Okay. You'd rather have people scavenge in the woods for basic necessities, or we could all have a Democracy, share our resources and have a system of trading with set prices and then some government provided things. Tough choice.

In regards to your ridicule of a man killing another armed man -

Thomas Hobbes - "People are inherently selfish and" (paraphrase here) murderers/thieves. Only with a sovereign can we prevent such activity or work to enforce its prevention.

Humanity will bring about its own destruction before we can ever hope to meeting intelligent life, due to our advancements in technology through the Mother of Invention, War.

I don't really buy into the whole WW3 scenario. If humanity is going to go out, it won't be through war. Nobody will ever use nukes due to MAD, and we aren't THAT stupid as to shoot ourselves into extinction.

In my opinion the three real threats to human survival are: (In no particular order)
1. Climate Change: It works subtly enough for many to not notice what's happening, unlike a war scenario where we'd quickly see the damage being caused and stop.

2. Asteroid Impact: Our technological development regarding space is absolutely pathetic compared to other fields. If an Asteroid was going to smack into us we probably wouldn't have that many good ways to protect ourselves. This problem is compacted by many people thinking that investing in space research is somehow a waste of time when in reality it could be key to our future survival.

3. Sentient AI: We're getting closer to reaching this all the time. We continue to put more and more control in the hands of machines, and while that's good in some areas in presents a huge problem if we continue onward like this. If robots do everything than humanity has absolutely zero control. We need to make machines to make man's job easier, not replace the man all together. (I.E: Continue advancing plane technology, but keep the need for a human pilot)

Edited 8/10/2015 16:04:56

Richard instead of pointing out flaws out of other peoples arguments (Which you are god at doing that)

Why don't you come up a solution?

Glad to see you consider me to be a deity but I'd say that's a bit exaggerated.
As for coming up with a solution, why do so when I don't agree with the initial problem statement? Rather pointless to come up with a solution for a non-existent problem...

The most notable dead end of intellegence is:

Electricity -> Fossil Fuels -> Climate Change

It isn`t even certain that fossil fuels or humans cause climate change. So there is a small chance that we are able to change the climate (using fossil fuels) in such a way that we go extinct

toilet ---> flush

First off, I read all of the Sharpe books and is one of my top 10 favorite book series.

This is how I see the world.

hunger->tools->more food->more people->hunger->farming->more people->towns->cities->government->expansion->more land-> more food-> hunger->mass production->new tools->more stuff->richer people-> healthier people->more people->more industry->monopolies->power over food-> expensive food->less food->poor people-> unhealthy people->hunger->desperate people-> expensive food-> unhealthy poor people->exploitation->euphemisms for exploitation->cynicism->crazy ideas->racism->oppressed people->unhappy people-> the .1%

It sounds a little communist, but that's the way I see it

I second Richard Sharpe, that there are many mistakes made within the hypothesis of the thread.

first of all, I can hardly find a connection between your headline and the following explaination. what has intelligence in common with those causalities? would you mind to elaborate on that?
I have the impression, that there are two topics oddly mixed up with eachother.
Intelligence might be a dead end for the personal evolution. It might get in conflict with the instinct, which may cause destructive behaviour.

Agriculture -> Jobs -> Poverty

Logic -> Computers -> AI -> Enslavement of Humanity

Electricity -> Fossil Fuels -> Climate Change

how do jobs cause poverty?
I strongly doubt that enslavement of humanity will be caused by AI. even though hollywood propagades a different view, for obvious reasons.
Electricity can also be provided by solar energy etc. and the effect of CO2 on the climate is still controversial.

Climate Change: It works subtly enough for many to not notice what's happening, unlike a war scenario where we'd quickly see the damage being caused and stop.

*subtly [..] to not notice what's happening* - cause there is barely happening anything at all. climate change takes at least more than centuries. so no worries. Furthermore we still live in a glacial.
anyways, I doubt that climate change will lead to the extinction of humanity. maybe to the reduction of population in bangladesh.

War -> Society. Without war, there is no society because society is built on the principles of war. Without society, there cannot be war.

even if without society, there cannot be war, why should society be built on the principles of war? I would rather say it is built on the principles of economics.

At least, the evolution of population numbers shows that humanity isnt going to extinct very soon ...

Jobs -> Poverty because all jobs are fundamentally not equal, a fundamental principle of capitalism. If all jobs were equal (Communism), poverty does not exist. But communism brings about its own problems, like lack of resources.

climate change is not going to cause gradual changes. there will be bursts of great change when glacial lakes break glacial dams and sudden changes in the oceans' temperatures will cause violent weather and rapid coastal flooding. also the weight of the ice being lifted off greenland and antarctic shelves will multiply the effects. i don't think humans will go extinct but it could plunge us into another dark age. which may not be so bad for the planet, but will delay us colonizing space before an asteroid inevitably hits us.

The existence of the states rests on its ability to successfully conduct wars and win them.

If a state cannot successfully conduct and win wars, the state will be conquered by another state.

This is a quote.The existence of the states rests on its ability to successfully conduct wars and win them.

not sure if you're serious or just trolling.^^ and even if that makes any sense, an example never proves a thesis.

Jobs -> Poverty because all jobs are fundamentally not equal

so maybe capitalism provides poverty, but jobs first of all provide income, that preserves the existence. I still dont see the connection between jobs and poverty.

shyb, dont you think that natural disasters have always been there, even before humanity increased the CO2 emission?

I'll shower you with examples of states who successfully won wars, but then lost wars and were conquered by other states :

Assyria
Babylon
Neo-Assyria and Neo-Babylon
Carthaginian Empire
Khwarezmian Empire
Persian Empire
Kievan Rus
German Empire
Ottoman Empire
Spanish Empire
French Empire
Iroquois Confederation
Cherokee
Mexican Empire
Edit : Aztec
Inca
Zulu


As you can see, this principal of states relying on their ability to win wars in order to survive is something transcendent.

Many people will claim that states are built on the principals of economy, but that is not true. Economy is controlled by the states and to some extent the people, which are a part of the state. And the state is derived from war. Without war, the state cannot expand, if it cannot expand then it will be weak. If it is weak then it will be conquered through some form. If a state expands then it will continue to get stronger. But as a state gets stronger from expansion and successful wars the state will overexpand itself. The culmination of many new cultures, rebellious new peoples and a complete flip from warfare to peace causes interruption in power and administration, and thus a weakening of the state. To get stronger and avoid the weakening, the state must expand, and the process continues. Thus, the state that stays weak will get conquered, and the state that expands will get conquered. All states are getting conquered because no state can continuously and infinitely win every war it is involved in. However, people will cling to the society that is strongest or is strong to some extent or in proportion to their situation, and they will trust that state with their protection. If state was derivative from economy, then all societies would be peaceful and would trade and engage in economic activity. But then again, why would there be a state if economy was so existent and prevalent? We could engage in economic activity and trade in peace to get the things we need. No state would be necessary. But this hasn't happened, and it never has. So the state is derivative from war. This is because war causes people to join a side (a state) in order to be protected and not caught in the middle, because people are afraid of other people and their ability, because people want to be united together against causes they despise and because people are not easily united in trade as they are in war. Again I say, if the State was derived from Economic Pursuits, the State would not need to exist because why would there need to be a state if the people live at ease and with trade.

Edited 8/11/2015 02:05:42

LETS (#1) is a time currency. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-based_currency


It was put into place in the 1950 and (+) around the world. Some banks use time currency dollars. I don't know how all the details. :(


You should get time dollars for educating yourself. Otherwise, paying/losing time with no gain is not good life motivation.