I think that the nanotech answer is very 'head in the sand.' We might as well say "genetics will save us" (it might), or "artificial intelligence will save us" (it might too). However, the fundamental problems leading us towards collapse will still be there. Unsustainable economic patterns, overpopulation, ....
I don't think that it counts as sticking my head in the sand if I _ask_ whether something is possible (or feasible). :)
I doubt that AI could save us: it's not that there's a specific key question that we can ask for which our current answers are of insufficiently high quality, but that we're _running out of (certain kinds of) stuff_. The technologies that are most likely to be relevant are those that either decrease our need for such stuff, or that improve our reuse/recycling of that stuff, or that help to generate said stuff from other stuff that we don't need as much. AI might help, as far as I can tell, only insofar as it might highlight the existence of a composite solution to the "stuff" problems that we hadn't yet recognized.
A final thought: the technology that we have available is part of what determines how sustainable an economic pattern is, and how much of a population we can sustain. I doubt that this planet could support 7 billion people with Stone Age technology.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
Re: Reason...
Date: 5 September 2005 11:58 (UTC)I don't think that it counts as sticking my head in the sand if I _ask_ whether something is possible (or feasible). :)
I doubt that AI could save us: it's not that there's a specific key question that we can ask for which our current answers are of insufficiently high quality, but that we're _running out of (certain kinds of) stuff_. The technologies that are most likely to be relevant are those that either decrease our need for such stuff, or that improve our reuse/recycling of that stuff, or that help to generate said stuff from other stuff that we don't need as much. AI might help, as far as I can tell, only insofar as it might highlight the existence of a composite solution to the "stuff" problems that we hadn't yet recognized.
A final thought: the technology that we have available is part of what determines how sustainable an economic pattern is, and how much of a population we can sustain. I doubt that this planet could support 7 billion people with Stone Age technology.