Eugenics And The Billionaires Huge Investment In Living Forever

[Awesomesauce]

I'm not particularly about world populations, all of the research seems to indicate that as infant mortality rates decrease, so do birth rates. So one of the most efficient ways to reduce world populations is, paradoxically, to ensure that a greater percentage of children live to adulthood.

All of this is superficially ok with me. Automation and AI are reducing the need for a large global population and we'll gradually reduce accordingly.

Not really. In the west significant portions of the population are self selecting themselves out but in Asia and most of the highly populated world the only limitation on population growth has been practical or political. China's population continues to grow despite what many consider draconian measures, India's population continues to grow as does southeast Asia's. Not much has slowed Africa's growth other then disease and famine.

I suspect once the portion of the western population that have self selected themselves out that the remainder will have the procreate regardless attitude found in other parts of the world.

Generally I find that in the end most analysis of human behavior over the long haul falls pretty much in line with every other animal. In this case, procreate and devour until some finite limitation of supply or circumstance prevents it.

 

[Awesomesauce]

It's feasible that the machines eventually take over entirely, but being in the automation business would at least buy some time.

More secure than being a cab driver..

Sure, but not significantly so. I just don't understand the "I'm safe" philosophy. First off unless your literally irreplaceable (noone is), then all your going to see is a flood of people into your field driving up competition for fewer jobs which means that your job really won't be worth anything anyways. Secondly, does anyone think all the people who don't have jobs are just going to lie down and die?

As a joke I get it, as a practical position it seems absurd.

 

[IDL]

Sure, but not significantly so. I just don't understand the "I'm safe" philosophy. First off unless your literally irreplaceable (noone is), then all your going to see is a flood of people into your field driving up competition for fewer jobs which means that your job really won't be worth anything anyways. Secondly, does anyone think all the people who don't have jobs are just going to lie down and die?

As a joke I get it, as a practical position it seems absurd.

I view it as sort of a rising tide scenario. The cab drivers are going to be submerged long before the engineers. People won't really look that far ahead they will just see the water consuming other people and won't feel threatened.

Good point about people flooding into those 'safe' jobs (higher ground) which will perhaps drive down wages. But, the more automation and robots there are the more of those jobs there will be. Not enough for everyone obviously though.

I don't see those engineering types of jobs being phased out for quite awhile.

The people without jobs, yeah I dunno. I have a bad feeling about that. That is something that those in power will be planning for.

 

[7437]

In 1985 I wrote a short story about the last programming job on earth and the guy doing it. He was writing a program to write future programs. Essentially a group of ultra wealthy people, the only ones with money because every other job had been automated hired him to write the program. He didn't want to because he was essentially replacing himself but he had a family to feed.

My point is, what makes you think your job can't be automated?

The maintenance and sequencing problems requires quite a bit of critical thinking. Short of a true AI on the programming side, there is not "standard" solutions to a lot of problems. That and all software and hardware is susceptible to power problems. We had some drunk idiot hit a power sub station with his car near my plant, and we got a big power surge that fried a bunch of computers. There has to be people around for when things like that happen.

Why would you think that we can make a system that never breaks? You would have to assume that the "fix other mechatronics" program could stay running to fix them, otherwise you need a tech. Want to guess which is more likely?

 

[Awesomesauce]

The maintenance and sequencing problems requires quite a bit of critical thinking. Short of a true AI on the programming side, there is not "standard" solutions to a lot of problems. That and all software and hardware is susceptible to power problems. We had some drunk idiot hit a power sub station with his car near my plant, and we got a big power surge that fried a bunch of computers. There has to be people around for when things like that happen.

Why would you think that we can make a system that never breaks? You would have to assume that the "fix other mechatronics" program could stay running to fix them, otherwise you need a tech. Want to guess which is more likely?

Its not a matter of building a system that never breaks, its about having machines smart enough to fix any problem that arises that a human could fix.

