What would you do:

[Mr Skeptic]

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.

 

Well I certainly read a lot into the "anywhere" aspect that they could grow in -- eg grow in a cave or on a generation ship. Such a "plant" would solve both our food and our energy needs. It is your scenario, so you can specify you know.

[Sisyphus]

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.)

 

More specifically, the ability not to have to produce one's own food. If enough food for one person could be grown on one plant with almost no effort, then that would just finally complete the transition. The proportion of farmers could go from 1 or 2 percent to zero percent.

 

If we could all produce everything that all of us have ourselves, then it might end the need for society. But it doesn't. Food is only one of the many, many things I consume but don't produce myself. And to aquire those things, I have to work, producing something that someone else is willing to pay for.

[Phi for All]

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 disagree. We don't have civilization for food alone.

 

It would be an interesting condition for the #3 scenario if one plant was sufficient for 1 person and took up as much space as 1 person. What do you think, jryan?

 

Since the plant has "all the dietary needs of humans.. some which we don't even know about yet", can we assume that there will be a general increase in health in the overall population who decides to switch over from traditional foods? Will this increase mean a proportional increase in longevity? Could the needs we don't know about yet slow down the aging process, which is the biggest problem with longer lifespans now?

[jryan]

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?

 

Computing speed has always been driven by the speed limitation of electrical signal. Computing speed increases because the semi conductor nodes are smaller and closer together, speeding up the transfer from node to node.

 

Instantaneous communication eliminates that limitation to computing speed.

 

 

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

 

Because centralization of resources and grouping to share effort was the root of community building and civilization. With such a technology you would make everyone independent and in no need of shared labor.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I disagree. We don't have civilization for food alone.

 

It would be an interesting condition for the #3 scenario if one plant was sufficient for 1 person and took up as much space as 1 person. What do you think, jryan?

 

We could certainly add that qualification if everyone thinks it would make the choice more interesting. I would be among that group since I believe such a qualification would increase both the positive AND negative effects of such a technology.

 

Since the plant has "all the dietary needs of humans.. some which we don't even know about yet", can we assume that there will be a general increase in health in the overall population who decides to switch over from traditional foods? Will this increase mean a proportional increase in longevity? Could the needs we don't know about yet slow down the aging process, which is the biggest problem with longer lifespans now?

 

I would say that a perfect food source would certainly have a medicinal value to it.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Well I certainly read a lot into the "anywhere" aspect that they could grow in -- eg grow in a cave or on a generation ship. Such a "plant" would solve both our food and our energy needs. It is your scenario, so you can specify you know.

 

Well so did I. I think part of the fun of the exercise is in the assumptions we each make with the limited information provided. I posed the descriptions in vague terms to simulate the unknown any of us would have when evaluating such "alien" technology. As asked we can not know all of the limits of each choice, and are left guessing on potential alone.

 

The Agents of Change are bastards that way.

[john5746]

More specifically, the ability not to have to produce one's own food. If enough food for one person could be grown on one plant with almost no effort, then that would just finally complete the transition. The proportion of farmers could go from 1 or 2 percent to zero percent.

 

Nah, we would still have to control this and make sure some people get a bunch, while others have to work for a share of one. Can't stand everyone getting a need for nothing, its just wrong.

[Sisyphus]

Computing speed has always been driven by the speed limitation of electrical signal. Computing speed increases because the semi conductor nodes are smaller and closer together, speeding up the transfer from node to node.

 

Instantaneous communication eliminates that limitation to computing speed.

 

Right, but only if it works a certain way. If it works just like electricity, only traveling instantaneously, then it would make calculations instantaneous. But what they offered was "instantaneous communication," which is a lot less specific.

 

So: plans to build a 200ft diameter spheres, which are capable of once per minute sending either a 0 or 1 to any other such sphere, at instantaneous speeds. That would count, right? Can you build an instantaneous calculator out of those?

 

Because centralization of resources and grouping to share effort was the root of community building and civilization. With such a technology you would make everyone independent and in no need of shared labor.

 

But again, that would only be true of food production, which is only a small part of modern economies.

[jryan]

Originally Posted by Sisyphus View Post

 

More specifically, the ability not to have to produce one's own food. If enough food for one person could be grown on one plant with almost no effort, then that would just finally complete the transition. The proportion of farmers could go from 1 or 2 percent to zero percent.

