As Kurszweil is likely right, and AI is unacceptably risky; assuming we can somehow or another dodge that bullet, the problem remains of our destructive effect on Nature. Even after Climate Change has been solved; we’re too good at destroying our environment. Our technology seems to be self balancing for our survival; but our effect on the planet remains a consistent problem year on year.
We need to protect, restore and preserve Nature. Lest we go with it. And IMO the best way to do that, looking realistically at humans, is to gene-edit some very intelligent people with all the genes that tends toward the naturist.
You need some guaranteed resistance to our destructiveness. If they were say, 3% smarter then the current peak of human intelligence, that should be enough to oppose and actively counteract our worst tendencies towards our environment.
Yes; you would have to accept the widespread ability to generate geniuses. But, gene-editing is coming whether we like it or not. This way, you get a committed guarantee of a proactive preservationist element.
Thousands of such people might be enough. So long as gene-editing of intelligence proves to be very difficult, a small increase in intelligence presumably wouldn’t break the world.
In a world without AI, we need gene-editing to protect Nature. (Not how you think)
As Kurszweil is likely right, and AI is unacceptably risky; assuming we can somehow or another dodge that bullet, the problem remains of our destructive effect on Nature. Even after Climate Change has been solved; we’re too good at destroying our environment. Our technology seems to be self balancing for our survival; but our effect on the planet remains a consistent problem year on year.
We need to protect, restore and preserve Nature. Lest we go with it. And IMO the best way to do that, looking realistically at humans, is to gene-edit some very intelligent people with all the genes that tends toward the naturist.
You need some guaranteed resistance to our destructiveness. If they were say, 3% smarter then the current peak of human intelligence, that should be enough to oppose and actively counteract our worst tendencies towards our environment.
Yes; you would have to accept the widespread ability to generate geniuses. But, gene-editing is coming whether we like it or not. This way, you get a committed guarantee of a proactive preservationist element.
Thousands of such people might be enough. So long as gene-editing of intelligence proves to be very difficult, a small increase in intelligence presumably wouldn’t break the world.