My first post for H+ Magazine. Hope you enjoy!
I haven't finished the article yet, but this left me musing: Technically it's not free - you pay for access to those things, perhaps not directly to each service, but you pay for access to the internet. Higher education costs money. so what can be said for the future of intelligence and how much of a factor does monetary wealth play into it?Brain extenders technically already exist. Google is a brain extender. Wikipedia is a brain extender. Your smart phone is a brain extender. You have access to world knowledge nearly everywhere for free.
I understand your reasoning on this. I did also state the following: So I am aware that almost all world knowledge is available to you as long as you can pay for and have access to the internet. But I predict that the internet will be ubiquitous and essentially free in the 2030s, certainly by the 2040s. Higher education is in a world of hurt. I don't mention the future of higher education in this article. That deserves an entirely separate article. I have not fully fleshed out my thoughts on the future of that institution... but the types of technologies that will exist by mid-century will make it irrelevant as it currently exists. So it will be massively different. But I don't know what form it will take. Finally, I hope that monetary wealth does not factor into the future of intelligence. I hope that everyone has pretty much access to equal knowledge. That will mean everyone has equal access to the Global Brain and the technologies that will enable contact and immersion with the Global Brain.All world knowledge is catalogued and almost universally abundant to any human on the planet with an internet connection
Where do things like our current pharmaceuticals play in to the ability to extract the most out of our brains? I have a family member that takes Adderall and it really helps him focus. I'd imagine that it could really help me focus too. Where do you stand on people using drugs to enhance their performance intellectually? Is it something that you would try/do? Should there be an asterisk next to someones name should they one day win a nobel prize after taking drugs to promote brain function?
That is a tremendous question that (embarrassingly) I do not have a well-thought out answer for. I have tried Adderall and I love it. I was super productive and felt like I was Cadell x 100. I could write ten books a year if I was constantly on Adderall and it had the same effect without any negative side effects. I feel like as an individual, it is a personal choice if you want to use brain enhancing drugs. I guess the problem is that it is hard to say what the long-term side effects of these drugs are. I don't know if I really buy into the asterisk rule. I think Adderall makes you more productive and focused - but I don't think it makes you inherently smarter. And obviously I think the asterisk would be unwarranted even if it did make you smarter because there are a lot of technologies that make us smarter. The only difference with a pill is that it is inside of you and not outside of you. And soon the technologies that make us smarter will be inside of us instead of outside of us. I think these will be safer overall than the drugs that we currently have available to us, which is why the use of them will be widespread and quickly adopted. Ah, that response sounds like it needs a little more thought. But I'm open to dialogue! What do you think?
Cadell x 100 sounds terrifying, you're already too prolific. I agree that if there weren't negative effects, I would use drugs to enhance my state every day. In fact, I already do. I'm on my second cup of coffee right now and I took some allergy medication this morning. But Adderall, honestly I've tried it too and it's amazing stuff. I wish it were good for me because if it were I'd take it like flintstone vitamins. Great piece btw.
Really nice article, Cadell. Given all that follows from intelligence, it might not be suprising. Perhaps intelligence only needs to develop once. Humans are probably one of the most resilient species now due to their intelligence, and all evidence suggests that we aren't willing to share the niche. Still, it is interesting that it hadn't occurred earlier. It might be that the environmental pressures never timed right with those species that were able to explore it. Then again, if it had occurred earlier, we wouldn't be asking the question now. I wonder about this. This seems almost an assumed vision of the future, however, personally, I have no interest in plugging into the feelings of others, nor others plugging into mine. I'm not saying that it won't happen, but currently, the human psyche has developed within a barrier, and emotions and ideas are filtered. I don't see the motivation to break that down.However, what has perplexed many scientists is how rare intelligence is from an evolutionary perspective. Palaeontologists have discovered several million species spanning hundreds of millions of years of evolution. Yet no known organism other than humans, has ever evolved complex language, engaged in abstract artistic expression, or developed advanced technologies.
