One of the first sentences in her new book, “On the Future” is “What happens in this century, that will reverberate for thousands of years.” How optimistic are you that it is a nice reverb?
In technical terms, I am an Optimist. We have the technologies to ensure nine or ten billion people on this planet a good life. Politically, I am a Pessimist. The gap between the world as it is and as it could be, expanding to close instead. In the 45 million centuries, since the earth exists, it is the first century in which a biological species decides how it goes – whether we cause irreversible damage or a wonderful Transition into a future worth living.
For the humanity in need of “collective intelligence”, as they call it in the book. There is such a thing? One may well doubt, in view of the political developments in the Americas, in Brazil, and even in your home.
O Yes, it is shameful.
Please don’t.
But, as a European, I find it embarrassing, what crap we are British.
The fight against climate change would be easier than to colonize Mars, they write.
I am not too pessimistic. The taxation of coal is useful. There is the Paris agreement. Realistically, we should be driving research in non-fossil energy technologies. If the alternative electricity production is cheaper than coal combustion, to the pivots of a country such as India. We would be willing to spend for the exploration of clean energy so much the money as it is for other areas, there would be quick progress.
you do not Need to speak honestly from the waiver? Less Consumption Of Meat? Less long-distance travel and so on?
If you want to live like Americans today, could not tolerate the Planet’s two billion people. But in the case of a life-style more clearly. Realistic appears to be that the world population grow by 2050 to be nine to ten billion people. The way I see it, is to fold the food supply, thanks in part to innovations such as artificial meat. I don’t see a fundamental Problem. But it is quite an uneven distribution. There are still famines on earth. Unnecessarily.
choose to Be democracies ever restrictions and prohibitions?
As President of the EU Commission, Juncker said: We know what to do. But if we do it, we do not know how we are re-elected. Seriously: I think the Lifestyle must be different from that of today’s Americans. But this can be a acceptable life. People choose to be a vegetarian. With modern computer technology it would need to travel less for business. A development makes me very pessimistic about the Situation in Africa. The birth rates are still high. The population will double by mid-century, or more, because it is culturally desirable. Nigeria could grow in this century to 900 million people. By 2050, there will be five times as many Africans as Europeans. And they are not like the Asians with the production of goods to prosperity, there will in the future robot. This is a cause for concern. Today’s boat refugees could only be a foretaste of the wall movements of the future.
“you Can also deal with Schubsern: 2015, the company Boston Dynamics unveiled its robot dog “Spot”. Video: Youtube/Boston Dynamics”
Especially in China, the technology euphoria. Recently there genetically modified babies to be born.
If this is true, only changed one or two genes. Nevertheless, it will be criticised, and rightly so. You should not fumble in the genome around to capture only the HIV risk. That is a huge risk with a small.
write and biotechnology have been using Crispr/CAS9, the often-cited Genschere, a new, more subtle and softer approach, what could increase the acceptance of genetic engineering. But this is not more frightening than the classic genetic engineering?
In the long run, Yes. But for the time being, you can eliminate any mono-genetic diseases such as Huntington’s disease. And in plants it is possible to achieve improvements, without the species barrier to break through, so without the DNA of other organisms. That was in the green genetic engineering of the Yuck-factor: rabbits that glow in the dark, and so what. The new interventions in the genetic material are the classic breeding methods are significantly similar. However, if it is possible in the long term should be, a whole genome synthetically, that would be in fact a radical break.
How big is the risk that machines and artificial intelligence take over the Power?
Honestly, I don’t think it’s going to be a Takeover. Rather Malfunction. There, where the artificial intelligence things are controlled, such as the national power grid or financial flows, we are increasingly vulnerable. Many human activities are already determined by artificial intelligence, banking, and medicine. If something goes wrong, it could be in the future is impossible to detect the cause, because we see the faults in the System.
Could urge machines in an increase or a will to survive?
For an Evolution in the sense Darwin’s, it takes intelligence and Aggression. Machines may be intelligent, but Aggression is alien to them. Also, machines are still not very good at dealing with the real world. Ray Kurzweil that predicts a Takeover by machines, before, thinks, soon we will store our brains electronically. But digital pictures of the brain, we wouldn’t really.
Often it comes to the question of whether machines develop a consciousness of its own.
we don’t know simply. Some say no, others claim it could arise in a machine. Personally, I think there will be a post-human Evolution, which is believed to be electronic. How we handle it, depends on whether these post-human beings have a consciousness of its own. The question of whether these beings have a consciousness, a self, is very important. The will decide how our relationship to them will be.
Far into the future, looked: at some point the sun will be burnt out. Should we visit other planets?
When we speak of manned space travel: We should spend on it currently, not tax money. I would be American I would not support Nasa. The ESA should not do that. The better robots become, the easier it is for exploration can be in All you done. Manned missions should be left to private companies such as Spacex or Blue Origin. People can go into space, who want to take the risk, maybe even without a return ticket. Future Mars inhabitants will, then, develop away from all regulation, new methods, perhaps, electronic mutations, and, possibly, interstellar travel companies. The technical Evolution is much faster than the biological. But we can’t predict what is developing.
How far in the future, we should plan as a humanity?
In the middle ages, people built hundreds of years in cathedrals, even though they believed the earth there will be only 1000 years. In addition, the life in the middle ages was miserably in comparison to today. But ethically it is now worse, because there is a big gap between how things are and how they could be. We create it once, to plan 30 years into the future. In the middle ages, people assumed that their descendants would lead a similar life as you. Today, we have no idea how our children will go.
(editing Tamedia)
Created: 20.12.2018, 14:27 PM
