Is this the end of life 2.0?

[Raja Clavata]

It's generally accepted, in certain quarters, that as a species we are, or at least were, currently in phase 2.0 of life. In this thinking life 1.0 was more or less the period of our evolution prior to the industrial revolution.

Prior to COVID, at a high level at least, we were more or less "happily" making our way towards the next major transition, "life 3.0" based on the widespread development and roll-out of intelligent machines driven by Artificial Intelligence. It is generally accepted that life 3.0 would very different to today as machines replace people in doing traditional work at all levels through organisations / society - massive opportunities and issues. 

I don't want to get into an AI discussion but - in an attempt to move beyond all the recent stuff around deaths, government, scientific advisors, PPE, testing, care homes, comparing figures between countries and all the politics and spin associated with that - I'd like to ask the following:

Is the fallout from COVID going to be significant enough for us to redefine the stages of life outlined above and if so how do you see whatever comes next looking like?

This has been touched on previously but the discussions became a bit fragmented so I'm trying to bring it all back one thread. This is intended as brainstorming so no such thing as stupid or pointless opinions, I'm genuinely interested in what people think about all this... 

Edited May 7, 2020 by Raja Clavata
bad spelling

[spurs 14]

Where did I put me tinfoil ! , ! 

[treetree]

I think you're the type of person who would enjoy a series on  bbc iplayer at the moment called 'DEVS'

[Raja Clavata]

1 hour ago, spurs 14 said:

Where did I put me tinfoil ! , ! 

In the drawer under the cooker hob most likely 😛 

PS - COYS!

[Grandalf]

It is my belief that human life is going to change dramatically post this current pandemic  - Or human life is going to extinguish itself completely in the next couple of hundred years.   (That would probably be in the best interests of the Earth by the way).  We keep getting wakeup calls from Mother Nature but we keep ignoring them.   We only have one planet to live on but we are hell bent on destroying it.   It will be many years before we can colonise any other vacant piece of rock going around this or any other sun.

The planet and its 'life' is in no danger whatsoever - but human life, and unfortunately for those many species who are misfortunate enough to have evolved at roughly the same time as us, are probably doomed to extinction.

This planet has survived much greater catastrophes than the global warming and associated problems that humans are throwing at it at the moment.   There have been many occasions when most of the species on earth have disappeared.   (Asteroid strikes and vulcanism for example).  The earth then spins on its axis for another several million or billion years and starts all over again.  

Our human fundamental way of life seems to be totally selfish where we only worry about our own particular problems.   The increase in human population is a complete no brainer but we don't even discuss it on a global scale.   (And then it is only based upon a religious viewpoint rather than a scientific one).   We rape the earth for resources that we don't really need and can't replace once they are used.   Our national political systems seem to be dictatorships or short term governments based on so called democracy, or religion, which are only ever concerned about keeping the voters happy so that they can win the next election.   There is very little planning for the long term future of the world - Or anything else.

By now all our global power requirements could be solved.   Poverty and starvation could be a thing of the past.   Education could be available to everyone.   It should not be necessary, or desirable, for everyone to have a job.   (An interest maybe but not a job).   The resources of the world could, if probably organised, be more than sufficient to feed and house the human population of the world.   Some would have less - Many would have more.

Our technological abilities, if channelled for the good of mankind rather than profit, could solve just about everything we have encountered or caused thus far.   But will it ever be that way?   I very much doubt it.   We are headed towards a gigantic 'decision time' that will either doom us to extinction or be our salvation.   We will probably just ignore it.

At this very moment we have a global crisis being tackled on a nationwide, or even county, basis.   Cost, cost, cost is all we hear and read about.   Resources are what matter - Not cost or profit.   And all caused by the purely artificial monetary system that we have evolved so that nations and people can vie with each other over profit.   If mankind pulled together, pooled resources and knowledge this pandemic would never have occurred.   There would have been a minor hiccup in China which would have been stamped on very firmly and we would have all got on with our pathetic little lives.   As it is we are all fighting for them.

Humans are probably the worst thing that ever happened to Planet Earth.