 

 

Nah, we would still have to control this and make sure some people get a bunch, while others have to work for a share of one. Can't stand everyone getting a need for nothing, its just wrong.

 

I think we also ignore human ability to get bored.

 

"Awe mom... Superfruit casserole again?!"

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Right, but only if it works a certain way. If it works just like electricity, only traveling instantaneously, then it would make calculations instantaneous. But what they offered was "instantaneous communication," which is a lot less specific.

 

That's true, and would probably require some human ingenuity to fully realize it's capability.

 

So: plans to build a 200ft diameter spheres, which are capable of once per minute sending either a 0 or 1 to any other such sphere, at instantaneous speeds. That would count, right? Can you build an instantaneous calculator out of those?

 

Well, I figured it was implied that "instantaneous transmission of data" meant that your data was transferred instantaneously, and not spoon fed over time. But your deduction still fits perfectly well within the games framework as we all choose one book based on our assumed strengths and limitations of each technology.

 

But again, that would only be true of food production, which is only a small part of modern economies.

 

True enough. But as I said before, the rest of our industry is really just novelty once our basic needs are met without effort... or could be. It's just a thought in my own choice process.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

By the way, if we all agree that any set of three has run it course, I think this test run has been successful enough to warrant another visit from an Agent of Change. If anyone wants to start a new three when this has run it's course feel free to throw a new three technologies out. Or I can come up with a new three if you want me to run this (it's usually more fun to be surprised by the options )

[Sisyphus]

Option 1:

 

An instant-communication link (unreproduceable) with an alien civilization billions of lightyears distant. The agent says they're similar enough to us to communicate (and they want to) and generally less advanced than us.

 

Option 2:

 

A cheap and 100% effective cure for all cancers.

 

Option 3:

 

300 shoebox sized black boxes that can each generate up to 100 gigawatts of electricity, with no inputs and no outputs except for electric current. They can't be reproduced or reverse engineered. They will each last for 1 million years.

Edited March 19, 2010 by Sisyphus

[Rickdog]

The following is meant strictly for fun ......

 

With this in mind I think, that once in the portal I`d start reading definetely the book number one, developing in the process a rapid and instant communication at distant range ability. Afterwards a would read book number three, about the Artificial Nourisher fruit, comunicating it by telepathy, to a friend with my newly acquired ability to comunicate at long distances instantly. Finally, I would grab book number two, and without reading it, I would pass through the portal back home......, where inmediately I`d build the fabulous machine, get on top of it, and fly away as furthest as posible, before the "Agent of Change" realizes of my strategy, and comes back to look for me, to punish me for outsmarting him........:D:D

[jryan]

with this in mind i think, that once in the portal i`d start reading definetely the book number one, developing in the process a rapid and instant communication at distant range ability. Afterwards a would read book number three, about the artificial nourisher fruit, comunicating it by telepathy, to a friend with my newly acquired ability to comunicate at long distances instantly. Finally, i would grab book number two, and without reading it, i would pass through the portal back home......, where inmediately i`d build the fabulous machine, get on top of it, and fly away as furthest as posible, before the "agent of change" realizes of my strategy, and comes back to look for me, to punish me for outsmarting him........:d:d

 

you win!

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Option 1:

 

An instant-communication link (unreproduceable) with an alien civilization billions of lightyears distant. The agent says they're similar enough to us to communicate (and they want to) and generally less advanced than us.

 

Option 2:

 

A cheap and 100% effective cure for all cancers.

 

Option 3:

 

300 shoebox sized black boxes that can each generate up to 100 gigawatts of electricity, with no inputs and no outputs except for electric current. They can't be reproduced or reverse engineered. They will each last for 1 million years.

 

#1 offers nothing but curiosity... and knowing the alien is there answers most of that curiosity.

 

#3 is a big "No" as we are not ready... such power in the wrong hands in immensely dangerous.

 

So #2. I think we could get some use out of that.

[Mr Skeptic]

Well here's my suggestions, for biotechnological choices:

Option 1: Protein designing software, such that you give the program specific requirements for the protein and it gives you the code for that protein. Assume an average PC can either tell the shape of 1000 average sized proteins per second, or within a day can give a protein with a given (relatively simple) property.

 

Option 2: A cheap computer-DNA interface. Assume that it consists of a chip costing about $100 with a large array of DNA read/write heads that can read from DNA to electronic signals or write to DNA given electronic signals, at the same speed and error ratio as DNA Polymerase.

