What would you do:

[jryan]

The following is meant strictly for fun with the hopes of some lively conversation sprouting from it. Here is my make-believe dilemma:

 

While going about your day at home you open the coat closet to grab your coat. When you do you are met with a glowing portal where you coats once were. Being the curious type you test to ensure that it is safe to pass through and step through the portal.

 

You are met by a man who introduces himself as an "Agent of Change". He explains that throughout history Agents of Change have brought various people through the portal to give them a choice that may change the course humanity, depending on the decision.

 

On the table are three books. The Agent explains that you can take only one book back through the portal. Each book contains detailed results of very advanced technology research and development. Each book contains the schematics and instructions for all component discoveries needed for one specific technological leap.

 

Each, as such, embody a great leap in human discovery.

 

The Agent then allows you to inspect each book and make your decision. On completing this inspection you find that the technologies you are offered are as follows:

 

1) "Spooky Force" Communication - This book will allow the rapid development of instantaneous communication at range. Whether they are 10ft or 10 light years apart these communication devices allow instantaneous delivery of data between two points.

 

2) Faster Than Light Travel - This book contains schematics for a propulsion system that allows for Faster than Light travel.

 

3) Artificial Nourisher - This technology allows you to create a seemingly biological plant that can grow anywhere with no tending and produces "fruit" that are both delicious and contain all the dietary needs of humans.. some which we don't even know about yet.

 

So there are your three options. Which book do you choose and why?

[Mr Skeptic]

Well, all are most likely impossible for one thing. 1) is rather useless since we have such short distances overall. 2) is useful but not that many people would make use of it. 3) would solve all our food and energy problems forever, and also allow interstellar travel in generation ships. So 3) seems the best option.

[Sisyphus]

Options 1 and 2 benefit us just from being offered, by confirming such things are possible, when right now we believe they are not. Neither tech would likely give us immediate benefit, so there's no harm in figuring it out ourselves. Option 3 would provide immediate benefit, so it's probably the one to take.

 

Option 1 might not have much use without option 2. Or maybe not - depending on how it works, it might make computers a lot faster, or something.

[jryan]

Options 1 and 2 benefit us just from being offered, by confirming such things are possible, when right now we believe they are not. Neither tech would likely give us immediate benefit, so there's no harm in figuring it out ourselves. Option 3 would provide immediate benefit, so it's probably the one to take.

 

Option 1 might not have much use without option 2. Or maybe not - depending on how it works, it might make computers a lot faster, or something.

 

 

Since we are having some agreement, is there any downside to #3?

[Sisyphus]

Since we are having some agreement, is there any downside to #3?

 

I suppose you could argue that it would encourage a lot of population growth, and that overpopulation is already the source of many of our problems.

 

There is truth in this, but as an absolute statement I disagree. Human populations do not universally increase without limit, and those places where they don't tend to actually be places where food supply is most secure. I also don't think there is a single population limit that can live sustainably, but it depends on our methods of doing so. The world can only sustainably support a small number of hunter-gatherers, but perhaps a large number of superfruit eaters (that also use energy and materials in a sustainable way).

[Phi for All]

I agree, #3 has immediate applications, and without #3 the others aren't as valuable currently. And I could tell scientists that #1 & 2 are within our capabilities, and I will feed them for free with #3 while they figure out #1 & 2.

 

An interesting side question: What impact on our current socioeconomic structure would #3 have? Many people would opt to eat nothing but the new Artificial Nourisher but many would argue for variety and the pleasure of other foods. Even when the obvious effects of eating an optimum food become apparent, there will still be those who want variety.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Remove agriculture from the picture and our resource and land use goes down dramatically. Since the plant magically grows anywhere, we could easily grow it in apartments, kitchens, etc., and large-scale agriculture would dwindle. Of course, people would still want variety in their food, but chicken-flavored artificial fruit surely isn't too hard...

[Phi for All]

Since we are having some agreement, is there any downside to #3?

There are those who would argue that a discovery that would have such a negative impact on so many businesses (farming, restaurants, supermarkets, healthcare, etc) should be introduced gradually, but I think that would only dilute the positive impact and ultimately result in a more long term negative effect. Rip the bandage off quickly, I say.

[iNow]

...that the technologies you are offered are as follows:

 

1) "Spooky Force" Communication - This book will allow the rapid development of instantaneous communication at range. Whether they are 10ft or 10 light years apart these communication devices allow instantaneous delivery of data between two points.

 

2) Faster Than Light Travel - This book contains schematics for a propulsion system that allows for Faster than Light travel.

 

3) Artificial Nourisher - This technology allows you to create a seemingly biological plant that can grow anywhere with no tending and produces "fruit" that are both delicious and contain all the dietary needs of humans.. some which we don't even know about yet.

 

So there are your three options. Which book do you choose and why?

 

I choose option #2. My reason is because that is the only one which I don't think we can achieve on our own. Numbers one and three, IMO, we can approximate very closely with technology and engineering. Number two, however? I'm not so confident in our ability to accomplish that without assistance, so that's what has prompted my decision to choose that option.

[CharonY]

Thinking about it, I cannot help but feel that the food and agricultural industry would let the plant vanish in quick order (or monopolize it).

[jryan]

Good discussion so far!

 

I will throw down the gauntlet and make claim to #1 (for the sake of argument) as instantaneous communication of data will lead to computers of any size that can operate at speeds that we can not currently comprehend.

 

I do think, however, that the caveat to such a discovery would be similar to that of #3: I don't think mankind is ready for it.