Sorry, Raja Clavata, I don't think we will make it to 3.0.

Just my view from an old mans perspective...  

 

Edited May 7, 2020 by Grandalf

[eggy74]

generally accepted by who?

 

[TRINITY]

Forget climate change,forget running out of resources,forget a new political way of thinking. The thing that will wipe you out is population increase. Before any of those things are tackled human population must be addressed. But nothing will be done for fear of offending people and the perception of being racist if you even try.

[JTaylor91]

1 minute ago, TRINITY said:

Forget climate change,forget running out of resources,forget a new political way of thinking. The thing that will wipe you out is population increase. Before any of those things are tackled human population must be addressed. But nothing will be done for fear of offending people and the perception of being racist if you even try.

I raised this point at work once. I was likened to Thanos for a couple of weeks.

[Rewulf]

29 minutes ago, eggy74 said:

generally accepted by who?

 

 

2 hours ago, Raja Clavata said:

 certain quarters

I personally dont buy into it, the whole phase 2 , 3 ect, I think deep down we are just as animalistic as we were pre industrial.

All technology has done is accentuate our creativity , our industry , and our violence toward others.

I have a fascination with weapons and warfare (in all ages) and when challenged why, I explain its because its during conflict that man steps up his ingenuity, his organisational skills, and his efficiency in dealing destruction , this always has a knock on effect after the conflict has ended.
Aircraft, nuclear tech , medicine and a multitude of other peaceful ideas were born of warfare.

These days our civilised methods of conducting violence, are no less driven by those animalistic urges.
When war , rape, torture and wanton needless violence are completely eradicated, then we might be ready to talk about a next stage.

But I fear we are hundreds of years away from such goals.

[REDINGTON]

This.

42 minutes ago, Grandalf said:

It is my belief that human life is going to change dramatically post this current pandemic  - Or human life is going to extinguish itself completely in the next couple of hundred years.   (That would probably be in the best interests of the Earth by the way).  We keep getting wakeup calls from Mother Nature but we keep ignoring them.   We only have one planet to live on but we are hell bent on destroying it.   It will be many years before we can colonise any other vacant piece of rock going around this or any other sun.

The planet and its 'life' is in no danger whatsoever - but human life, and unfortunately for those many species who are misfortunate enough to have evolved at roughly the same time as us, are probably doomed to extinction.

This planet has survived much greater catastrophes than the global warming and associated problems that humans are throwing at it at the moment.   There have been many occasions when most of the species on earth have disappeared.   (Asteroid strikes and vulcanism for example).  The earth then spins on its axis for another several million or billion years and starts all over again.  

Our human fundamental way of life seems to be totally selfish where we only worry about our own particular problems.   The increase in human population is a complete no brainer but we don't even discuss it on a global scale.   (And then it is only based upon a religious viewpoint rather than a scientific one).   We rape the earth for resources that we don't really need and can't replace once they are used.   Our national political systems seem to be dictatorships or short term governments based on so called democracy, or religion, which are only ever concerned about keeping the voters happy so that they can win the next election.   There is very little planning for the long term future of the world - Or anything else.

By now all our global power requirements could be solved.   Poverty and starvation could be a thing of the past.   Education could be available to everyone.   It should not be necessary, or desirable, for everyone to have a job.   (An interest maybe but not a job).   The resources of the world could, if probably organised, be more than sufficient to feed and house the human population of the world.   Some would have less - Many would have more.

Our technological abilities, if channelled for the good of mankind rather than profit, could solve just about everything we have encountered or caused thus far.   But will it ever be that way?   I very much doubt it.   We are headed towards a gigantic 'decision time' that will either doom us to extinction or be our salvation.   We will probably just ignore it.

At this very moment we have a global crisis being tackled on a nationwide, or even county, basis.   Cost, cost, cost is all we hear and read about.   Resources are what matter - Not cost or profit.   And all caused by the purely artificial monetary system that we have evolved so that nations and people can vie with each other over profit.   If mankind pulled together, pooled resources and knowledge this pandemic would never have occurred.   There would have been a minor hiccup in China which would have been stamped on very firmly and we would have all got on with our pathetic little lives.   As it is we are all fighting for them.

