TED Conversations

Kirill Rebrov

Startup author,

This conversation is closed.

Designing the model of Future: Manufacture paradigm shifts

Unfortunately my explanation is extremely large for a 2000 characters. But I want to share this idea with TED community, so I'd try to make a short explanation.
The forecasting of the future trends is not only imagination for me. One of the most valuable things is the Chain between tomorrow and today. Only connected Chain links which are extrapolated from today’s reality can produce a real forecast and show a clear view on the evolution process of particular field of industry or technology. But the future is not only one field or technology. Future is our life and built by many related fields: economy, industry, medicine, science etc. So my goal is to write Chain forecasts in many different fields of our life correcting each one if it conflicts with others at each Chain link making large self provable forecast system. I would also appreciate to any subject technology or field expert who can point me to my mistakes about field or technology trends, specifics etc. As a result it will ideally lead to the maximally accurate forecast of our future at each chronological Chain link. In other sense it’ll also be something like the conceptual model of most optimal and better future.
My first analysis begins with a thoughts on upcoming manufacture paradigm shifts. It also affects a number of related subjects. As I mentioned above it’s impossible to suit these thoughts in 2000 characters so I invite you to visit my blog post with detailed explanation http://techains.blogspot.com/2012/08/manufacturing-paradigm-shifts.html and join the discussion here on TED since it’s not my blog promotion. I hope some of you will find the idea to be perspective and interesting.

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Aug 20 2012: ...

    Movies like iRobot and Terminator have already sketched some versions of such a future in which the statement 'The spirits that I called up will now not let me go.' sparkles anew and at a light which may is to come...

    I don't wish for a day in which '... there will be no clear line between us and AI', as it would clearly mark the day of human extinction! This would be the highest form of misuse of our technology and I refuse to join the choir of those who would name this day the liberation of our limitations.

    Fortunately I will not experience that day due to mortal reasons, yet I already criticize the credulousness before and about it.

    'But I also see positive tendency especially in our ‘given economy’ with its profit orientation.'

    Because of this 'profit orientation' we only see 'positive tendencies' on environmental issues in 2012 and it is not the 'driving force' for it and nothing but an opportunistic following!

    It is intelligent not to poison the well you are drinking from. It is not intelligent to stop poisoning because it just happens to become financial profitable. It is the intention, not the result, which is important to evaluate the true nature of our economy and if it serves our needs or goes against them.

    Therefore capitalism has to change for ' ... something more efficient.' and this better sooner than later, yet also here I am not able to follow your overal optimism, as I do not see any change on the horizon at the moment, on the contrary, as we are forcing capitalism to remain against all common sense instead and at the moment.

    As inventions are made to serve our needs and our needs are not subjected to require a verification upon its overall consequences, an intelligent prediction software, even if it was possible what I still doubt, would therefore consequently run into illogicality loops. To avoid that, the boundary conditions were to be changed in someones favour, which would lead to undermination of the AI intelligence itself ...
    • thumb
      Aug 20 2012: >I don't wish for a day in which '... there will be no clear line between us and AI', as it would clearly mark the day of human extinction!

      I think it’s stereotype. Yes, if somebody tells me today “I’ll insert two webcams in your eyes, ok?” I’ll run away because I don’t ready morally even if there is a need for improving my life quality. But is a moral(a changing variable in our history) a valid argument in the scale of all humanity? I look on this as on the evolution. Millions years ago we were not very similar to us today. The difference in transformation only in a number of years. Biological evolution is very slow so we can easily adapt to our look and form in the scale of generation. The new bio-technological evolution is much faster and will cause an extreme protest from many living people. But what if all newborn children born with microwaves as heads? It will be problem for us, but if it only improves their life quality it won’t be a problem for them. Everything is relative. We are just an evolutionary stage and who says that evolution must be only organic and/or w/o artificial modification(like natural selection is also a modification tool). What is the difference between organic and inorganic life? Only copyright. In case of AI we know that we created it. To be precisely we “seed” it.
      Yeah, there are some other counter-evidences like dystopia predictions about unfair applications of new technologies. I agree this is the subject for discussion in context of the goal of technology application, but not in context of the technology itself.

      >It is intelligent not to poison the well you are drinking from. It is not intelligent to stop poisoning because it just happens to become financial profitable.

      The second is more intelligent than continue poisoning. Also I see nothing bad in profitable green economy as the next good stage of development. Despite the fact that I am more inclined to a post-scarcity economy in the future(may be some day after "green" one)
      • thumb
        Aug 20 2012: Dystopia is nothing but experience, extrapolated. And this because technology has been released to often without an open discussion about its use, misuse and consequences.

