would be the easiest of sensations to produce. We have a model for light & sound, how they "work," how we can replicate and/or duplicate their effects. We have yet (afaik) to come up with a comparable model for touch, smell or taste. Or, if we do have a model, we have yet to replicate/duplicate those senses' effects as we have with light and sound. That's a pretty big hurdle to full-immersion.
Posted by: Alan Stern | May 28, 2004 at 09:43
It's surprising how little of total consumption goes to bodily needs. According to the most recent data, we have $7 trillion in spending in the US. $1 trillion of that was food, $1.2 trillion medical care, $1.75 trillion for housing. Housing and some other categories (clothing, transport) would be lower if we tried to live in cyberspace.
Anyway, I was not advocating this as paradise. It just occurred to me that the risks to bodily harm would be lower. Gray goo in general is still a problem, but not body-born nanobots. And yes, we will take evil with us into cyberspace, no question. But suppose I am living with my loved ones in a safe place. The evil online can make us sad, but it can't kill us.
Posted by: Edward Castronova | May 28, 2004 at 10:52
I was hoping this was a joke thread, but I guess not. What exactly is going to keep the lunatics who want to kill innocents from doing so if we 'run away'? They'll take one look at us all nestled in our VR helmets, take pity on us, and go back home to sign up for an EQ account?
"What can al-Qaeda do? Corpse-camp us until they're banned?"
They'll find it all the easier to do whatever they do while we actively seek divergent realities. In fact, divergent realities is arguably the root cause of the current situation. How much easier will it be to kill you and your family when no one else lives nearby and you are all oblivious to external stimuli? Human concentration and bodily networks have benefits as well as liabilities.
And there's some deep irony when your motive for seeking disembodiment is to protect...your body.
Posted by: Chu | May 28, 2004 at 12:37
While it may be true that we would be oblivious to external stimuli, it would also be true that we would be reducing the incentive to kill us. Let's not forget that. And still, no one says that everyone has to go. It would probably be neccessary to have caretakers or what have you.
Posted by: MM | May 28, 2004 at 12:50
I'm getting flashbacks of Matrix and Zion.
Temporary escapes, like vacations, are great, but we'll have to find our balance between VWs and RL.
Oh, I'm getting flashbacks of D&D adventures of astral travel. In one adventure, we had to save our bodies in material plane from inside the astral plane.
Frank
Posted by: magicback | May 28, 2004 at 13:06
I'm getting flashbacks of Matrix and Zion.
Temporary escapes, like vacations, are great, but we'll have to find our balance between VWs and RL.
Oh, I'm getting flashbacks of D&D adventures of astral travel. In one adventure, we had to save our bodies in material plane from inside the astral plane.
Frank
Posted by: magicback | May 28, 2004 at 13:07
I haven't given up on this thread being, at very least, quite tongue-in-cheek.
One could hardly classify all the money spent on food, houses, and clothing as merely meeting basic human needs. Maybe half, here in the US, 10% in southern California. What % is spent by the Hilton sisters?
Posted by: Staarkhand | May 28, 2004 at 13:24
"The evil online can make us sad, but it can't kill us."
Apparently someone has never heard of Black I.C.E. : )
And every fictional setting I can think of that involves some sort of elite being jacked into pods and attended by caretakers ends with them being killed by the "rebels" or their own guardians. I know that's not exactly what's being proposed, but I still have visions of HAL shutting off our life support while we think we're leveling up...
Posted by: Euphrosyne | May 28, 2004 at 14:43
Um.
Accepting the premise as sincere, Ted ignores the virtual harm that has real-player effects in these systems: Can you say Virus? or Bugs? And that's before we talk about the some of the most broken economies that ever existed. [ Money from nowhere? Whaa? ]
I'm not moving into cyberspace in the foreseeable future. It's not as safe as my house. Long before then my deck had better have a capability-based operating system.
My virtual environment is infected/broken/compromised several times a year, and is often functionally incapacitating. The last time my meat failed me at that level (an appendicitis) was more than 10 years ago. :-P
Perhaps when I'm on my death-bed I'll feel differently... Wait! ... I've heard this all before: Abandon your body and go to a place that is safe, where your (new) body is regenerated and no one can hurt you anymore.