Humans are probably the worst thing that ever happened to Planet Earth.

Sorry, Raja Clavata, I don't think we will make it to 3.0.

Just my view from an old mans perspective...  

 

and this.

10 minutes ago, TRINITY said:

Forget climate change,forget running out of resources,forget a new political way of thinking. The thing that will wipe you out is population increase. Before any of those things are tackled human population must be addressed. But nothing will be done for fear of offending people and the perception of being racist if you even try.

100% 

[Raja Clavata]

29 minutes ago, eggy74 said:

generally accepted by who?

 

People across numerous disciplines of science. The best description I've seen on it is by Max Tegmark in his book titled: Life 3.0 - being human in the age of artificial intelligence.

[Raja Clavata]

34 minutes ago, Grandalf said:

It is my belief that human life is going to change dramatically post this current pandemic  - Or human life is going to extinguish itself completely in the next couple of hundred years.   (That would probably be in the best interests of the Earth by the way).  We keep getting wakeup calls from Mother Nature but we keep ignoring them.   We only have one planet to live on but we are hell bent on destroying it.   It will be many years before we can colonise any other vacant piece of rock going around this or any other sun.

The planet and its 'life' is in no danger whatsoever - but human life, and unfortunately for those many species who are misfortunate enough to have evolved at roughly the same time as us, are probably doomed to extinction.

This planet has survived much greater catastrophes than the global warming and associated problems that humans are throwing at it at the moment.   There have been many occasions when most of the species on earth have disappeared.   (Asteroid strikes and vulcanism for example).  The earth then spins on its axis for another several million or billion years and starts all over again.  

Our human fundamental way of life seems to be totally selfish where we only worry about our own particular problems.   The increase in human population is a complete no brainer but we don't even discuss it on a global scale.   (And then it is only based upon a religious viewpoint rather than a scientific one).   We rape the earth for resources that we don't really need and can't replace once they are used.   Our national political systems seem to be dictatorships or short term governments based on so called democracy, or religion, which are only ever concerned about keeping the voters happy so that they can win the next election.   There is very little planning for the long term future of the world - Or anything else.

By now all our global power requirements could be solved.   Poverty and starvation could be a thing of the past.   Education could be available to everyone.   It should not be necessary, or desirable, for everyone to have a job.   (An interest maybe but not a job).   The resources of the world could, if probably organised, be more than sufficient to feed and house the human population of the world.   Some would have less - Many would have more.

Our technological abilities, if channelled for the good of mankind rather than profit, could solve just about everything we have encountered or caused thus far.   But will it ever be that way?   I very much doubt it.   We are headed towards a gigantic 'decision time' that will either doom us to extinction or be our salvation.   We will probably just ignore it.

At this very moment we have a global crisis being tackled on a nationwide, or even county, basis.   Cost, cost, cost is all we hear and read about.   Resources are what matter - Not cost or profit.   And all caused by the purely artificial monetary system that we have evolved so that nations and people can vie with each other over profit.   If mankind pulled together, pooled resources and knowledge this pandemic would never have occurred.   There would have been a minor hiccup in China which would have been stamped on very firmly and we would have all got on with our pathetic little lives.   As it is we are all fighting for them.

Humans are probably the worst thing that ever happened to Planet Earth.

Sorry, Raja Clavata, I don't think we will make it to 3.0.

Just my view from an old mans perspective...  

 

Interesting post and definitely some thought provokers there, you might be right about 3.0 or indeed 3.0 could signal the end. Whilst I'm interested in all this what I was really trying to drill down on is, accepting it's still early days, how we think life will be different in the future. How we label it is less important to me, the 1.0, 2.0 & 3.0 are just labels. It's not clear to me if using this labeling life with COVID makes us transition to 2.1, 2.5 or we stay where we are...

[TRINITY]

7 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

 

But I fear we are hundreds of years away from such goals.

If human population continues to rise, 100 years will be too late

[Raja Clavata]

Just now, Rewulf said:

I personally dont buy into it, the whole phase 2 , 3 ect, I think deep down we are just as animalistic as we were pre industrial.

