There are plausible scenarios for a singleton control without singularity. Our institutions could outpace evolution at the rate they get smarter and eventually decide to stop it. You’d just need to build some highly stable, global architecture.
But nothing is perfectly stable. So I’m going to agree with your contention that Who, in fact, knows.
Genetic evolution winning causes irreversible negative progress. If human value is complex, then genetic evolution necessarily destroys information about human value—information that will not be replaced because our descendants will not want to replace it.
Genetic evolution winning causes irreversible negative progress. If human value is complex, then genetic evolution necessarily destroys information about human value—information that will not be replaced because our descendants will not want to replace it.
In the absence of a Singularity? Who knows. Evolution wins eventually, somehow, but the details matter a great deal.
That is the fundamental question of this post. Kevin Kelly argues in a somewhat related essay, http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/11/the_origins_of.php , that evolution winning might not even stop progress.
There are plausible scenarios for a singleton control without singularity. Our institutions could outpace evolution at the rate they get smarter and eventually decide to stop it. You’d just need to build some highly stable, global architecture.
But nothing is perfectly stable. So I’m going to agree with your contention that Who, in fact, knows.
Genetic evolution winning causes irreversible negative progress. If human value is complex, then genetic evolution necessarily destroys information about human value—information that will not be replaced because our descendants will not want to replace it.
The question is how much value?
Indeed.