It seems to me that an absurd amount of hubris would be required to believe that there won't ever be a time when a machine will be able to just plain out think you. Forget the notion of simply being able to do your job better then you can, that there will never be a machine smarter then you seems odd.

 

[panamaican]

Not really. In the west significant portions of the population are self selecting themselves out but in Asia and most of the highly populated world the only limitation on population growth has been practical or political. China's population continues to grow despite what many consider draconian measures, India's population continues to grow as does southeast Asia's. Not much has slowed Africa's growth other then disease and famine.

I suspect once the portion of the western population that have self selected themselves out that the remainder will have the procreate regardless attitude found in other parts of the world.

Generally I find that in the end most analysis of human behavior over the long haul falls pretty much in line with every other animal. In this case, procreate and devour until some finite limitation of supply or circumstance prevents it.

Populations are growing, fertility rates are decreasing. There is a difference.

In the short run, populations will continue to increase despite the falling fertility rates because life spans are also increasing. So, we're birthing fewer children but the population hasn't decreased because the elderly (who are not reproducing) are living longer.

As I said in my previous post, as we decrease infant mortality rates, fertility rates will continue to decrease. This requires increased access to medical care and economic opportunity. This means that girls get educated and enter the workforce instead of staying home and popping out kids. It means greater access to contraception. Consider this, 10% of children in East, West and Central Africa die before their 5th birthday - 10%. Those families are going to continue to produce high rates of children until those numbers become more in line with the West.

http://documents.worldbank.org/cura...-fertility-synopsis-evidence-portfolio-review

 

[Awesomesauce]

I view it as sort of a rising tide scenario. The cab drivers are going to be submerged long before the engineers. People won't really look that far ahead they will just see the water consuming other people and won't feel threatened.

While I don't necessarily disagree with the scenario you describe as I think to a degree that's already happening. But we are already seeing the side effects, there is mass unemployment despite fantasy numbers spewed by think tank level partisanship from the BLS. How many people these days are overqualified for their jobs? How many people are underemployed? What percentage of the working population is functionally underpaid? The entire economy has been in slow collapse for 30 years because of dwindling consumer power and they still keep pounding at wages as if further eroding the consumers abilities to consume is an economic positive. Its just an odd set of circumstances.

Good point about people flooding into those 'safe' jobs (higher ground) which will perhaps drive down wages. But, the more automation and robots there are the more of those jobs there will be. Not enough for everyone obviously though.

I don't see those engineering types of jobs being phased out for quite awhile.

I think the notion of automation creating jobs is a little silly. Automation has never created even a fraction of the number of jobs it destroys. What would be the point if they were even close? The only thing that keeps half the jobs that aren't automated from being automated is absurdly low wage levels.

The people without jobs, yeah I dunno. I have a bad feeling about that. That is something that those in power will be planning for.

Of course they will. Most world leaders are sociopaths. But realistically the people at the very top only have as much power as they are given. At these moments in history it is usually the generals and revolutionaries who determine the course of events.

 

[Awesomesauce]

Populations are growing, fertility rates are decreasing. There is a difference.

In the short run, populations will continue to increase despite the falling fertility rates because life spans are also increasing. So, we're birthing fewer children but the population hasn't decreased because the elderly (who are not reproducing) are living longer.

As I said in my previous post, as we decrease infant mortality rates, fertility rates will continue to decrease. This requires increased access to medical care and economic opportunity. This means that girls get educated and enter the workforce instead of staying home and popping out kids. It means greater access to contraception. Consider this, 10% of children in East, West and Central Africa die before their 5th birthday - 10%. Those families are going to continue to produce high rates of children until those numbers become more in line with the West.

http://documents.worldbank.org/cura...-fertility-synopsis-evidence-portfolio-review

I understand what your saying, I just don't see it playing out that way. I agree that population growth will slow, I just don't think it will ever stop growing until some outside effect interferes. Its easy to say that some people will simply decide not to have children but it doesn't take an expert in Darwinian theory to tell you that those who don't self select out will be increasingly prone to continue to reproduce regardless of the circumstances.