This will not just be a metaphorical Global Brain. You will literally be directly connected to the thoughts, feelings, and knowledge of all other humans.
Thanks for your thoughts. The first quote has represented a new intellectual tactic of sorts that I feel no one else really employs: that being highlighting negative data. Palaeontologists and evolutionary biologists give little thought to why it is that we are the first and only intelligent species to emerge in the history of life. I find it quite peculiar that that is the case. I think it may be part of a larger puzzle that will help us figure out how common intelligence is in the universe. I most certainly agree with you that two intelligent species (especially two highly diverged species) could never share the planet at the same time. However, isn't it interesting that we don't need an archaeology of the Jurassic? Or the Eocene? Or any other period. In my mind this is because evolution has no forethought. Intelligence is obviously highly beneficial. But it is very rarely immediately beneficial in the world of natural selection. And selection is all about immediate benefit. I can understand why my statement on the Global Brain would be a cause for concern for most people. The transition to a more completely interconnected world will be an interesting one. There will certainly be people who resist (at first) the technologies that will bring it into existence (just look at how people are reacting to Google Glass for privacy reasons). However, I think in the big overarching trend of nano-computers will be adoption of technologies that allow us to communicate in ways that make language look like a cumbersome information transference system. Here's an example: I know a lot about evolution. You know a lot about computer programming. I've read books you haven't. You've read book I haven't. Wouldn't it be nice if we could instantly transfer and understand this information? Wouldn't it be nice if it was near instant? Technologies in the not-so-distant future will allow us to do this. We will both be "plugged-in" to the cloud. I'm sure there will be ways for people to disconnect, but most people will feel lonely when they aren't connected. I think the analogy with what is happening with the internet today is apt. Look at the people who take "vacations from the internet". Most come back. They want to be connected. They need to be connected. For work. For communication with friends and family. The same pressures will be present for the Global Brain. At least I think. I don't think it is an assumption. It is technological extrapolation and hypothesizing of human behaviour based on how we behave with the technologies that currently exist. Fair?
I think that's a reasonable hypothesis. Perhaps the road to intelligence requires a series of pressures that only rarely occur, and then it might also be rare that a species is able to move into the niche at the necessary rate. On the flipside, perhaps the apparent paucity of intelligent life has as much to do with our chances in future as it does our past. As to the second part, I agree that connectivity has only begun. However, I would bet that the individuals that are so connected on that level will probably be quite different from you and me. Mental social connectivity during the developmental years will probably create individuals that we won't easily understand. Interesting to think what our literature and history might look like to them, -voices of isolation.However, isn't it interesting that we don't need an archaeology of the Jurassic? Or the Eocene? Or any other period. In my mind this is because evolution has no forethought. Intelligence is obviously highly beneficial. But it is very rarely immediately beneficial in the world of natural selection. And selection is all about immediate benefit.
This is still a real possibility. It is one that some see as the most probably conclusion given current data. It wouldn't explain the lack of intelligence in earth's past, but it would explain the lack of intelligent activity observed in the universe so far. Yes, I agree with this. That is why I said in the article that whatever intelligence exists in 100, 200, 500 years etc., will have to decide whether enough change has occurred to constitute a new species. A departure from Homo sapiens. Perhaps they will cease to use the term species, as it may make more sense as a concept used to describe purely biological forms. I could see stasis in form as something that doesn't necessary exist in the deep future of intelligence. Well put. I think this is exactly how they will view our minds. It would be quite like me feeling like animals are in mental isolation because of lack of language. Language enables us to share our thoughts and feelings on quite deep levels. However, language isn't the perfect medium for this transfer of data. We are still essentially in a degree of isolation. If Hubski exists in 50-60 years, it will be interesting to see what it has evolved into to perhaps facilitate Global Brain activity :)perhaps the apparent paucity of intelligent life has as much to do with our chances in future as it does our past.
I would bet that the individuals that are so connected on that level will probably be quite different from you and me
Interesting to think what our literature and history might look like to them, -voices of isolation.