All technology has done is accentuate our creativity , our industry , and our violence toward others.

I have a fascination with weapons and warfare (in all ages) and when challenged why, I explain its because its during conflict that man steps up his ingenuity, his organisational skills, and his efficiency in dealing destruction , this always has a knock on effect after the conflict has ended.
Aircraft, nuclear tech , medicine and a multitude of other peaceful ideas were born of warfare.

These days our civilised methods of conducting violence, are no less driven by those animalistic urges.
When war , rape, torture and wanton needless violence are completely eradicated, then we might be ready to talk about a next stage.

But I fear we are hundreds of years away from such goals.

I'd agree with everything there except the highlighted points. As I have said the numbers are just labels and whilst I agree that biologically we have evolved very little other aspects of our lives have come on leaps on bounds through social, political, technological and other means in a relatively short time.

So here I'm interested in what life looks like in the short, medium and long time as we come to terms with COVID. Hope that makes sense.

[Raja Clavata]

14 minutes ago, TRINITY said:

Forget climate change,forget running out of resources,forget a new political way of thinking. The thing that will wipe you out is population increase. Before any of those things are tackled human population must be addressed. But nothing will be done for fear of offending people and the perception of being racist if you even try.

In that case we are doomed then and it doesn't matter if COVID is the tipping point or something else. How about if we remove the notion of race by considering all humans as one (which fits with the life notion and race is just a human construct anyway). Off the top of my head, the instruments for tackling human population are war, famine, water shortage, education, divine intervention, disease (naturally or man made), genocide, colonising another planet - what else?

[Jaymo]

30 minutes ago, TRINITY said:

If human population continues to rise, 100 years will be too late

I’m always interest in how people believe this can be achieved. 
Not sure if it was your post or another’s that included the term ‘racism’ in it- does that suggest that certain races are breeding more than others and should be discouraged?

Bit back to my original question, how would you achieve this? 

Many say there should be a limit to how many children one can have! How would this work and is it east to produce such a statement if you already have say two children and you think the limit should be one!

Should one generation be denied when another has benefitted.

 

Not all countries agree to overpopulation, wasn’t long ago that I believe Denmark was considering paying for ‘gentlemen’ to impregnate in order to increase the populace ( don’t quote me on the Country as I’m sitting here partaking in vino) 

How would you do it ( not aimed at you personally, but everyone) 

hic hic 

Edited May 7, 2020 by Jaymo
Booze n spelling

[Rewulf]

2 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

In that case we are doomed then and it doesn't matter if COVID is the tipping point or something else

Covid is not the tipping point by any means, it just isnt lethal enough.
Its more an exercise in how to control a population without tipping them over the  edge into anarchy, small steps to achieve acceptance of a new world order ?

I believe in a couple of years time CV 19 or CV 20 , whatever will just be given 'the flu' monicker , and will be the seasonal bug bear that no one really talks about, like with the flus we have now.
Until something a LOT more lethal comes along, something with 10+ % mortality rate , right out the box, people wouldnt even NEED to be told to stay indoors !

A population wont comply with 'unreasonable' orders until it is scared enough of consequences, and its a little early yet for the police state.
But if you can convince people theres a real risk of contracting something that will kill you if you leave the house, back it up with scary figures, and a media thats frothing for a 'good' story, you can control that populace whilst making it appear its because you 'care' about them.
The people will accept all kinds of limitations when the right noises are made, war and terrorism are similarly effective.

[Harnser]

One day at a time and enjoy it .

harnser

[eggy74]

44 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

People across numerous disciplines of science. The best description I've seen on it is by Max Tegmark in his book titled: Life 3.0 - being human in the age of artificial intelligence.

So life-1 lasted give or take 500,000 years. Life-2 give or take 200 years

I guess life-3 should last until next friday then !

 

 

[spurs 14]

I don’t think this corvid pandemic is going to be big enough to make any major changes , it should be a wake up call for the world to pull together but no it’s individual countries doing what they can ! 

