Technology apocalypse- scenarios

[Jack of Spades]

What are possible or likely ways how humans can destroy themselves with new technology in the future? Nuclear weapons and classic pollution are kinda obvious but anything else, more exotic scenarios?

I think rogue AIs and self-replicating robots (maybe nanobots) are somewhat possible dangers somewhere in the future.

After careful consideration, as long as AIs stay out of controlling WMDs, I'm more afraid of self-replicating nanobots than super AIs. The nanobot going rogue doesn't even have to deliberately target humans, but it could still damage the ecosystem enough to cause a disaster.

I think it will be a while before a nanobot is sophisticated enough to be able to self-replicate in natural environment, but the whole idea of building something that self-replicates is a textbook recipe for apocalypse waiting to happen.

 

[MehGuy]

I think a manufactured super virus is most likely.

 

[Eryk]

These fears about science owe a lot to Michael Crichton, the climate-change denying fiction writer who met with George W. Bush in the White House. We are evolved to be afraid, it kept us safe when we were hunted by animals and human rivals, so there is a market for these stories thanks to our psychology. But what is going to save us from living in fear? That is the disaster.

Yes, a plague could happen. That is the world we have always lived in. Life is fragile and we are all going to die of something.

What if the machines take over? Is that supposed to be less safe than a few human beings having nuclear launch codes?

Come on, people. Look at the statistics on the decline of global poverty and disease. Humanity is less violent than it has ever been. Have some perspective.

 

[Jack of Spades]

But what is going to save us from living in fear? That is the disaster.

Lol.

I'm not crying myself to sleep fearing nanobots. Most likely I die from natural causes or in an accident, before anything I vision will have a realistic chance to happen.

Why being speculative is so easily considered to be a sign of emotional distress when it's not?

It's intellectually healthy to speculate and try to understand technology and the world. If it's done by means of speculating a nanobot-apocalypse, it's called "triggering the imagination".

If we were actually talking about CF members living in state fear, I think AIs and nanobots would be lightyears behind in fearfactor compared to political topics.

 

[Eryk]

Lol.

I'm not crying myself to sleep fearing nanobots. Most likely I die from natural causes or in an accident, before anything I vision will have a realistic chance to happen.

Why being speculative is so easily considered to be a sign of emotional distress when it's not?

It's intellectually healthy to speculate and try to understand technology and the world. If it's done by means of speculating a nanobot-apocalypse, it's called "triggering the imagination".

If we were actually talking about CF members living in state fear, I think AIs and nanobots would be lightyears behind in fearfactor compared to political topics.

I saw the words 'apocalypse', 'destroy' and 'dangers' and it seemed pretty dramatic.

I think climate change is a legitimate concern and it gets mocked by people who send money to end-times preachers. Pick your poison.

 

[Chesterton]

Ever see the film "Brainstorm"? [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] experience looping will result in our extinction.

 

[Spiritlight]

Try overpopulation and the resulting wars over the limited remaining resources. At the moment we are breeding too much stupidity so in the future today's gluttony will be replaced with famines.

 

[Taom Ben Robert]

Climate change obviously a major problem, as is overmilitarization , personally the fear of nanotechnology is overblown , if made beneficially, and self replicating there would be little to no problem.

 

[jayem]

Fracking for natural gas has already been considered in parts of Wyoming and Montana near Yellowstone. Link. Networks of magma chambers are still being discovered. It's not inconceivable that in the future, if wells are drilled more deeply and utilize even greater hydraulic pressures, an eruption might be triggered. It wouldn't be a global apocalypse if the Yellowstone supervolcano ever blows. But it'd game over for a lot of us living in the midwest.

 

[Nithavela]

Ever see the film "Brainstorm"? [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] experience looping will result in our extinction.

Remind me of a shortstory I once read. In it, aliens visited earth and found nothing but the ruins of our civilisation, with no sign of why everyone died. They found a giant obelisk with an inscription, and when they succeeded in translating it, it basically said "We have created a machine that allows us to experience an eternity of bliss in our minds and have collectively decided that that is far better than dredging around in reality."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What are possible or likely ways how humans can destroy themselves with new technology in the future? Nuclear weapons and classic pollution are kinda obvious but anything else, more exotic scenarios?

I think rogue AIs and self-replicating robots (maybe nanobots) are somewhat possible dangers somewhere in the future.

After careful consideration, as log as AIs stay out of controlling WMDs, I'm more afraid of self-replicating nanobots than super AIs. The nanobot going rogue doesn't even have to deliberately target humans, but it could still damage the ecosystem enough to cause a disaster.

I think it will be a while before a nanobot is sophisticated enough to be able to self-replicate in natural environment, but the whole idea of building something that self-replicates is a textbook recipe for apocalypse waiting to happen.

Personally, I'm not so much afraid of what machines will do on their own. I'm more afraid of what people will do, and are already doing, with the machines they've made.

2PhiloVoid

 

[Paradoxum]

Human-made virus'
Nanobots
Super AI

I'd say they are big threats.

 

[Jack of Spades]

Human-made virus'
Nanobots
Super AI

I'd say they are big threats.

Super-AI controlling nanobots which are infected by a super-virus?!?

<------------ me thinking of nanobots.

<------------- me finding the solution and going anti-technology

<------------- me after destroying every electronic device in the house

 

[Paradoxum]

Super-AI controlling nanobots which are infected by a super-virus?!?

<------------ me thinking of nanobots.

<------------- me finding the solution and going anti-technology

<------------- me after destroying every electronic device in the house

LOL

 

[Dave-W]

<------------ me thinking of nanobots.

<------------ me thinking of nanobots.

 

[Armoured]

Try overpopulation and the resulting wars over the limited remaining resources. At the moment we are breeding too much stupidity so in the future today's gluttony will be replaced with famines.

Well, I think that's more likely to lead to a massive population dieback and severe technological and living standard decrease, but not an "apocalypse", per se.

 

[Armoured]

Human-made virus'
Nanobots
Super AI

I'd say they are big threats.

Or just climate change.

 

[Jack of Spades]

Try overpopulation and the resulting wars over the limited remaining resources. At the moment we are breeding too much stupidity so in the future today's gluttony will be replaced with famines.

That happens with numerous animal species all the time in the nature, they overpopulate, then the population collapses and the cycle starts over. Overpopulation doesn't destroy a specie unless they manage to permanently destroy living conditions for the future generations. That usually doesn't happen unless it's a very closed environment, like f.e. an island. More likely thing to happen as a result of overpopulation is to end up destroying some other species than ones own.

I think the more serious long-term risk of overpopulation is that it might serve as a catalysis for some other problems, like f.e. pollution.

Climate change obviously a major problem, as is overmilitarization , personally the fear of nanotechnology is overblown , if made beneficially, and self replicating there would be little to no problem.

Problem with self-replicating nanobots is that you need to mess up only once. If you blow up one nuclear weapon accidentally, the impact is pretty local. With a self-replicating nanobot, you can build 40 000 succesful, safe models without problems, then build 1 faulty model, and that's the end of the world. Because of the infinite nature of the self-replication process (assuming it works in the natural environment) there is no room for messing it up, it's a very high stakes - game.

 

[Cearbhall]

I think a manufactured super virus is most likely.

Yes, bioterrorism is the first thing that came to mind.

 

[Paradoxum]

Or just climate change.

Climate change is important, but it isn't a threat to humanity in general.

I support quick changes to environmental and energy policy though.