[extropy-chat] "The Spike"- Ray Kurzweil

[Robert J. Bradbury]

Pietro -- you raise a number of interesting points.

(First let me acknowledge that I have not read either "The Age of Intelligent
Machines" or "The Age of Spiritual Machines".  (My bad probably, but I tended
to view the contents as likely to be highly similar to Moravec's works.)

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, pietro ferri wrote:

> First, thank you all for sharing so many comments. Of particular interest to
> me is Ray's timeline and his predictions ( 2019 2029 and 2099).

While I might lean strongly towards predictions Ray might make with
respect to 2019 and 2029 -- anything involving 2099 is SciFi.  It is
one of the fundamental problems with the Extropian perspective, all
Sci-Fi literature related to the singularity, etc. -- how do you
map the singularity without having a reasonable metric for what
scientific progress along that vector might actually provide (in
terms of tools to bend reality with)?

To the best of my knowledge there are probably less than two dozen people
on the planet who can engage in this discussion at a technical level.
Anders, myself, Eliezer, Robert Freitas, Vernor Vinge, Greg Benford, etc.
You could add on a number of physicists other technical experts but
one would rapidly get lost in a swamp of depth rather than breadth.
(I'm leaving out the individuals who would provide significant input
on the sociological or philosophical levels because that makes the
problem even more difficult.)

> It would be really great if Damien (and all the others) commented in depth.

If you post specific predictions I'll be happy to yea or nay them.

> ... and I cite, THE GREATEST GAINS CONTINUE TO BE IN THE VALUE OF THE
> STOCK MARKET.

Well it seems to have been true for 100+ years (when averaged).

> Price deflation concerned economists in the early '00 years, but they quickly
> realized it was a good thing.

[Note I'm not sure I'm interpreting this properly since I'm having to transliterate
some quote and other punctuation marks from Microsoftisms into standard ASCII text.]

I'm not sure I understand this.  Price deflation is not a good thing if
it causes the population as a whole to postpone consumption (because things
will be cheaper in the future).  Lack of consumption leads to layoffs leads
to a decline in purchasing ability, etc., etc., etc.  The only viable industries
are those involved in "essential" consumer products (e.g. agriculture).
Japan is facing this in a significant way with its aging population.
(Aged populations do not have lots of consumption/purchasing needs other
than for medical care.)

> After all, stock prices are
> (over the long term) very strongly correlated to earnings. And, admitting
> that profit margins cannot improve for everybody, there is no way that
> companies can make more money in nominal terms if prices fall for a
> sustained period of time (again, as Ray predicts).

I think the key thing to recognize here is the evolution of the market.
After all *where* would I be if I held onto my Digital Equipment stock
purchased in the 1970's?  Or my WorldCom or Enron Stock purchased in
the 1990s?  I think one would expect investors to move out of the
deflationary markets -- unless companies can sustain profits -- and
move into those areas where profits (and earnings) are increasing.

> What do you guys think?  (Re: 5% growth)

You are asking a *very* difficult question.  You can probably get 5%
growth if you have sufficient risk taking.  But with the risk taking
you have to allow for failure.  Europe and Japan have tended to avoid
risk taking (IMO).  In contrast the U.S. went for broke from '98-'01
and crashed and burned as a result.

It is well accepted in economic circles that most of the growth
comes from new companies, new ideas, etc. (i.e. the *risky* proposals).
If the economies support the formation (and failure) of such efforts
then you may get high growth -- if they do not then you don't.

> Finally, does anyone know when "The Singularity is Near" will finally be
> published?  Max, I remember that at Extro5 he said that the book would have
> been published in 2002. Here a wrong prediction of his!

I have it on reasonable authority that the publisher has pushed
the publication into early 2005.  This may be due in part due to slow progress
on some of the chapters (in part due to Ray's time constraints) but to a much
greater extent is due to the publisher having to adjust the schedules of various
other publications with respect to SIN.

(Damien or Mez could comment much better than I on what goes through the
minds of publishers...)

Robert