Economic Repercussions of Believing in a Singularity

[Lilithaaaa]

The problem with that line of thinking, is that the average person doesn't save how it is. No one is going to stop saving because they believe in the singularity. However tons of people stop saving because they believe the government will come bail them out and pay for their retirement.

[holydoggy123]

funny I have been thinking the same stuff, I thought that you were going to confirm that there was an economic plan behind this propaganda, like they think believing in it will help economies and probably help the singularity really happen

[NikoKun]

Well, I don't think most people will change the way they live right now, simply because of the possibilities which may occur in the future. Most people just don't worry about the future that much.

On the other hand, once I started thinking about Singularity, which was recently, I did start to worry about my survivability, and my health right now. Maybe that's a good thing though.

It's more troubling to think maybe, that anticipation of Singularity might somehow slow it's arrival, economically.

[1schwererziehbar1]

interesting point of view.

[superdiza]

Utopia and Heaven is NOW.

waiting for an event to cause people or society to change, is a disempowering belief that will perpetuate the current political-monetary power structure, and with the aid of even more advanced technologies they will emerge the rulers of us all.

The public is already dumb down and oblivious, most of their thoughts and opinions not their own anyways.

The Revolution is NOW.

[happyvader]

I beg to differ on several points you make in your video. The repercussions will be on an order of magnitude relative to the percentage of people in society that become aware of it. If the majority ignore the signs or doubt it then they will more than likely not prepare and the progress will be slow. But with every macro economic trend there is an acceleration.

[happyvader]

A rational exuberance as more and more people become aware of it and then become participants in the trend. Early adopters are usually doubted when they jump on the beginning of a trend but as more and more individuals are convinced it increases the momentum in that trend and yes the singularity becomes self fulfilling as more energy is devoted to fulfilling it.

[happyvader]

Current early adopters in the singularity are not tossing out their cars, or their retirement funds, instead they focus tremendous resources in the most productive way to bringing about the singularity. Since they are setting this trend I believe that future participants will follow these actions. Monkey see, monkey do.

[violaclown]

I think you missed one really obvious impact. If someone believes the Singularity is imminent and that you are going to live forever, why have children?

[superdiza]

y not?

[Smaug84]

Easy, some will want to perpetuate our species amongst other star systems. Besides, some of the technology will be limited to humans in the blastocyst stage, at least in the early stages of the singularity.

[sanpo777]

Two major problems. Why is he so positive the exponential will continue. An economist should think in terms of expected value, not near certainty as he does.

The second issue is touched on tangentially in his longer speech. He mentions a possible economic slowdown, but what about a world of free riders if this becomes clearer in 2025 or 2030? (He does say by then maybe the robots will keep it going anyway, but would the AI robots free ride?)

[havardmindx]

Thank you for this post memebox. Very interesting!

Harvard

[postjam]

i think it is more likely we will have lots of advancements but will still have economics restricting supply, as in today where water and electricity are very cheap in the first world while other parts still have no grid and little clean water etc. whaddya think?

[simchamo]

ok this is something I never understood. Alot of futurists talk about how if we think we will live forever if we make it to 2030 or so, we will avoid taking risks. So if we are interested in achieving objective X (longer life) by implementing standard Y (safty measures).But there is no difference in the equation we have now.With a limited lifespan we should, in order to achieve objective X, implement standard Y. But we don't even with a limited lifespan. Why would we with a longer lifespan?

[VVi11]

You need to go to the re-education camp and learn econo-think.

It will all make sense then :p

[simchamo]

didn't quite follow you there.

[VVi11]

It was a joke. I've spent some time reading economists take on the current crisis and boy, can their reasoning get convoluted. Especially when they disagree, which seems to be always. The clip info says he's an economist, not a futurist.

[simchamo]

Well you know what they say about two economists and three opinions. I know that this guy is an economist but he is discussing an intrinsically futurist subject. In fact the singularity is an invention of futurists. That particular argument he made is something that never made sense to me is all

[VVi11]

well, try this.

Assume best, positive singularity outcome.

Reward outcomes are different.

1) Low-risk lifestyle gives diminishing returns. Reward is a little more life with physical frailty (lower quality of life).

2) Singularity lifespan has rewards of no frailty(QOL), indefinite span, and opportunity for taking much greater risks as there is much more of a 'safety net'.

For risk opportunity, you are shorting a small amount now with expectation of gaining a much larger amount later.

[VVi11]

Generally,

assume maximum capability, positive singularity outcome.

In this case, post-singularity we acquire all possible rewards regardless of utility function. So, it is theoretically not possible to do better, in economic terms.

My guess, intuitively people go by this. It's easier, cognitively, to sum it up as a paradise scenario.

[VVi11]

something to think about