 

I think #2 would be the most easily incorporated into current social fabric as there is mostly an intellectual rather than a practical demand for it. It has the least downside, but possibly the least upside, too.

 

One practical application of #2 would be the rapid study of our solar system as well as potential access to extraterrestrial resources.

[Leader Bee]

#2) is this advanced tech gonna be expensive or considering we've been given the schematics to acheive it mean that we can produce them for the price of a family car?

[jryan]

That's a fine question to consider, but I wouldn't have the answer for you.

 

It's all part of the deduction process. I would assume that in all of these cases the cost would be worth the investment as it could make everything else cheaper or more accessible.

 

For instance, if I were to introduce a fourth book that had the formula for a frictionless enamel I would have a hard time not choosing #4 due to it's vast application regardless of cost.

[Severian]

I would go for #2, since ftl travel would also allow time travel.

[john5746]

I would also go for #2, since this would improve the chances of humans inhabiting another planet, increasing the chances of our species survival, assuming that is a good thing.

 

I would try to disable time travel if it were an option, since we would probably kill ourselves, assuming that is a bad thing.

 

As for option #1, what's the point to living if you can't eat a cow?

[Royston]

1 and 2, amount to the same thing don't they ?

 

I think the third is asking for trouble personally. I'd go for the first or second option (it doesn't matter which), ftl communication / travel, would manifest itself in technologies that would benefit us way beyond anything we use right now.

 

However, it depends what point in history you're referring to jryan...or is that a free choice ?

[Zolar V]

In my personal opinion, I would rather go with Option #3.

with option #3 you wont have to worry about food problems, for the whole population and you could take the money spent on agriculture and develop options 1,2.

 

Option 1, has no significant impact until we can achieve either;

A) FTL technology, allowing deep space exploration, or

B) Find, Coordinate, Terraform, a colonize planet.

 

Option 2, has no significant impact until we can achieve Both;

A) Long Range Communications, And

b) A viable means to mass produce food n such.

 

However option 2 does have something going for it without the above conditions.

It does lead to the possibility of faster space exploration with probes.

Of course who would give a damned about something 5000 light years away if we were not able to do anything with it.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I would go for #2, since ftl travel would also allow time travel.

 

Does that mean we could achieve #3, simply by farming on uninhabited parts of Earth 500,000 years ago?

[Phi for All]

I'm going to use #1 to tell everybody that I'm not hungry for #3 anymore since time travel with #2 gives me a headache.

[Severian]

Does that mean we could achieve #3, simply by farming on uninhabited parts of Earth 500,000 years ago?

 

Or even better, take option 2, write down the physics in a paper which you can carry on your person, then go back in time and pick option 3 instead. Then you get both option 2 and option 3 (and option 1 if you can be bothered to do it again).

[jryan]

Or even better, take option 2, write down the physics in a paper which you can carry on your person, then go back in time and pick option 3 instead. Then you get both option 2 and option 3 (and option 1 if you can be bothered to do it again).

 

The Agents of Change just warped you instantaneously to who knows where with a piece of technology superior to any of the three they are offering... I don't think they will be so easily duped.

[Horza2002]

Id have to say #3, the other two are more of a convenience than anything else. The extra land that would then become avaliable once farmland was no longer required would allow for more people. Having a higher population would probably mean having more people studying science and so the other two would only be a matter of time.

 

Although, with ftl, you could then farm another planet somewhere else which could pretty much amount to the same as #3 anyway.

[jryan]

Id have to say #3, the other two are more of a convenience than anything else. The extra land that would then become avaliable once farmland was no longer required would allow for more people. Having a higher population would probably mean having more people studying science and so the other two would only be a matter of time.

 

Although, with ftl, you could then farm another planet somewhere else which could pretty much amount to the same as #3 anyway.

 

I think some people are projecting too much from the description of #3. I don;t know that that much land would be reclaimed as there is no specification as to the fruiting rate of these mysterious artificial plants.

 

If they fruited once or twice a year then I would guess there would be no land saved... and even though we can assume that these plants could be placed anywhere there still has to be an anywhere to place them.

 

I saw a show the other day and high rise hydroponic farms that are being developed to grow fruits and vegetables in city settings... I suppose something like that would be possible...

 

But in a way that might make land ownership more of a premium than before.

 

Also, in a different angle, sociologically speaking, I would argue that if one plant could provide the sustenance for 1 person perpetually that such an invention would possibly, or even probably, tear apart the underlying need for society and civilization. The two would then be held together not by interdependency but mere novelty.

 

I don't know I would want that to happen.

[Sisyphus]

I think some people are projecting too much from the description of #3. I don;t know that that much land would be reclaimed as there is no specification as to the fruiting rate of these mysterious artificial plants.

 

Well specify then! It's your scenario. I could say the same about your pick, in which you say "instantaneous communication of data will lead to computers of any size that can operate at speeds that we can not currently comprehend." But who says? What if it comes in the form of 200 foot spheres that can transmit 1 bit per minute between each other?

 

Also, in a different angle, sociologically speaking, I would argue that if one plant could provide the sustenance for 1 person perpetually that such an invention would possibly, or even probably, tear apart the underlying need for society and civilization. The two would then be held together not by interdependency but mere novelty.

 

I don't know I would want that to happen.

 

I don't get it. Why would that happen?

[Horza2002]

I don't see why that would happen. I would argue that the ability to produce food has enabled civilisation to exist in the first place. Before agriculture was developed, almost all of a persons time would have been spent gathering enough food just to survive. Once the ability for a small propoirtion of a population is capable of growing enough food for everyone, then that frees time for others to devote time to others tasks (scientific, cultural, etc.)