 

[Bumble_Bee_Tuna]

I view it as sort of a rising tide scenario. The cab drivers are going to be submerged long before the engineers. People won't really look that far ahead they will just see the water consuming other people and won't feel threatened.

Good point about people flooding into those 'safe' jobs (higher ground) which will perhaps drive down wages. But, the more automation and robots there are the more of those jobs there will be. Not enough for everyone obviously though.

I don't see those engineering types of jobs being phased out for quite awhile.

The people without jobs, yeah I dunno. I have a bad feeling about that. That is something that those in power will be planning for.

The engineers won't be phased out, as they are a condition precedent for the technocratic transhumanists. The Western elite, to a large part, wants to shield itself from senescence as they pursue an earthly utopia. While they promote GMO, abortions, vaccines and other things for everyone else for population control, they certainly don't apply it to themselves. I doubt Bill Gates feeds his children GMO or has them attend "common core" curriculum. Consider how entities like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, Monstano (Syngenta) and others are investing millions in the Svalbard Global Seed Vault in Norway. William Engdahl also did a insightful piece on this. One one hand, they promote dysgenic, destructive and unhealthy practices for everyone else, but on the other, they seek to preserve the authentic, life sustaining things for themselves. The goose and the gander are far apart indeed. It is no wonder that through the 'advances' of 'modernity' there has been a 50% decline in sperm count mostly in Western males.

Most people, including most people on these boards, will scoff at the idea that the elite are subtly engaged in population control and/or reduction. The motives are irrelevant to me, as the practical effects are evident.

 

[IDL]

The engineers won't be phased out, as they are a condition precedent for the technocratic transhumanists. The Western elite, to a large part, wants to shield itself from senescence as they pursue an earthly utopia. While they promote GMO, abortions, vaccines and other things for everyone else for population control, they certainly don't apply it to themselves. I doubt Bill Gates feeds his children GMO or has them attend "common core" curriculum. Consider how entities like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, Monstano (Syngenta) and others are investing millions in the Svalbard Global Seed Vault in Norway. William Engdahl also did a insightful piece on this. One one hand, they promote dysgenic, destructive and unhealthy practices for everyone else, but on the other, they seek to preserve the authentic, life sustaining things for themselves. The goose and the gander are far apart indeed. It is no wonder that through the 'advances' of 'modernity' there has been a 50% decline in sperm count mostly in Western males.

Most people, including most people on these boards, will scoff at the idea that the elite are subtly engaged in population control and/or reduction. The motives are irrelevant to me, as the practical effects are evident.

Yes I agree. All of these problems have been the focus of a lot of work already. All of the problems are quite foreseeable, and think tanks will be well funded to come up with long term strategies to maintain the power of their funders. The problems of today will have been studied decades ago, and measures put in place.

There exists a strong desire for those in power to pull up the ladder and create as much separation from the masses as possible.

The population reduction has been ongoing for quite awhile in the West already employing many techniques. They just need more infrastructure in the developing nations in order to implement the same agendas.

 

[panamaican]

I understand what your saying, I just don't see it playing out that way. I agree that population growth will slow, I just don't think it will ever stop growing until some outside effect interferes. Its easy to say that some people will simply decide not to have children but it doesn't take an expert in Darwinian theory to tell you that those who don't self select out will be increasingly prone to continue to reproduce regardless of the circumstances.

It's easy to say that some people will decide not to have children because the research shows that those people are already deciding not to have children.

We don't have to guess. It's happening all over the world. Claiming otherwise requires that we completely disregard what's actually happening in the world for some theory that has no data behind it. Why would anyone do that?

