Is everything a religion?

[Elok]

Aeson, the behavior you are describing is inconsistent with the observed behavior of human beings basically throughout history, barring small communities where personal bonds of trust and the possibility of effective policing allow collectivist behavior. Even then, communes and collectives often fall apart. Certainly we've never cooperated properly on a global level when our individual interests were at stake. Consider the UN; it would have been a powerful deterrent to war if it had teeth, but it never even got off the ground as the League of Nations, and its final incarnation was scarcely better. Nobody wants to surrender national sovereignty to strangers, or pay large amounts of money to a body whose decisions are made largely by others, including their historical enemies.

Our present course of action WRT climate change is still more constructive. The pains of comprehensive restructuring would be worthless unless most of the other large countries of the world did so at the same time--an enormous undertaking. There's an obvious benefit to not being constrained in growth when everybody else is. And nobody is really quite certain just how bad climate change will be. So everybody waits for somebody else to do something about it, even though that's not sensible behavior in the long run. Because people do not assume the ultra-long view, and the reason they don't is that it's impractical.

As a matter of fact, research into human enhancement will almost certainly be funded by the military--I'd be amazed if they weren't doing it already--as it has obvious military implications and the military has deeper pockets (in America, at least) than anybody else. Barring military involvement, the technology would still be prohibitively expensive for some time, and assuming it's actually possible and powerful in the sense you imagine there'd be no good reason to make it available to the little people. No society's elites have ever willingly surrendered their dominance.

Finally, greater intelligence does not necessarily yield greater compassion or maturity; your experience with this site should have taught you that!

[Aeson]

It isn't about compassion, it is pure self interest that would drive a society to work together at the point those flaws are fixed in the populace. It really is better for everyone if we work together, we just need people smart and stable enough to see that and bear it in mind consistently.

Of course we haven't seen such a thing happen on any large scale. The givens in the hypothetical have never existed, but likely will at some point. But we do see "big picture" capability in some individuals and groups who devote their lives (at least significant portions of it) to the greater good. Those are the people who demonstrably are the ones well enough equipped to overcome whatever archaic and self-destructive competitive/selfish genetic wiring causes us in general to do self destructive things.

Our concept of intelligence is much wider than the specific capabilities (resilient and vast memory, as well as greatly increased predictive power) I am talking about. So there are intelligent people who are intelligent in other ways ... just they can still be really bad at seeing the long term or bearing it in mind day to day.

[Kidlicious]

It isn't about compassion, it is pure self interest that would drive a society to work together at the point those flaws are fixed in the populace. It really is better for everyone if we work together, we just need people smart and stable enough to see that and bear it in mind consistently.

Of course we haven't seen such a thing happen on any large scale. The givens in the hypothetical have never existed, but likely will at some point. But we do see "big picture" capability in some individuals and groups who devote their lives (at least significant portions of it) to the greater good. Those are the people who demonstrably are the ones well enough equipped to overcome whatever archaic and self-destructive competitive/selfish genetic wiring causes us in general to do self destructive things.

Our concept of intelligence is much wider than the specific capabilities (resilient and vast memory, as well as greatly increased predictive power) I am talking about. So there are intelligent people who are intelligent in other ways ... just they can still be really bad at seeing the long term or bearing it in mind day to day.

No. It's not better for people to work, and let others take over their work and enslave them even if those people are hippies. Especially if those people are hippies.

I suppose it's equally bad to let say radical religionists who rape you with hot irons if you sell land to Jewish people take over as well.

[Aeson]

The reason the "elites" tend not to give power to people is "elites" generally are not actually elite in the ways we are talking about. They often are even worse at seeing the big picture and predicting what action is really in their own self interest than the average person.

This is especially true for all but the last 200 or so years of human history

[Kidlicious]

The reason the "elites" tend not to give power to people is "elites" generally are not actually elite in the ways we are talking about. They often are even worse at seeing the big picture and predicting what action is really in their own self interest than the average person.

This is especially true for all but the last 200 or so years of human history

I don't think you have a complete understanding of "power.". Elites are privileged people who have power simply because they ARE elite.

[Proteus_MST]

I don't think you have a complete understanding of "power.". Elites are privileged people who have power simply because they ARE elite.

With other words, Elites are people who have power, because they were born into the "right families"
(i.e. those who already have lots of money)

[Kidlicious]

With other words, Elites are people who have power, because they were born into the "right families"
(i.e. those who already have lots of money)

You don't have to be born into the "right family" to be elite. This isn't 1775.

[Proteus_MST]

You don't have to be born into the "right family" to be elite. This isn't 1775.

In most countries maybe not ... in the capitalist paradise (i.e. USA) IMHO surely.
Your family has to have money in order to afford the right prestigious universities ... and you will profit from the right contacts if you are born into the right family.
(I ctually think that in 1775 your chances to get from dishwashr to millionaire were higher than nowadays)

That' even more the case if we talk about political power (like becoming presidents or senators).
How many presidents/senators in the last decades have not come from a wealthy family?