Ted is the first messiah of a new afterlife religion, with the special twist that you don't have to kill yourself to go to heaven! But you do need a good reputation on He-bay if you want to eat. :-)
OK, so I can't really take it that seriously.
So shoot me.
Randy
Posted by: F. Randall Farmer | May 28, 2004 at 15:04
I'd frame the wider threat as our global mono-culture. Ecologically, that's a very risky system. If natural systems are any guide, one efficient threat, and its all over. We need to move to a more diverse system, as fast a possible. Fortunately, our growing expertise with self replicating systems may provide the solution as well as the threat. With high tech self replication, local self-sufficiency becomes possible again, with a huge gain in security. There is a nasty gap though between enabling the dangers of self replication, and enabling the benefits.
I'm pessimistic that we will get through that gap. Not for technical reasons, but sociological ones. The benefits of the new technologies can be good overall, but bad for those in power. Our whole power structure is based on scarcity, and cheap reproduction threatens that. In theory, objects in virtual worlds should be very cheap to replicate. But all the Virtual worlds to date have put massive coding effort into making them scarce. Which preserves the status quo. I look forward to seeing a VW that doesn't enforce this artificial scarcity. Hopefully, it will give us some practice for a more abundant world in the future.
Posted by: Hellinar | May 28, 2004 at 15:52
Any 100 percent completely accurate model of something has to be, in every aspect, the equivalent of the thing itself. So a model of the universe, if it were in fact 100 percent accurate, would have to be as large as the universe itself. And let's not forget that it would have to have a version of itself in that model, as it would be a part of the universe that it was modeling completely accurately.
But this all turns into slack-jawed fractal gazing pretty quickly. When you make a model, it's a limited, less-detailed representation of a thing that conveys only one or some aspect or aspects of information to you, based on pertinence to what you are attempting to learn from the model. A model of a railroad system, for example, wouldn't include all the solar system's planets and orbiting patterns, as it would be data that doesn't impact the model's applicable accuracy enough to warrant it. Night and day ought to do it.
Some might try and argue that perhaps the entire solar system's planets and orbiting patterns could indeed be useful to a railroad system. If you must, just assume I wrote a different example of non useful information in a system. And some might assert that the more information the better, in all cases. If that's going to be a given, than I'm afraid I will need a list of everyone in your hometown's shoe sizes before we could continue the debate. Because, you know, it might be pertinent.
Posted by: Dan | May 28, 2004 at 16:22
Per Randy's conjecture: Yes, this is kind of tongue-in-cheek, but less than I wanted it to be. The meat world is getting too scary.
Paranoia. Maybe it's just living in LA. 96 hours to go...
Posted by: Edward Castronova | May 28, 2004 at 16:28
"The evil online can make us sad, but it can't kill us."
Already this unphysical (still being debated) life contains the ability for evil to diminish our experience of said life. Also in this statment is the implication that this life need not end. So life everlasting yet occasionally (or possibly perpetually) dimishined by saddness. Seems more like a possible Hell than Paradise.
The idea that we will obviate the danger to our current bodies by building new bodies seem to suffer from the idea that "it's turtles all the way down". That is, so long as there is a physical association with the Mind or Spirit, there is a potential for physical danger.
Posted by: Scott Moore | May 28, 2004 at 17:08
That came off sounding more serious than I intended. Sorry, Ted, I hope my "there's no escape" tone didn't deepen any paranoia you might already have. *g*
Posted by: Scott Moore | May 28, 2004 at 17:12
Whatever the rules on the "simulator", people will always be able to do things just as bad to you as in real life. Only during a period of transition would you consider that environment more benevolent. Eventually, you'll get used to being immortal, not feeling any physical pain, being un-imprisonable... You'll forget how it was before and eventually when "Avatar 37" doesn't smile back at you it will feel much the same way as a gunshot does now... And it might incapacitate you just as much.
Posted by: DivineShadow | May 28, 2004 at 18:22
There is an innovative freeform PnP RPG game (I forgot the name) where every players are essentially gods and must work together to shape their world. Now if we have equal and vast powers to shape the VW, then we can create an Utopia or Virtual Zion, in the case of the Matrix.
If a disenfranchised people want a nation of their own, they can have it online. If you can't do something in RL, you can do it oneline :)
Just another thought.
Posted by: magicback | May 28, 2004 at 22:09
Just another random thought...
