Can we avoid this future?

It's easy to avoid this future, observation of past future predictions suggests we're not very good at it. Therefore this future is unlikely and simply by relying on our poor prediction skills we can avoid this future without doing anything.

That would be an interesting natural oddity. For a perfect future, just get enough people together to predict all the different ways in which the world can end.

I read the first paragraph. I'll bet you 5 bucks he can't tell if the dow will be up or down end of the year... or ten years... or one hundred years. Prolly goes up, but maybe only with developing 3rd world. Who knows. I hate people extrapolating from the 1950's as though that's sustainable.

Wisdom for the Way says wisdom lets you live with uncertainties. Some of his concerns are real problems, but I'm put-off by ridiculously wild speculation.

Over-all I found this unforgivably wild speculation, presented as fact and was turned-off. I guess arrogant is the word.

God says... C:\Text\DARWIN.TXT

ion of species he explains by the destruction of intermediate graduated forms. "Thus living plants and animals are not separated from the extinct by new creations, but are to be regarded as their descendants through continued reproduction."

A well-known French botanist, M. Lecoq, writes in 1854 ("Etudes sur Geograph. Bot. tom. i, page 250), "On voit que nos recherches sur la fixite ou la variation de l'espece, nous conduisent directement aux idees emises par deux hommes justement celebres, Geoffr

----

Some French people say we can know nothing and are very arrogant about that!

I guess we hope those in charge are planning. To them I say... don't think for a moment an imbecil working very diligently should be applauded. Let's start with this job interview question -- "Name all the reasons we cannot extrapolate from the 1950's." we won the war, the world was being rebuilt. energy (oil) was cheep. not much worth buying (those people raised large families with one wage earner... how the fuck is that possible? Go explain that to me. Where is all our labor going given productivity improvments, smaller families and two wage earners. I'll tell you -- car saftey standards.)

My biggest pet peeve is people extrapolating from 1930's 40's 50' or 60's.

----

God says...

C:\Text\EMILY.TXT

enurious eyes!

XIII.

MEMORIALS.

Death sets a thing significant The eye had hurried by, Except a perished creature Entreat us tenderly

To ponder little workmanships In crayon or in wool, With "This was last her fingers did," Industrious until

The thimble weighed too heavy, The stitches stopped themselves, And then 't was put among the dust Upon the closet shelves.

A book I have, a friend gave, Whose pencil, here and there, Had notched the place that pleased him, -- At r

----

Another pet peeve is FUCKEN DEMOCRATS saying we are poorer!

We fucken have You-tube, tiny phones, all kinds of awesome shit.

A king in the 1400's could not get oranges at the store year-round.

----

I've seen what happens when people design for 10,000 years into the future. USB, UEFI, crazy intel shit. UDF

It's over engineered disgusting crap. Instead of doing an entire operating system with compiler, I might be able to do a USB driver. HD Audio is so ridiculous!

I've learned to hate overengineering. Do I even need to explain how it is not necessarily a virtue to overengineer?

Maybe programmers believe the more namespaces the better.

Many programmers use the same technique on a 1,000 line program as a 50,000,000 line program. Global variables?

I don't want to stress this that much, but everyone should obviously know the more overengineered is not the more better, always.

NASA designs Mars rovers for a couple months and they last years, in a good way.

They certainly could design a rover for 10,000 years putting around. That is not ridiculous... unless men are walking around.

----

God says... C:\Text\PILGRIM.TXT

hould, had there been such a place to be found, for I have gone to seek it further than you), I am going back again, and will seek to refresh myself with the things that I then cast away, for hopes of that which, I now see, is not.

{334} CHR. Then said Christian to Hopeful his fellow, Is it true which this man hath said?

Hopeful's gracious answer

Hope. Take heed, he is one of the flatterers; remember what it hath cost us once already for our hearkening to such kind of fellows. What! no Mo

----

Moore's law has surprised me for it's longevity. I bite-my-tongue whenever someone mentions it. IT'S NOT A LAW! Yet, it does well and rightfully should be highly praised. That IS just what we want the author of this piece to do. If this author had the accuracy of Moore's law, that would be so awesome!

What's the deal? Is clock rate controlled by the CIA? I don't know. They're gonna have radio-shutdown in everything pretty soon.

----

God says...

C:\Text\PILGRIM.TXT

POSE.

Some states do not allow disclaimers of implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of consequential damages, so the above disclaimers and exclusions may not apply to you, and you may have other legal rights.

INDEMNITY You will indemnify and hold Michael Hart, the Foundation, and its trustees and agents, and any volunteers associated with the production and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm texts harmless, from all liability, cost and expense, including legal fees, that arise d

That's one hell of a detailed story. Don't believe it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_fallacy

About nanotech: if we have nanofactories, nanoreplicators shouldn't be far. Beware the gray goo accident.

As for AI, it will probably go from "quite dumb" to "way smarter than we are" in a relatively short time. At that point, everything else will be moot, because the AI will do pretty much what it wants (what its programming tells it to do) and we won't be able to stop it. Let's hope (or ensure that) its "wishes" are the same as ours.