        Technology for the sake of technology will only prove itself harmful to mankind, sooner or later, as it is missing the most important corrective: Humanity.

        You can see this today in many shades. Nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons, anti person mines, cluster bombs, etc. ... All of these are especially design for low cost and high efficiency and even 'better' versions are in blueprint already.

        In my personal believe there are values in moral which remain constant over time, especially if they are about the life of human beings. The fact that those values have been violated in the past and get violated today does not justify its invalidity, nor does it suggest this sort of violation will ever be accepted in the future.

        So if it is about human extinction due to the substitution of all 'ineffective' human brains by AI -modules, the value of life will still be valid and therefore intervene in this cyborg horror scenario. And rightly so, as it denies this perverted and blind belief in technology, technocratic arrogance and lunatic self-love of efficiency.

        If you wish your children to be born with microwaves instead of heads because someone defined this would improve their life quality, go for it if you can, but do not expect anyone to have as much faith in those definitions as you then have...

        To improve life quality no one need to remove his or her original brain, not today, and not in 5000 years. Unless some hidden agenda is talking them into it, or, even worse, forcing them for another purpose than life quality. I am not talking about treatments for depression, dementia or stroke damage here, as it seems imaginable to have one day the technology on hand to work on that. But this would not be a full replacement, it would be a partial prosthesis - and that's a difference!
      • thumb
        Aug 20 2012: Especially because natural evolution is a slow process, our minds are design for limited changing speed only. Even within your own lifetime you may get to notice one day, that with increasing age your mental flexibility will decrease to a certain extend. Partly due to lethargy, partly due to experience, as you may have found what suits you best and therefore have no need for changing it.

        Technology evolves already that fast, that even young people get problems to keep up to date with it in all possible fields. And the speed keeps increasing, as technology follows its exponential path of acceleration, to a point, that the majority of people will either fail to follow or conciously decide to do so. That time may serve as a turning point to remember, that 'speed of life' does not equals to 'quality of life'. And we already entered a period in human history were 'time' has become scarce to many of us. To me it is no coincidence that 'outburn syndromes' and mental issues have increased
        within the last 10 to 20 yeras, which, on historic time scale, is close to 'instant' and congruent to the acceleration curve of our technology and economy...

        Fixing this problem just by removing our 'slow brains' would be a consequence only for those who would mainly profit from it. I have my doubts that this would be the majority of the 'human' people...

        But I am on your side if it is about a post-scarcity economy in the future, as this to me is the only way to evolve our humanity for the best of all human beings. A prediction, if we will ever get there, I don't even dare to make, but I do hope for it.

        And, by the way, how would a webcam, replacing your eyes, improve your life quality? Aren't you satisfied with the sight you already have?

        And, by by the way, naming critical views 'stereotype' may avoid reflecting different views, as it is a form of generalization in negating opposite opinions.
    • thumb
      Aug 20 2012: You are very dramatic. Dystopia is experience as utopia is experience too. Pessimism and optimism are both marginal.
      On your:
      > Nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons...

      I can say:
      greatly increasing of life quality(yes not for every human in a world), medicine which have drastically reduced infant mortality and increase the life expectancy, Internet that ultimately increased access to all sort of information, communication and cooperation giving individual the opportunity to be really valuable in this world. And better versions are in blueprint already.

      I never was an optimist(even if some of my views are optimistic for pessimists). And yes, I see trade-offs.

      >In my personal believe there are values in moral which remain constant over time

      Most of our history moral was a weapon in hands of not very “moral” human beings. And when a moral switch to a new one, the old one becomes immoral :) Every moral is artificial since we initially are animals so the choice of a moral is a choice of one of the artificial value systems. I don’t state that it’s bad, I just want to say that the moral is artificial as technology is. And as technology the moral has its initial creator, its task and its adepts on historical scale. The real constant values are something like instincts. Something that is physiologically interpreted.

      >If you wish your children
      I don’t want to force my children to do anything w/o their perceived choice. And I don’t advocate anything to force other people do. I just don’t see so much horror, but I still open to alternative scenarios. The application policy of revolutionary technologies is very very important. And social development is one of the key factors here.

      >To improve life quality no one need to remove his or her original brain

      I leave it in the field of personal decisions. But no one can take away the right of blind to improve his life with bio-retina. Or take away the human right on physical immortality.
      • thumb
        Aug 20 2012: Drama is used to highlight and counterbalance to much of 'good faith' here as all humanity is in peril!

