If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(io9)   "Extreme human longevity would not pose threat to planet" claims author who has never heard of how much damage people with today's average lifespan can do already   (io9.com) divider line 2
    More: Unlikely, radiation damages, E.O. Wilson, malthusian, human biology, Green Revolution, longevity, social institutions, sustainable agriculture  
•       •       •

702 clicks; posted to Geek » on 02 Oct 2013 at 6:57 PM (43 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-10-03 01:19:27 AM
1 votes:

a flock of birds: His idea is that we would merge with the artificial intelligence, not that it would be some separate entity that we would then have to hope would be nice to us.


His idea is a gibbering, incoherent, mass of futile optimism.

Moore's law is not unlimited.  The clock speed race has largely died.  Now it's all going multicore, but keeping an increasing number of cores coherent is more sharply limited than clock cycles.  After that, I would expect the next step to be specified-use processing units, like cryptographic coprocessors or something.

And that's pretty much a dead end after that.

/Quantum processors will be in there somewhere
//But they only help with certain applications, and in most cases will not be useful.
2013-10-02 07:39:32 PM
1 votes:
It's not our longevity, it's our consumption.

If nothing else changed, adding 1 billion "average humans" wouldn't harm the planet nearly as much as 1 billion existing non-Americans starting to consume like Americans do.
 
Displayed 2 of 2 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report