 If there is going to be a major upset for me it’s the way the population worldwide is growing at an alarming rate year on year , immigrants and refugees wandering to different countries and demanding to be looked after , this to me will lead to economic collapse only take one country to go , panic sets in , run on the banks for everyone to withdraw money next country goes down and so it goes on !!! 

 

[bluesj]

I don't think it will be global warming or war or this pandemic that end life as we know it yes any of those thing could change it a bit but it will be economic collapse that will change everything. When people cannot afford to go to the shop and buy food and the governments of the world cannot supply it for ever it will be everyone for them selves and I don't think many people in the developed world will be able to survive as hunter gatherers.

As I think we all know anyone on this planet now will be paying for what this virus has caused for the rest of our lives, but we will go back to how things where more or less, but imagine if this virus caused 2 or 3 billion to die over the next 3 or 4 years what would be left of the economy then!

[Raja Clavata]

14 minutes ago, Jaymo said:

Not all countries agree to overpopulation, wasn’t long ago that I believe Denmark was considering paying for ‘gentlemen’ to impregnate in order to increase the populace ( don’t quote me on the Country as I’m sitting here partaking in vino) 

How would you do it ( not aimed at you personally, but everyone) 

Have you had so much wine that you've forgotten the mechanics of procreation? 😛 

And don't take it out one me, I'm only asking what everyone else is thinking...lol

[TRINITY]

5 minutes ago, bluesj said:

 I don't think many people in the developed world will be able to survive as hunter gatherers.

 

You could have a population that are 100% hunter gathering experts. Without agriculture and commercial farming natures larder would be cleared out in a week. In the UK it would be lucky to last that long

[Raja Clavata]

17 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Covid is not the tipping point by any means, it just isnt lethal enough.
Its more an exercise in how to control a population without tipping them over the  edge into anarchy, small steps to achieve acceptance of a new world order ?

I get the line of reasoning but that's a bit too much conspiracy for me although I do agree it's exposed our vulnerability and written the playbook for such a scenario. Do we need to qualify "isn't lethal enough" with yet?

20 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Until something a LOT more lethal comes along, something with 10+ % mortality rate , right out the box, people wouldnt even NEED to be told to stay indoors !

I agree.

21 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

A population wont comply with 'unreasonable' orders until it is scared enough of consequences, and its a little early yet for the police state.
But if you can convince people theres a real risk of contracting something that will kill you if you leave the house, back it up with scary figures, and a media thats frothing for a 'good' story, you can control that populace whilst making it appear its because you 'care' about them.
The people will accept all kinds of limitations when the right noises are made, war and terrorism are similarly effective.

I agree, personally I think the media have an awful lot to answer for with this. I hope there might be some changes around this moving forward but, pardon the pun, I'm not holding my breath.

This comes back to the point about it being one thing for the authorities to control or curtail our actions but it's a whole new ball game when people allow them or the media to control their thoughts, hopes and fears. That's sad in the extreme...

15 minutes ago, eggy74 said:

So life-1 lasted give or take 500,000 years. Life-2 give or take 200 years

I guess life-3 should last until next friday then !

I agree it all depends on the timeline of the sample points, we could "flatten the curve" a bit if we made discovery of fire life 2.0 and the wheel 3.0 and so on... better?

[Raja Clavata]

18 minutes ago, spurs 14 said:

 If there is going to be a major upset for me it’s the way the population worldwide is growing at an alarming rate year on year , immigrants and refugees wandering to different countries and demanding to be looked after , this to me will lead to economic collapse only take one country to go , panic sets in , run on the banks for everyone to withdraw money next country goes down and so it goes on !!! 

Interesting, this kind of relates to Rewulf's point about eradication of "war , rape, torture and wanton needless violence are completely eradicated" - an alternative path is that something happens that forces us into a new paradigm of social behaviour on a global scale. In this model there would be no countries, borders etc. - I'm not suggesting it will happen but theoretically it could.

Coming back to COVID, it's pretty clear that global management of the virus is not going to be reached with the current popular trends of nationalism and isolationism, well not for nations like the UK anyway.