[Elok]

Aeson, can you be more specific about what you expect enhancement to do? Greater memory in the sense of: ability to recall past events in one's own life, ability to acquire and store information (possibly with improved retrieval methods), or in the computer sense of being able to hold more on one's plate at any given time? Greater predictive ability of what? Stock patterns, weather patterns, human behavior, pool balls bouncing?

In any case, the best course of action in any given situation is dependent on leverage, on how much of the situation you can control. Collective self-interest behavior such as you are describing is only attainable by people with whatever abilities you expect acquiring control, one way or another, of the bulk of the world's people and resources. How is this going to happen without violence?

[Aeson]

Our memory is prone to corruption, for most people is very lossy, generally badly indexed, and may or may not interact with our subconscious in ways we would like.

Augmented memory could be lossless, well indexed, and accessible in desired ways.

Augmentation would also allow for added processing power, immensely faster than the human mind at certain tasks ... like math calculations and any form of repetition. Reaction time would be phenomenal. And it would all be scalable.

As for predictions, self driving cars are an example. It is clear that eventually self driving cars will be much safer drivers than humans are. They can react so much faster to a situation, never get distracted, and can perform very complex calculations fast enough to get solid results in time to make a decision. Humans on the other hand are often distracted or tired, at best reaction times are a quarter second, and very little thought is involved in split second decisions.

Imagine having days or weeks worth of time you could take to study and think about a topic ... even running simulations ... compressed into seconds so you can make well informed decisions.

With augmentation of this sort, the person would have access to better data, quicker calculations, and still have their base functionality as well. It would definitely improve decision making.

Also, it is likely this level of tech allows for a person to control their hormones, avoiding evolutionary relics like rage, fear, and such clouding judgment.

In regards to power, it is likely those with power will be the first to be augmented. If not, it is likely that the augmented would quickly increase their power using their added abilities.

I think that given enough information, and using a level head, the conclusion that working together leads to better results (for self) becomes rather obvious. Augmentation of this sort would make that conclusion more likely to be reached. Many people are capable of reaching that conclusion, though it can be hard to always factor it into decisions. An augmented could have it as a base part of their advisor routines, always loaded into memory, accessed on a schedule, or whatever.

Augmentation of other sorts, like physical (strength, manual dexterity, targeting) would fit more with military approaches. They wouldn't want a very intelligent (in a general sense) augmentation, since that would reduce their control over the soldier.

[Aeson]

In any case, the best course of action in any given situation is dependent on leverage, on how much of the situation you can control. Collective self-interest behavior such as you are describing is only attainable by people with whatever abilities you expect acquiring control, one way or another, of the bulk of the world's people and resources. How is this going to happen without violence?

If we accept that the augmentation improves the mindset (relative to the "work together" conclusion) ... then the obvious best method to convert people is for them to be augmented as well.

This also normalizes the condition, lowering the chance of an angry mob with torches and pitchforks (or guns and emps).

It also splits the workload. While the computer side of things would be scalable, the meatsack side of things wouldn't be. (At least not at the start.) A single augmented could potentially run an army of robots on a dumb automated task (like building cars) ... but with no real AI, more complex decisions would still take brain time and energy.

So for the augmented it would make sense to help those who also want augmentation to get it.

[Aeson]

One other factor is once you can interface with the brain along these lines you have true VR capability. (Likely how augmentation comes to be publicly available.) This would just about eliminate resource scarcity, as everyone could enjoy infinite virtual resources.

The danger here is more along the lines of everyone deciding to stay in VR.

[Kidlicious]

In most countries maybe not ... in the capitalist paradise (i.e. USA) IMHO surely.
Your family has to have money in order to afford the right prestigious universities ... and you will profit from the right contacts if you are born into the right family.
(I ctually think that in 1775 your chances to get from dishwashr to millionaire were higher than nowadays)

That' even more the case if we talk about political power (like becoming presidents or senators).
How many presidents/senators in the last decades have not come from a wealthy family?

Maxine Waters comes from a family of thirteen and her father left the family so she was raised by a single mother. She also worked in a factory. Now thank the Lord she is not the president, but my point is that you over simply things.

[Proteus_MST]

Maxine Waters comes from a family of thirteen and her father left the family so she was raised by a single mother. She also worked in a factory. Now thank the Lord she is not the president, but my point is that you over simply things.

Are there more?
I mean, if you can just list a single person, that more or less proves my point that it is highly unlikely to become POTUS or Senator if you don't come from a wealthy family.
(But to get more to the point I should better ask: What percentage of senators/presidents (current and former, lets say from the last half century) have come from non wealthy families?)

[BlackCat]

Reagan was not borne into a rich family, but since he was a socialist, I guess he doesn't count for Kiddy.