 

Option 3: A power plant; it is a genetically engineered plant that can produce electricity at about half the efficiency of a regular plant (the other half is used to maintain the plant). Just plug it into the grid. Assume the plant is capable of storing extra energy as sugars during the day to provide power overnight.

[The Bear's Key]

Great topic, jryan.

 

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.

Best choice.

 

If people communicated instantly, then whenever the old dictators, conquerers, invaders, and empire-builders in history tried to convince the populace of a distant threat or how the inhabitants of an unknown land were barbaric or evil, the people could see for themselves it's untrue just by speaking with "the others".

 

Additionally, it'd be way more effective than the internet and would result in many good ideas finding multiple partners -- lots of heads are better than one. Kowledge would grow super exponentially. Is a newfangled pesticide having unintended consequences? Find out instantly. Did someone discover a new continent? Find out instantly. How far can you travel out in the sea without falling off? Easy, just stay in touch with the captain of the ship.

 

In no time, all the other technologies would naturally come into being by the sheer number/pace of advances.

 

 

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)

Never.

 

Problems to solve and work to do is going to exist forever. When people complained that machines were going to create huge job losses, they didn't. New "people-only" jobs have been found or created. Also, remember the women's movement -- huge numbers of previously unemployed now entered the job force. Guess what? The number of jobs increased to fill the need....or more like the demand -- for jobs to do. There's always some need, improvement, or benefit to a much-ignored aspect of society (or the world) that gets a lower priority due to more urgent needs.

 

It's like when you earn more, spending doesn't get lower. You find more to spend on like a vaccuum for needs to tend. Same with energy, if we had access to a star's energy, our projects would grow accordingly in size to fit the new availability. Perhaps that's why the universe has so much empty space -- past alien civilizations exhausting star fuel went a little overboard?

 

 

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.

More specifically, the ability not to have to produce one's own food. If enough food for one person could be grown on one plant with almost no effort, then that would just finally complete the transition. The proportion of farmers could go from 1 or 2 percent to zero percent.

Not true. We still have vegetables, meat, fish, coffee, tea, herbs, grains, marijuana, tabacco, etc. Any new farmland would go to those or even bio-fuels (yuk).

 

Also, jryan, cities still need workers for building materials, industry, roads, games, toys, books, etc.

[jryan]

Alright, everyone has made their decisions. Interesting that it doesn't appear that anyone here chose "none of them", which is a popular choice in other places where I posed this question.

 

So time to reload and give another round of choices a look see:

 

The agent of change has returned and offers your the following three technologies:

 

1) Androids - This book provides all technology and schematics necessary to build rather lifelike automatons that come complete with the ability to communicate.

 

2) Genetic stabilizer - Not quite what it sounds like. This technology provides full control of the cell aging mechanism. As such the aging process can be stopped and reversed with treatment.

 

3) Organic computing - This technology provides near limitless storage capability and a seamless integration of computing power to a human brain.

[Sisyphus]

Can I ask where people chose "none?" Do you frequent Luddite forums? We're not ready for mechanized looms!

 

I'm reminded of this:

 

http://dresdencodak.com/2009/09/22/caveman-science-fiction/

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

 

#1 offers nothing but curiosity... and knowing the alien is there answers most of that curiosity.

 

#3 is a big "No" as we are not ready... such power in the wrong hands in immensely dangerous.

 

So #2. I think we could get some use out of that.

 

I didn't see that you answered these. Since only you answered, I'll pick on you directly.

 

#1 offers nothing but curiosity? Really? We already do effectively know that intelligent aliens exist. The universe is too big for them not to. But actually meeting them? How could that not be the most momentous event in human history? You'd get the cultural and philosophical treasure of an entirely separate species, like the meeting of the eastern and western hemispheres in the age of exploration, but times a thousand (and without smallpox or land grabs).

 

And #3 is a big no? Why? That is a bit less than twice the power consumption of the human race currently. So really, we already do have that power, and to a large degree it is in the wrong hands. A huge proportion of our social and environmental ills are the result of generating and geographically controlling energy.

Edited March 23, 2010 by Sisyphus
Consecutive posts merged.

[Severian]

1) Androids - This book provides all technology and schematics necessary to build rather lifelike automatons that come complete with the ability to communicate.

 

2) Genetic stabilizer - Not quite what it sounds like. This technology provides full control of the cell aging mechanism. As such the aging process can be stopped and reversed with treatment.