Even if we wanted to go Darwinian, decreasing fertility rates are right in line with that as well. There's an optimal amount of children that allows the parents to maximize opportunity/resources for their offspring. Too many children and the resources are too few for optimal growth. Too few offspring and the loss of offspring prior to maturity has a legitimate social cost. Right now, the risk of loss is very high in some countries which necessitates lots of children. As the risk of loss decreases, the fertility model shifts to fewer kids but greater resources per children.

http://www.ageing.ox.ac.uk/download/143

 

[IDL]

While I don't necessarily disagree with the scenario you describe as I think to a degree that's already happening. But we are already seeing the side effects, there is mass unemployment despite fantasy numbers spewed by think tank level partisanship from the BLS. How many people these days are overqualified for their jobs? How many people are underemployed? What percentage of the working population is functionally underpaid? The entire economy has been in slow collapse for 30 years because of dwindling consumer power and they still keep pounding at wages as if further eroding the consumers abilities to consume is an economic positive. Its just an odd set of circumstances.

I think the notion of automation creating jobs is a little silly. Automation has never created even a fraction of the number of jobs it destroys. What would be the point if they were even close? The only thing that keeps half the jobs that aren't automated from being automated is absurdly low wage levels.

Of course they will. Most world leaders are sociopaths. But realistically the people at the very top only have as much power as they are given. At these moments in history it is usually the generals and revolutionaries who determine the course of events.

I agree that automation isn't going to create a higher number of jobs overall. It's going to reduce them, by design. I just mean that engineering type jobs will probably increase, and it is a fairly safe place to be for quite awhile.

The odd part is that at the same time it seems modern state are bringing in large amounts of unskilled labor. What do they intend on doing with them in 20 years? There will be a lot of competition for those jobs that dry up.

 

[Denter]

That means us, Irving!

Kurzweil seems to be a big believer in this idea, but watching the TRANSCENDENT MAN documentary, it was suggested that there are psychological motivations (loss of his father, the resurrection of his father, etc), perhaps even delusions, which cause an otherwise brilliant man like Kurzweil to legitimately believe that he will survive long enough to see immortality.

Perhaps death, itself, is the door to immortality.

Without death, how do we know we really exist?

 

[Awesomesauce]

It's easy to say that some people will decide not to have children because the research shows that those people are already deciding not to have children.

We don't have to guess. It's happening all over the world. Claiming otherwise requires that we completely disregard what's actually happening in the world for some theory that has no data behind it. Why would anyone do that?

Absolutely, I just don't see the children of of parents who decided to have children at all costs being as likely as the former generations to simply chose not to procreate. I think we see this effect in modern eastern cultures where having children is a far greater social and biological imperative despite far harsher conditions. I think the west will tend towards that.

Even if we wanted to go Darwinian, decreasing fertility rates are right in line with that as well. There's an optimal amount of children that allows the parents to maximize opportunity/resources for their offspring. Too many children and the resources are too few for optimal growth. Too few offspring and the loss of offspring prior to maturity has a legitimate social cost. Right now, the risk of loss is very high in some countries which necessitates lots of children. As the risk of loss decreases, the fertility model shifts to fewer kids but greater resources per children.

http://www.ageing.ox.ac.uk/download/143

Your applying social logic to individual traits. I just don't think this notion bares out. I know of no animal that doesn't continue to increase its population so long as that is legitimately possible even when there is a dramatic cost in opportunity/resources. Look at India and China, both countries are extremely poor and its largely because of the overpopulation but it still hasn't stopped either.

 

[Awesomesauce]

I agree that automation isn't going to create a higher number of jobs overall. It's going to reduce them, by design. I just mean that engineering type jobs will probably increase, and it is a fairly safe place to be for quite awhile.

I just disagree about the safety of engineering jobs, I don't see anything about them that makes them intrinsically special. I think the majority of people have the idea that engineers are inventors and that is very rarely the case.

