Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

These ads will disappear if you register on the forum

Photo

Clashes between Kurzweil and Future timeline

ray kurzweil singularity technology computers

  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1
Colonel O'Neil

Colonel O'Neil

    From Time Immemorial...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 796 posts
  • LocationLondon, UK
There is a vast discrepancy between the Kurzweilian trend of thought and that represented by the future timeline. Kurzweil predicts that the limit to computation will be reached by the end of the century. In his book, the singularity is near, he gives clear reasoning to support this argument. The futuretimeline seems to be way off-citing this date to be approximately 4000 years from now. What gives?

We all know Kurzweil is the undisputed leader in the field of futurology. So why has he been ignored?

Plus on a side note: who thinks that the people who are under 50 by 2025 will have a great chance of living forever. I bet we'll still be talking about the future in a hundred years...

The art of forgetting is inherent in human minds; the art of being forgotten  is the normal fate of knowing. We as futurists don't accept that. In the panels of the Universe, we alone will remain standing; remain unforgotten.


#2
mic of orion

mic of orion

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Locationlondon
I see another stargete fan :

As to Kurzwell, you got me there, never read any of his books, sorry. (btw few os us went to see him live when he was here in london)

As to living forever, must admit i am great optimist in concept of living forever. How soon would humans really be able to say they are imortal, your guess is as good as any IMHO, but i do hope its rather sooner than later.
It's dangerous to be right, when your government is wrong.
They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

#3
wjfox

wjfox

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,931 posts
  • LocationLondon
Depends what you mean by the "limit to computation".

#4
Time_Traveller

Time_Traveller

    Master of Time Travel

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,091 posts
  • LocationSan Francisco, USA, 1st March 2060 CE
I've never read any of Kurzwell's Books and i'll be 48 in 2025, i don't think i'll live forever and i dowt this will be achieveable until a couple of thousands of years.
I want to go ahead of Father Time with a scythe of my own.

H. G. Wells

#5
wjfox

wjfox

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,931 posts
  • LocationLondon

i dowt this will be achieveable until a couple of thousands of years.


We already have an excellent knowledge of what causes aging, and scientists have extended the lifespans of mice, worms and flies.

We've also decoded the human genome and there's exponential progress being made with medicine in general.

Why would it take thousands of years to find suitable treatments for humans?
  • tommytrojan and eacao like this

#6
wekele0

wekele0

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts

I've never read any of Kurzwell's Books and i'll be 48 in 2025, i don't think i'll live forever and i dowt this will be achieveable until a couple of thousands of years.


I can understand if it takes maybe a few hundred years for true immortality to become realized, but thousands of years? Humanity would truly have to be quite stagnant to take even 1,000 years from now. And remember the Human Genome Project? A few critics said it would take hundreds of years for it to be complete, but it took merely a decade. Now, I'm not saying that everything is going to happen quite as quick as the timeline suggests; Just like we have some technologies that have changed very little from the 60's, we will probably still have some things from today around in the 2050's, though just like the advent of home computers, something is most likely going to adjust our lens of perspective between now and then.
  • wjfox likes this

#7
eacao

eacao

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 937 posts
  • LocationAustralia

Plus on a side note: who thinks that the people who are under 50 by 2025 will have a great chance of living forever. I bet we'll still be talking about the future in a hundred years...


in 2025, I will be 29 years old. I would love to be able to live forever but I don't have high hopes of anybody living forever who has been born before the year 2050, because of the population of the planet.
Michio kaku raised some interesting points in his book, Physics of the Future, where he points out that the largest population growth occurs in countries which are still developing, where it is economical, or it pays off to have 10,000 kids per couple so that some will survive to take care of their parents.
In the developed world, there are things like health care, pension and all these other things to take care of the elderly, and since education and food prices are high, as well as housing and electricity and the works, it is economical to have maybe 2 or 3 children. Because people also live much longer, they put off having children at an early age, focusing on work rather than family for much of their middle years.

The idea is that the better the healthcare and medicine, the longer people live - the slower the population will grow. The same should be true if aging can be stopped. Having children when you're 60 through artificial insemination rather than having a herd of children at 19 means that the nations with the better health care will be able to better-fare through overpopulation.

-However- This is only going to be the case if physical condition can be restored. Having an 80 year old with arthritis doesn't work. What needs to happen to combat overpopulation is anti aging. Sadly though, politicians (as always) will look at the surface of the problem, see that there is overpopulation and a technology which stops people from dying and think. Lets put laws in place to stop this. Which will of-course, lead to an aging workforce, underpopulation of a labour force and a whole host of economic blazes.

Bloody politicians.

Edited by eacao, 25 January 2012 - 01:35 PM.

"Only take advice from people who have what you want"

"Used to blame everybody. Blamed white people, blamed society, blamed God. Didn't get no answers 'cause I was asking the wrong questions. You have to ask the right questions."

- "Like what?" - "Has anything you've done made your life better?" - Bob Sweeney.


#8
sirhotalot

sirhotalot

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 67 posts
Kurzweils timeline is very optimistic. I enjoy his books and his theories though, and hope he's correct.

As for population growth, the UN has done studies that show it will cap out at about 9 billion, then start to decline, then maybe bounce back to about 9 billion again. Affluence is inversely related to fertility so people will have far less children as living conditions improve.

Edited by sirhotalot, 25 January 2012 - 12:47 AM.






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: ray kurzweil, singularity, technology, computers

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users