Why don't we use genetic tech to create a bio "firewall" suit that protect the body against biological attacks against bodily virus and spam.
We can also design a hat that alters our perception of reality such that everything, good or bad, is made to appear "good" or the way they want it to appear. Thus, everyone will be walking around with this ugly hat having as much fun as John Nash (Beautiful Mind).
The hat is actually quite nice... it's a pointy one from WoW.
Frank
Posted by: magicback | May 28, 2004 at 22:29
"Nanotechnology could make recycling of materials possible on an unprecedented level."
Oh! I can see it now. We can have solar powered nanobots that turn plain dirt into food! We can have other nanobots that break down all our waste products into dirt, ready for said solarpowered bots to take over!
Hmm. That seems to be what we already have.
It always pains me to see the pro-nanobot predict the ability to do stuff which we already can do quite well with existing biological systems. It's like using nano-technology to fabricate a chair.
The amount of money spent on food is deceptive. We are paying a high premium for food in the 1st world due to demands like marketting, taste, brands, etc. If we were happy with nutrient pastes (due to being jacked in), the food cost would be much lower.
I would, however, predict that increased virutal reality immersion would result in MORE physical clustering, not less. For the very reasons brought up: caretaking, efficiency of scale, etc. Further, I'd argue the urbanification is not a result of people being kicked off farms, as much as it is a result of people not having to farm. Ie, as much as we curse cities, we want to be clumped together.
"Why don't we use genetic tech to create a bio "firewall" suit that protect the body against biological attacks against bodily virus and spam."
We already have that. It is commonly referred to as the immune system, and does a damn better job than any manmade firewall I've seen.
- Brask Mumei
Posted by: Brask Mumei | May 29, 2004 at 02:32
Ted,
If you're reading the fiction in this space (cyberpunk), I'm afraid it's all distopian, not utopian. We take our natures with us into virtual worlds, and all that emotional richness that you mention as being present includes pain. We're great at inflicting pain.
Pain can kill. Stress can kill. Give us a few years and we'll figure out how to do it better in virtual worlds too.
Posted by: Dan Scheltema | May 29, 2004 at 08:04
Ted>What can al-Qaeda do? Corpse-camp us until they're banned?
They can blow up the server farm.
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | May 29, 2004 at 08:17
Snow Crash virus, anyone?
I don't think virtual worlds will ever provide a viable escape for RL dangers. As many have suggested here, we'll take our baggage with us.
But I do hold out hope that these technologies can be used to create positive connections between people in vastly different cultures. Not all metaverses are about killing people or boinking supermodels.
Posted by: Betsy Book | May 29, 2004 at 08:42
Ted>What can al-Qaeda do? Corpse-camp us until they're banned?
Richard>They can blow up the server farm.
In the fashion of Farenheit 451, then maybe we will memorize our worlds, carry 'em about in our heads, and meet in back rooms and negotiate our stories...
Would sound like classic AD&D... back to the future, would be appropriate somehow...
Posted by: Nathan Combs | May 29, 2004 at 09:21
Betsy,
I agree that these technologies can be used to create positive connections between people. Hopefully the education and non-profit orgs will make good use of this tool.
Frank
Posted by: magicback | May 29, 2004 at 09:35
Richard> They can blow up the server farm.
... driving the net to a peer to peer architecture.
Posted by: Edward Castronova | May 29, 2004 at 12:42
Dr C wote:
>>Richard> They can blow up the server farm.
>... driving the net to a peer to peer architecture.
Mmm, have to change DNS for that.
Posted by: ren | May 29, 2004 at 15:42
Ted>... driving the net to a peer to peer architecture.
They can blow up the telephone exchanges, the cable hubs, the routers, the power stations...
One suicide attack at LINX would stop almost all Internet traffic to, from and within the UK. How many transatlantic fibre-optic cables do we have to lay to make sure there's always enough bandwidth available for when the Internet "routes around the problem"?
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | May 30, 2004 at 04:34
I wish I'd seen this thread sooner to help sort some things out towards the top. I'll post some general thoughts for now.
In any probable future, there will always exist: some physical basis to our existence (which can be disrupted), people who are willing to kill others for no suitable reason, and people who will not desire to stay jacked in (unless virtual birth somehow becomes possible). These disallow any fool-proof immortal existence (along with a number of other factors not mentioned, of course).
