Comments on: Thesis #16: Technology cannot stop collapse.

By: Jason Godesky

Jason Godesky — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 17:51:16 +0000

If I thought that, I’d like technology much more than I do. See: “In Praise of Laziness.”

By: harold

harold — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 13:11:27 +0000

technology is one of the reason why people become lazy..

By: Jevons Paradox « Rugged Indoorsman

Jevons Paradox « Rugged Indoorsman — Mon, 14 May 2007 12:50:55 +0000

[…] I’ve been thinking a lot about this effect - whereby increased efficiency in the consumption of resources leads overall to a greater rate of depletion in those resources - ever since it was called to my attention by Jason Godesky: ‘In his 1865 book, The Coal Question, Jevons noted that the consumption of coal in England soared after James Watt introduced his steam engine. Steam engines had been used as toys as far back as ancient Greece, and Thomas Newcomen’s earlier design was suitable for industrial use. Watt’s invention merely made more efficient use of coal, compared to Newcomen’s. This made the engine more economical, and so, touched off the Industrial Revolution–and in so doing, created the very same modern, unprecedented attitudes towards technology and invention that are now presented as hope against collapse. In the book, Jevons formulated a principle now known as “Jevons Paradox.” It is not a paradox in the logical sense, but it is certainly counterintuitive. Jevons Paradox states that any technology which allows for the more efficient use of a given resource will result in greater use of that resource, not less. By increasing the efficiency of a resource’s use, the marginal utility of that resource is increased more than enough to compensate for the fall. This is why innovations in computer technology have made for longer working hours, as employers expect that an employee with a technology that cuts his work in half can do three times more work. This is why more fuel-efficient vehicles have resulted in longer commutes, and the suburban sprawl that creates an automotive-centric culture, with overall higher petroleum use.’ (link) […]

By: Steve Z

Steve Z — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 04:12:41 +0000

Slothboy, re #41,
Can anyone show us the code that will enable “AI” to have creativity? or motivation to self-improve? (that is not a sledge on your moniker, btw)
How would you even define the algorithm for creativity?

By: Slothboy

Slothboy — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 20:28:12 +0000

Maybe, depends what you mean by nanotech. Little robots in the bloodstream yes.
However, the ability to manipulate matter on the nanoscale already exists. Its just a case of making it economically viable. Its like how the first steam engine was rubbish compared to a horse.
Current computer developments are slowing because wever reached the limits of microtech. when limited nanotech becomes feasable (5-10 years) computer power will most likely increase much faster than it would under moores law.
Steadily improving brain scanning is not a pipe dream.

By: Jason Godesky

Jason Godesky — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 20:02:25 +0000

Computer power is increasing exponentially. If moores law continues (and developing quantum computing, nanotechnology etc suggests it will), by 2020 £1000 PCs will have the computing power to funtionally simulate the human brain.

Moore’s Law is already ceasing to hold true, as noted in the article.

Developing nanotech/brain scanning shows every indication that it will be able to completely map the human brain in enough detail to create a funtional model on a shorter timescale than 1.

Nanotech remains, for the most part, a pipe dream for the foreseeable future.

By: Slothboy

Slothboy — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 20:00:19 +0000

On AI:
Currently its all smoke and mirrors. But thats because we know next to nothing about intelligence and how it works. But we wont necissarily need to.

1. Computer power is increasing exponentially. If moores law continues (and developing quantum computing, nanotechnology etc suggests it will), by 2020 £1000 PCs will have the computing power to funtionally simulate the human brain.

2. Developing nanotech/brain scanning shows every indication that it will be able to completely map the human brain in enough detail to create a funtional model on a shorter timescale than 1.

3. Once such a model exists, scientists will play with it using trial and error. They will quickly find out how to make it smarter/change its motivations.

4. There will then be a smarter than human AI (which we never need to fully understand). Someone will give it the motivation to recursively self improve, and its intelligence will grow exponentially.

5. The actions of such a hugely smarter than human AI would be impossible to predict - but if it wanted to it could develop technology at a ridiculous pace.

But, if there is a collapse in the next 20-30 years, obviously it wont be built.

By: Jason Godesky

Jason Godesky — Sun, 12 Feb 2006 15:48:21 +0000

I don’t know what you read, specificially. That’s why I offered “collapse.” Specifically, as Gunnix mentioned, we refer to “catabolic collapse” around here to refer to the self-reinforcing cycle by which a society falls apart. I have no idea even what book you read, so I can’t tell you what term it might have used.

By: gunnix

gunnix — Sun, 12 Feb 2006 10:55:40 +0000

catabolic collapse ?

By: Nano

Nano — Sun, 12 Feb 2006 05:04:52 +0000

Okay, but you did not answer my question. What is this collapse supposed to be called? Like I said before, I do not remember the term, but am very interested in this topic. I remember it was specific to returning to a Pre-Industrial Period. Any thoughts?