 

3) Organic computing - This technology provides near limitless storage capability and a seamless integration of computing power to a human brain.

 

I will go for 2.

 

Number 1 is a bit bit pointless, since we already have a way of creating new lifeforms with the ability to communicate (though they do take rather a lot of training).

 

Number 3, while nice, doesn't seem like that big a deal to me. I have near limitless storage on my desktop, so the only advantage is basically a user-interface. I am not going to pass up eternal life for a user interface.

[Phi for All]

Option 1:

 

An instant-communication link (unreproduceable) with an alien civilization billions of lightyears distant. The agent says they're similar enough to us to communicate (and they want to) and generally less advanced than us.

 

Option 2:

 

A cheap and 100% effective cure for all cancers.

 

Option 3:

 

300 shoebox sized black boxes that can each generate up to 100 gigawatts of electricity, with no inputs and no outputs except for electric current. They can't be reproduced or reverse engineered. They will each last for 1 million years.

I would choose Option 1.

 

Option 2 is an emotional choice. It would save or prolong the lives of so many, but it doesn't really do anything to improve the quality of the later years. If this option also took care of dementia and Alzheimer's and some of the other problems of advanced age, I might choose it.

 

Option 3 is also tempting. This is like having 600,000 nuclear power plants that could fit in my garage and still let me fit cars in the other 2 bays. But I fear this would stop us from looking for alternative sources, in much the same way cheap fossil fuels stifled research.

 

Option 1 is my choice because I think it would have a galvanizing effect on the whole planet, one that would unite us together as a species and provide a common cause. Even though the aliens aren't hostile, their presence would still force us to act as a planet instead of separate countries. And having them be generally less advanced would allow us to grow as mentors (we'd still argue over how much to tell them, but at least it would be "us" discussing and deciding). There is much that is learned by the teacher that we could benefit from.

[Mr Skeptic]

The agent of change has returned and offers your the following three technologies:

 

1) Androids - This book provides all technology and schematics necessary to build rather lifelike automatons that come complete with the ability to communicate.

 

Depending on the level of "communicate", this could easily be the best option. I assume you don't mean to grant them an artificial general intelligence?

 

2) Genetic stabilizer - Not quite what it sounds like. This technology provides full control of the cell aging mechanism. As such the aging process can be stopped and reversed with treatment.

 

Eh, the solution for cell aging. We already know of telomers, and we have a pretty good idea of aging in general. I actually think this is one I'll see within my lifespan (assuming there are ways to extend lifespan in the meantime). There's more to aging than just cell aging however. And cell aging is more than just genetics -- damaged proteins embedded in the nuclear membrane I think were also part of the problem. A gene stabilizer would not help with those. Why not go ahead and call it the "fountain of youth" or "elixir of life"?

 

3) Organic computing - This technology provides near limitless storage capability and a seamless integration of computing power to a human brain.

 

This seems to me like the biggest breakthrough. We are working on the brain-computer interface, but so far we have a lot of problems due to the electrodes being encapsulated, rejected, provoking inflammation, and all around not lasting all that long.

 

The organic computing thing is a nice bonus, but not even particularly necessary.

 

If you want eternal life, a digital copy of yourself will be more durable than an ageless frail human body, since you can make backups in case of an accident.

 

--

 

What did you think of my suggestions in post #36?

[jryan]

Well here's my suggestions, for biotechnological choices:

Option 1: Protein designing software, such that you give the program specific requirements for the protein and it gives you the code for that protein. Assume an average PC can either tell the shape of 1000 average sized proteins per second, or within a day can give a protein with a given (relatively simple) property.

 

Option 2: A cheap computer-DNA interface. Assume that it consists of a chip costing about $100 with a large array of DNA read/write heads that can read from DNA to electronic signals or write to DNA given electronic signals, at the same speed and error ratio as DNA Polymerase.

 

Option 3: A power plant; it is a genetically engineered plant that can produce electricity at about half the efficiency of a regular plant (the other half is used to maintain the plant). Just plug it into the grid. Assume the plant is capable of storing extra energy as sugars during the day to provide power overnight.

 

Ooops, missed those.

 

#1 and #2 would be useful but would probably need a good deal of understanding to not be dangerous. As such, I don't think we are ready for them.

 

That leaves #3 for me, with the only concern being that there would be a strong push by humanity to supplant existing ecosystems with those plants.

[Sisyphus]