Future Timeline

This question has been on my mind for years. What would people prefer: lots of change, but humble beginnings or no significant change, but a very high starting level? If for example you were to be reborn and could choose one option, then what would you choose? Or were to be guaranteed one of these options today, what would you choose? After 40 years living in worse conditions, GDP would be 268x times higher, so higher than in the second option. And after 40 years, computers would be 16.2x times faster than in the second option.

That depends on how my life would be in the very advanced state!

First option assuming it means FIVR within my lifetime

Just how much more developed is the second option? Is FIVR tech achieved as well as life extension? Are we advanced in all areas including socially/politically? If the very advanced static world is basically a utopia or close to one, then I'd likely choose that if I had to start over again.

It's either possible happiness at the cost of further advancement, or further advancement with uncertainty.

Heaven is basically a very advanced static world.

I would be down with a fast changing world if all sorts of groups can handle it especially world government. It would be very awkward to advance quickly every so often years even if its not every year and be stuck pretty much at the second option just because there are not many advances made in the world. I clarify it as best I can because that first option is very demanding so pacing it however fast it will be by groups such as world government is up to them. There are only so many physicists at the moment and all and lots of issues because of that. Uncertainty is the least of the problems rather instead more bodies for future tech advances be they human or robots.

Very advanced if we're talking about sufficiently advanced enough. Like I'd rather be some sort of immortal, whether that's putting my brain in a robot body or cloned bodies or whatever immortality winds up looking like, than get to witness the coming up of Blade Runner in real life but still be dying of old age. The more advanced the civilisation, the less death there is. Static might be less fun if you get a lot of excitement in witnessing the progress, but there's far more important things in life than that kind of excitement.

Assuming this 'very advanced' world has things like life extension, BCI and FDVR, then that's where I'd want to live. Our world is already rapidly accelerating (not as much as suggested in the poll, but presumably that isn't too far off either) and it's still a terrifying place where all kinds of unexpected new disasters are happening. I've become less optimistic about the remainder of this century as time goes by. Not because I think technological progress will stop, but because I think terrorists and/or dictators will abuse it to horrible ends while humanity still gets a handle on how to govern massively new powerful distributed technology.

What kind of dystopia would be considered a "very advanced, static world"?

bretbernhoft wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 5:58 pm What kind of dystopia would be considered a "very advanced, static world"?

Many dystopias, utopias, and neither-one-or-the-other would fit in that description.