        :o)

        But maybe I didn't get my point clear. I am not against technology and its development over time, on the contrary, and beeing a mechanical engineer, it would serve quite counterproductive if I was...

        Yet I am against blind belief in technology, against technology which is used to kill people and against the misuse of technology in many forms if it is used against people.

        To me, with technological creativity and science comes responsibility to those who practice it and not only to those who are using the final outcome.

        40 years ago it was morally unacceptable to divorce in many societies. Today, some have evolved and divorce became accepted. Now, gay marriage is in discussion and it will take its time as well to get widely accepted. And even at times where moral was based in our 'swords', it did make a difference what killing was accepted and which wasn't. One of the highest achievements in our modern time was the agreement on the 'Charta of Human Rights' which is the lowest common denominator of all human life and is likely to remain constant as long as we do not fall back in barbarism.

        You saying 'The application policy of revolutionary technologies is very very important. And social development is one of the key factors here.' is going in the same direction.

        The mentioned 'human right on physical immortality' will become an interesting issue one day as it will - again dramatically :o) -conflict with the given right to decide for offsprings. On a limited planet with limited resources both rights would have to interdepend. You could not have both at a time ...
        • thumb
          Aug 20 2012: Maybe I wasn’t clear enough too. I am not technocratic as well. Anyway it is productive and interesting debate.

          > On a limited planet with limited resources both rights would have to interdepend. You could not have both at a time …

          That’s why I crossed my fingers while curiosity was landing :)
        • thumb
          Aug 20 2012: >Oh, on Curiosity I have already been 'dramatic' too in this forum ... :o)

          Get your hands out of Mars!:)))

          >good wine

          Good wine sounds good. As well as beer :)

          >http://thevenusproject.com/en
          I heard about venus before. It was hard not to hear. With a bit of scepsis. But it’s reasonable to take note. Thanks for the tip
      • thumb
        Aug 20 2012: Oh, on Curiosity I have already been 'dramatic' too in this forum ... :o)

        http://www.ted.com/conversations/13315/magnetizing_mars_is_this_how.html?c=518016

        And it seems if we would ever meet in reality, we would hardly run out of topics to argue about and to have the chance of plenty of good wine and beer while doing so... :o)
      • thumb
        Aug 20 2012: 'Get your hands out of Mars!:)))'

        Sorry, to late, and I could fill books about the stupidity of terraforming dreams the moment they try to hop out of science fiction... :o)

        The day we manage to live with and not against our planet, the day we end poverty and wars, the day we end hunger, and the day no one suffers on earth due to avoidable reasons and has free access to anything needed for a good life.

        That day, and if resources and technology allows to do so without harming anything else, I will be among the forefront speaker for such a project. And not a single day before... :o)

        So better don't get me started... :o)
    • thumb
      Aug 20 2012: >naming critical views 'stereotype' may avoid reflecting different views, as it is a form of generalization in negating opposite opinions

      didn’t want to insult or something. For me it’s not an abuse as we all have stereotypes(I don’t know the exact degree of this word in english). So I assumed the stereotyped nature of your attitude in this particular case.

      >But I am on your side if it is about a post-scarcity economy in the future

      Good to hear. I hope we’ll get there one day too. And I see it as not only the best scenario for the humanity, but also as logical scenario. I am going to write some more thoughts about post-scarcity in a blog.

      Talking about bio-evolution I don’t mean changes in the way of “removing brains”. I mean improving our brains in the way how biological evolution would do it in a million or 10 million years. It can be done not only with help of “cyborg horror” or “microwaves”(it was joke and webcams were joke too :) ), but with help of genetics or nanotech too. FYI about biological evolution of brain - I saw a news recently but didn’t verify yet: http://www.topnews.net.nz/content/217218-human-brain-has-reached-its-physical-limits-intelligence-researchers-claim
      So I’d venture to claim that
      1. for post-scarcity we need the ultimately high technological level
      2. to achieve this level our brain is not the best tool. So AI is solution.
      3. to be friendly with an evolutionarily more advanced AI we have to be as advanced as it

      If you know another way to post-scarcity please let me know :)
      • thumb
        Aug 20 2012: Good to know you were joking, as I didn't really liked to picture that my colleagues would misuse my newly installed head to heat up their home made lunch at work ... :o)

        For a post-scarcity society I found some interesting ideas by Jacque Fresco:

        http://thevenusproject.com/en

        There are still many views I don't share, but it is well worked out and comprehensive in its conception.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.