Depending on how consciousness actually manifests, life separate from the physical body may not be possible (or at least prohibitively difficult to engineer). The argument ends quickly if one is religious (mainstream), though that doesn't seem to be a problem here.
Another thought, would we want to live solely in virtual reality? Most readers here would probably take < 2 seconds to say yes (I definitely agreed, at first). I'd wager, though, that the benefits received far greater attention than the detriments. Assuming we don't just copy our physical existence (pointless?), what do we change? Do we take away the feeling of physical pain? I'm a supporter of the theory that we must experience both poles of feeling to be able to recognize either (relativity of pain/happiness), so this may not be a good idea. Immortality seems like a good idea, but does this also devalue the things in our life? This has been brought up in a few places before (currently making my way through Babylon 5 :). Personally, I'd still take immortality, but I think there's requirements to it being favorable (some people just tire of living the only way they know how). How about cloning oneself or property rights (where does scarcity manifest in the ultimate MMORPG)?
One of the biggest threats I could think of is virtual crime. Would it be easy to prevent the VW's denizens from killing each other by means not normally allowed in the software? Barring physical attack on the servers, what disallows some form of evil Hiro Protagonist who could theoretically remove every other living thing from digital existence. In this version of existence, the basket containing all the eggs gets much smaller.
I still haven't convinced myself that I wouldn't choose to permanently jack in if given the option, but I think the potential for catastrophe is clear. We have a hard enough time launching MMORPG's smoothly right now, what would be the cost in human lives to finally achieve acceptable stability in the Metaverse?
Some comments on Joy's article:
To make humans obsolete as he suggests, robots would have to possess every major trait of the human mind: sentience, emotions, creativity, and an ability to work with abstract concepts. From this, I would claim that these robots are sufficiently human-like that fearing them is simply fearing ourselves (thus not a new threat). As long as the robots were "raised" properly (through the robot adoption program of course, heh), I see no reason to fear such a robot. Certainly any burly, drunk human poses a greater threat, until the robots start doing digital drugs perhaps, but I've gone far enough here. My core point is, careers such as research, art, and politics (Senator 736144 R-Maryland, interesting thought) make use of a set of abilities that spans those which make us human. Either we get to keep that place in society, or we welcome robots as equals in all respects that come to mind.
After consideration, the future I would probably choose would be an immortal, biological one (immortality provided by cell-repairing nanobots), with robots (non-sentient) performing the manual labor and filling low-end service jobs. So, do you tip the robo-waiter?
Posted by: Tek | May 30, 2004 at 09:47
Tek>
the future I would probably choose would be an immortal, biological one (immortality provided by cell-repairing nanobots), with robots (non-sentient) performing the manual labor and filling low-end service jobs. So, do you tip the robo-waiter?
I recall work recently reported in the likes of Nature/Science that confirms a common suspicion: memories degrade (in the case of the study w/use).
So the challenge is, in your biological immortality, to figure out how to remember, every hundred years or so, the Mud-dev archive URL, and whether the last time you were at the restaurant you tipped that robot (who of course will know).
the digitally challenged, -n.
Posted by: Nathan Combs | May 30, 2004 at 10:54
First, on the virtual universe, it won't be 100% accurate. It will be exactly like the real universe, only (a lot) smaller, thereby being only 99.999999999999% similar. I hope that takes care of the 'sim the size of the universe' argument.
The biggest problem I really see is that I don't believe a 'digital existance' is possible. I just don't see how my conciousness can be transferred. If someone figures it out, great. But I won't be the first to try. I'm more in favor of the 'brain in a jar' with all the wires and stuff plugged in. It's not pretty, but I can fold it up nicely in my head. I'll take immortality any way I can get it.
And no doubt, security on the inside is definitely an issue. The standards that determine whether software is considered 'finished' will definitely not be adequate here (recent article on wired.com about beta testing, in fact). While that point is granted, we still hold the reigns. We will be able to decide what is possible and what is not possible. If you believe that it's possible to write perfect code (and I do), then we should be able to make it safe while still keeping it interesting.
And how to pay for it? Lets transfer some of that war budget to the army's new future applications department.
