Re: Human extinction

From: Keith Henson (
Date: Mon Jan 16 2006 - 16:30:01 MST

At 05:29 PM 1/16/2006 +0000, you wrote:
>On 1/16/06, Keith Henson <<>>
>>I think there is a good chance for a (possibly deathless) human population
>>crash to 1% or less in the next 50 years.
>And I thought I was a pessimist :) The birth rate crash is looking bad,
>but I still don't see 99% die-off

I said possibly deathless. Maybe even probably deathless.

>in that short a time; what do you see as the cause of this?

Any number of things dependent on advanced technology. Rapture or
simulations with 72 virgins for example. Or something as benign as a
product of Chinese nanotech, a bidirectional portal into a simulation
space. Originally grows from a seed planted outside ever village in
Africa. You walk in, it does a complete infiltration of your body and
uploads you to local simulation space while your body is cleared of
parasites and otherwise patched up. When your meat body is cured you can
go back into the real world, but inside is nicer so after a few times in
and out most people just move over. They can still come out and the system
keeps their meat memories tracking what goes on inside so there is no loss
of continuity from going in and out.

>>In an environment where the pull of whatever had cause the crash still
>>existed, how would you keep up a human (meat body in the physical world)
>>population of even 60 million if a remnant human population was seen to be
>>desirable? (Like saving the ferrets from extinction but worse.)
>Depends on what caused the crash in the first place.

If you could freely move in and out, but inside was just a more rewarding
place by human standards . . . .

What can you offer to keep people carrying on in the real world when it
would be so easy to duck out?

Keith Henson

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:55 MDT