The odd part is that at the same time it seems modern state are bringing in large amounts of unskilled labor. What do they intend on doing with them in 20 years? There will be a lot of competition for those jobs that dry up.

You assume that they A) understand the broader effects of their actions and that B) They care. The Waltons didn't build massive fortresses for no reason. If there is a serious civil break due to lack of jobs, borders aren't going to mean a whole lot.

 

[IDL]

People in a more 'wild' state tend to have children instinctively.

In modern states with modern infrastructure it is very unnatural and peoples instincts are overridden by conditioning.

An example being the environmental training that some people get. People come out thinking humans are a disease on the planet and will volunteer to be biological dead ends 'for the greater good'

It's sort of like a death cult.

It would be quite doable to condition the masses to stop reproducing with the proper education and propaganda. Steer people away from marrying and desiring families and such. Stop promoting motherhood as an ideal, etc.. Economics is also a good way. It's certainly not a problem with the infrastructure in place.

 

[Bumble_Bee_Tuna]

I agree that automation isn't going to create a higher number of jobs overall. It's going to reduce them, by design. I just mean that engineering type jobs will probably increase, and it is a fairly safe place to be for quite awhile.

The odd part is that at the same time it seems modern state are bringing in large amounts of unskilled labor. What do they intend on doing with them in 20 years? There will be a lot of competition for those jobs that dry up.

They will be discarded and put in ghettos until they fatigue themselves to oblivion through riots, gang violence, consumption of toxic substances, GMOs, junk food, etc. Or a great cataclysmic war for which we are long overdue for one.

 

[7437]

Its not a matter of building a system that never breaks, its about having machines smart enough to fix any problem that arises that a human could fix.

It seems to me that an absurd amount of hubris would be required to believe that there won't ever be a time when a machine will be able to just plain out think you. Forget the notion of simply being able to do your job better then you can, that there will never be a machine smarter then you seems odd.

I dont think that. There are machines smarter than me now. They work differently than a person though. Maybe I am just having a hard time explaining exactly how factory style automation works. You would need something capable of truly thinking, not just a troubleshooting program. I have used them, they can be helpful, but things can break in unexpected ways.

That and as I pointed out, you need something that CANNOT be fried by power fluctuations. All the repair robots in the world cant help you when your processors fry, or your wireless network goes out. You need something that doesnt plug in, and has thought totally independent of the rest of the system. You need a person.

 

[Bumble_Bee_Tuna]

People in a more 'wild' state tend to have children instinctively.

In modern states with modern infrastructure it is very unnatural and peoples instincts are overridden by conditioning.

An example being the environmental training that some people get. People come out thinking humans are a disease on the planet and will volunteer to be biological dead ends 'for the greater good'

It's sort of like a death cult.

It would be quite doable to condition the masses to stop reproducing with the proper education and propaganda. Steer people away from marrying and desiring families and such. Stop promoting motherhood as an ideal, etc.. Economics is also a good way. It's certainly not a problem with the infrastructure in place.

The whole zeitgeist in popular culture that humans are the problem, or that "overpopulation" (whatever that means) is a problem, is strongly rooted in that old and discredited Malthusian canard. This is also reinforced in various ways of predictive programming by subliminally implanting into the mass consciousness that humans are the cancer that 'need to be controlled' (e.g., see The Matrix where Agent Smith, the antagonist, tells Morpheus, that humans are a disease, and consume everything in their environment, like a virus). You also see this immortalized in the current obsession with the deification of animal life above human life (e.g., see the public outrage over Cecil the Lion, but no public outrage over the hundreds of thousands of humans killed by Western policies). Again, media manipulation of peoples' perceived reality.

 

[IDL]

They will be discarded and put in ghettos until they fatigue themselves to oblivion through riots, gang violence, consumption of toxic substances, GMOs, junk food, etc. Or a great cataclysmic war for which we are long overdue for one.

I suspect that you are correct. I think there will be a very disorderly transition period.