Posted by: MM | May 30, 2004 at 13:30
MM wrote:
>The biggest problem I really see is that I >don't believe a 'digital existance' is >possible. I just don't see how my conciousness >can be transferred. If someone figures it out, >great. But I won't be the first to try. I'm >more in favor of the 'brain in a jar' with all >the wires and stuff plugged in. It's not >pretty, but I can fold it up nicely in my head. >I'll take immortality any way I can get it.
How do you get from "brain in a jar" to "immortality"? Organic matter decays. Yes, you can blue-sky all the scientific advances you want, but anything you can come up with to get around that is just science fiction right now.
>If you believe that it's possible to write >perfect code (and I do), then we should be able >to make it safe while still keeping it >interesting.
You believe that based on what evidence? Or is this your religion, based on nothing more than pure faith?
>And how to pay for it? Lets transfer some of >that war budget to the army's new future >applications department.
Oh yes, supporting some rich Westerners who want to live a luxurious digital life free of the need to support themselves is JUST what I want my tax dollars to pay for.
--matt
Posted by: Matt Mihaly | May 31, 2004 at 01:47
I don't believe there is any known reason that would prohibit nanobot cell-therapy from being 100% efficient. Barring accidental death, this would grant immortality.
Posted by: Tek | May 31, 2004 at 03:26
Tek> "I don't believe there is any known reason that would prohibit nanobot cell-therapy from being 100% efficient. Barring accidental death, this would grant immortality."
Know known reasons, other than the laws of thermodynamics?
And, how the heck can you talk about limitations of nano-bot cell therapy if we don't even have the slightest clue if that is even possible? People like to throw around nanobots without even stopping to consider the information theory problems they entail.
We know that memory is stored, in some fashion, physically in the brain. So are long term behavioural patterns, etc. How do your nanobots differentiate decay from change?
On a more philosophical note, to live is to change. The "me" 10 years ago is very different from the "me" right now. The "me" 1000 years from now is likely to be so different as to constitute a new person. Realizing that, one wonders what the benefit is of having a continuous path of experience over those 1000 years, rather than just having a seperate person represent me?
The six year old version of yourself is dead. You can't talk to him. You can't even remember anything other than a few highlights.
The only way in which *I* could be around in 1000 years is by some form of stasis. Going into stasis until the heat death of the universe does not seem a very sane approach to immortality to me.
That being said, I wouldn't turn away an offer of immortality (so long as their was a suicide clause). I just wouldn't believe it would mean that *I* would be around in 1000 years.
- Brask Mumei
Posted by: Brask Mumei | May 31, 2004 at 04:42
I believe it is possible to write perfect code because I can write code with no mistakes in it. It's as simple as that. I'm not saying it's easy to do, but many of the bugs that we see in software today are a direct result of programmer laziness and artificial deadlines. Of course there are issues of hardware compatibility in many cases. And since there is more than one company making hardware, it must be an insurmountable obstacle? Baloney.
On the philosophy, I have to disagree that the me 10 years ago is different from the me now. It's the same me as long I remember to say it's me. I disagree that 'memory decay' is any kind of problem at all. We may forget some things, but memory doesn't spoil the way milk does. You ever hear of someone forgetting how to read? Forgetting how to tie their shoes? Only in the case of brain damage. I'm also pretty sure that memories are not stored physically. At least, not in the sense that they have any cellular structure that could be destroyed. I don't think that memories have 'ingredients', they just exist in a medium. If the medium is maintained, so are the memories. If the me of tomorrow isn't the me of today, why don't I just jump off a bridge now?
And on the nanobot bashing, it doesn't matter if we can do it right this minute. All those points are meant to be are possible solutions. IF IT IS POSSIBLE that we can manipulate atoms with nanobots (and yes, I realize that that is not yet the case), then we can make anything out of anything else. This solves a lot of problems. But instead, you say that it's science fiction or not 100% efficent. So what if it's only 50% efficient? All science is science fiction until it's proven. Some people like to call that 'blue-sky' stuff 'forward thinking'.
And ya know, if you don't want in... then don't get in. In 50 or 100 years, I'll start lighting digital candles on your birthday. :) In the meantime, your tax dollars can go to something more useful, like wars or vacations for just the politicians and superpowerful, instead of vacations for everyone.
Posted by: MM | May 31, 2004 at 12:53
Regarding nanobots, I personally like Star Trek's teleporter/replicator technology.
Think of the implications demonstrated in the show.
How about having two of yourself from different timelines in the same room? I can have a army of me :)
Frank
Posted by: magicback | May 31, 2004 at 13:04
Regarding nanobots, I personally like Star Trek's teleporter/replicator technology.
Think of the implications demonstrated in the show.
How about having two of yourself from different timelines in the same room? I can have an army of me :)
Frank
Posted by: magicback | May 31, 2004 at 13:05
"I don't believe there is any known reason that would prohibit nanobot cell-therapy from being 100% efficient. Barring accidental death, this would grant immortality."
A few very interesting points regarding this are raised in the episode of "LEXX" titled "Brigadoom". Probably one of the best episodes of that series if you have to watch just one.
Some excerpts from the songs of this very 'musical' episode:
"Closed behind our mighty shield,
beyond which none can find
This world is safe from pain and strife,
we need not fear the sky
We have not fought for countless years,
we have no need to pry
War and death are forgotten fears,
for here we never die.
"
"It's a funny thing how time flies
six thousand years go by so fast
Whatever happened to what's his name
refresh me on the past
Hello to you my father or maybe your my son
Perhaps she is my mother or maybe your the one
There's too much to remember
our heads are far too full
"
"Dull dull dull your lives are oh so dull
you stay inside your sealed house
and cower like a frightened mouse
dull dull dull, your lives are oh so dull
You sit inside your bunkers with filters all around
what kind of a life is that when you spend it underground
You never venture outdoors you always stay inside
what kind of a life is that when all you do is hide
"
Full transcript available here: http://hem.passagen.se/matts2/library/218transcript.html
Posted by: DivineShadow | May 31, 2004 at 13:14
I am going to persist in my side note here about models and scale, even though this thread has exploded into a large quantity of other sub-topics that most folks probably find more interesting.
How can one model an atom perfectly in a way where the amount of information required to model it is smaller than an atom? Sub atomic rendering of information? Ok, then how do you render the sub atomics in a way that is smaller than the sub atomics themselves? Even if you went all fancy pants object oriented on it and had instances of each atom pulled from one generic atom concept, you'd still need to record instance information, like position, trajectory, etc. All of which would have to be somehow smaller than the original atom itself.
It just makes no sense. It's gibberish. You can't offer a perfect model of something that is smaller than the thing itself.
And there remains the fact that a perfect model of the universe would have to contain a perfect version of itself. So the things model of itself would have a perfect version of itself, which would additionally have a perfect version of itself...oooh wow, trippy. And an endless loop of more space required.
Models aren't supposed to be accurate. Just like science itself, a model isn't based on aboslute truth, it's based on what works. The relavent information is what is kept for a model, just like you would use the relevant physics model to solve a particular problem (sometimes you would want quantum physics, for example, and sometimes you would want to pretend that quantum physics doesn't exist. Or so I've been told, the actual amount of physics I do on a day to day basis is, um limited).
Posted by: Dan | May 31, 2004 at 13:56
Your vision of everyone living in a virtual world is missing something critical: the game designers. The IT professionals. The computer manufacturers. The UPS guy who brings your internet-ordered food. The people responsible for creating and maintaining your utopia are, by definition, unable to escape with you. At least not full-time.
There is no utopia and no immortality, either for the individual or for the race. In the meantime, why not have a few beers and some traditional interaction with a real human of the gender of your choice?
Posted by: AFFA | May 31, 2004 at 14:20
"IF IT IS POSSIBLE that we can manipulate atoms with nanobots (and yes, I realize that that is not yet the case), then we can make anything out of anything else."
You can't make lead out of gold with nanobots. While you seem to be willing to recognize that it is not yet the case, you aren't willing to entertain the possibility that it might never be the case. At least, in the fashion that you imagine.
You can't make a chair out of grey glue without somehow instructing the nanobots as to the correct positions of the atoms that describe that chair
Consider a carbon chair weighing 100 grams. You will then have 5 x 10^24 carbon atoms to individually place. If you could encode each atoms placement using only one bit of information, that is a hefty 500 zetta-bytes (ZB) of data. Or, 500,000,000,000 giga bytes.
"And ya know, if you don't want in... then don't get in."
I don't know where I said that I didn't want in.
"We may forget some things, but memory doesn't spoil the way milk does. You ever hear of someone forgetting how to read?"
That is because actions like riding a bike or learning to read are hardwired into our brain (and likely spinal chord) structure. New neural connections are formed to optimize the OCR task of reading. This is why learning to read is a lot easier when a child than when an adult, as the brain is more ready to make such changes.
How would your nanobots differentiate new neural connections that are a result of learning a new task from those that are a result of random decay?
"I'm also pretty sure that memories are not stored physically."
Then they must be stored as the active state of your brain waves. This would imply someone who sufferes a seizure would also lose all memories, as the active state has degraded.
- Brask Mumei
Posted by: Brask Mumei | May 31, 2004 at 21:39
Heh. Geez. When *I* quoted the unabomber in an essay, people thought it a practical joke.
Wish I'd known someone beat me to it (and by *years*).
Posted by: Jeff Freeman | Jun 01, 2004 at 14:15
"Know known reasons, other than the laws of thermodynamics?"
I assume you are referring to the law that entropy must always increase. This argument is often misapplied; the catch is that your system must be closed. In the case of a human body acted on by nanobots, you have to take the entropy of the nanobots, and thus the entropy of their energy source into account. Since the energy source of the bots is increasing in entropy, the human body can be stable.
"And, how the heck can you talk about limitations of nano-bot cell therapy"
I wasn't making any direct statements about nanobots, just about the human body.
"On a more philosophical note, to live is to change...The six year old version of yourself is dead. You can't talk to him. You can't even remember anything other than a few highlights."
How about a more fundamental desire to experience life instead of dying or being put in stasis? Besides this, one still remembers the fondest moments of life fairly well; grandparents are known for telling lots of stories. Memory loss might be able to be prevented in the future (especially if in a VW), which would help. Above all though, I think my reason of choice for being immortal would be seeing the advancement of humanity, technologically and socially. Many of us here think similarly on this, I imagine.
The instantaneous you is, of course, in constant flux, but then by that token I'm not the same me before I began posting in this thread. For the sake of having something to call a self, a better definition is needed; more along the lines of "self A is equivalent to self B if A is older and B's memories are a subset of A's". Heh.
About the problems of scale and such:
Remember that patterns can be exploited. A chair can be defined with orders of magnitude less variables than simply using the positions of all the atoms. Think DivX, not bitmap. If the nanobot wants to make a cube of salt, all the input it needs is the sidelength, and to alternate Na,Cl atom positions. The bond lengths are set by the temperature. The size of the cube never comes into play.
Posted by: Tek | Jun 01, 2004 at 18:15
"Remember that patterns can be exploited. A chair can be defined with orders of magnitude less variables than simply using the positions of all the atoms. Think DivX, not bitmap. If the nanobot wants to make a cube of salt, all the input it needs is the sidelength, and to alternate Na,Cl atom positions. The bond lengths are set by the temperature. The size of the cube never comes into play."
There are plenty of problems with the concept of nanotechnology fabrication beyond just the pattern issue. Advocates of nanotechnology and chicken littles crowing about grey goo ignore the problems that while these things may be thermodynamically possible, the process of moving atoms from place to place requires delicate and complex trade-offs at the molecular level. Isaac Asamov had a great essay published once upon a time about why life uses carbon, and why we are unlikely to see life (or self-replicating nanobots, same thing really) based on other elements. Carbon is at the thermodynamic sweet-spot in the periodic table. It is neither too hard to reduce, nor does it give off too much energy when oxidized. Even so, biological systems have to do a heck of a lot of work managing the love affair between oxygen and carbon.
Biochemestry can be seen as the science of how to manage the thermodynamics of oxidation and reduction in order to build complex molecules. Living systems have had 3 billion years to develop these systems in a hot-house of competition more harsh than any free market, using judges more brutal than any engineer or designer. It may certainly be possible for nanotechnology to cut the Gordian knot of these conflicting trade-offs. But I'm not going to hold by breath.
In regards to escaping into virtual worlds. I'm also profoundly skeptical. People have been attempting to create utopian communities for thousands of years with only a handful of short-lived successes. I think that many of my fellow technologists become so infatuated with what we can do with vectors and pixels that we forget that wood and steel, space and time are deeply rewarding media. Ideally, virtual worlds would be just another space we visit as part of our day.
Posted by: KirkJobSluder | Jun 03, 2004 at 10:05