Inevitability, a great term to use. Votes: +2

Raymond Kurzweil is the originator of the Singularity idea,

I'm not sure about that. I think the term originated with sci-fi author Vernor Vinge in his 3-story novel "Beyond Realtime." I recall first reading about the Singularity back in the early 90's on the Extropians email list. Kurzweil is, to be sure, the biggest promoter of the concept.

I myself am agnostic about the concept. I enunciated some of my reasons for skepticism in a '93 web page (back in the days before blogs). Basically I think there are practical limits to the rate of technological change. Others, including PZ Myers, have criticized Kurzweil's assumptions and numbers. Myers makes some good points but is a bit of a hater of Kurzweil and his perceived movement, and reading his less-than-objective objections can be a bit of a chore (or bore). Still, when it comes to both Kurzweil and the singularity, I am neither a hater nor a fanboy, and am willing to be swayed either way.

In any event, I hope to see as much of the future as possible!
Votes: +11

I had always assumed that Kurzweil borrowed the Singularity concept from Vernor Vinge. Votes: +8

I'd like to see a debate between Kurzweil and economist Tyler Cowen of George Mason University. Cowen has generated controversy with his short ebook, "The Great Stagnation," which argues about the exact opposite of Kurzweil's thesis regarding the pace and effects of technological change. Votes: +4

The singularity is inevitable, in so far as anything can be said to be so. But I must be honest. I am very optimistic about our species, while being extraordinarily pessimistic about 99.9% of the members of our species. I am fairly certain we will not only fail to prevent, but accelerate climate change. I am quite sure we will continue to poison our water and ruin our crop land. And I would be surprised if we didn't continue these things until a lack of resources vital to survival caused atomic wars. People are stupid. If we could bring Archimedes to our modern day, I think he would look around in awe, amazed, then speak to the public, cry, "You're f---ing kidding, right?" and spend the rest of his life curled in a ball crying in despair.

But some will survive. We have too many tools already at our disposal, and some men and women smarter than us (or, at least, working harder than us, and not spending so much time in the blogosphere) are improving those tools even now. I think the human species, even if it is to be represented by only a handful of our genetic representatives, will be around long after the singularity. I hope my distinguishing "GTTAGAT" can have a drink with your "GTTCGAT" at Milliways! If you get there first, last, or both, save a good seat for the show?

So even given huge setbacks, stagnation lasting centuries, and pyramid power, the time for advancing is just to great not to achieve something so nearly tangible today. Votes: -6

No offence, Mr Randi, but perhaps you should read Michael Blanford's post about evolution, and using scientific rather than religious ideas? The logical conclusion of scientific view of the biosphere is that there is no true concept of "the other life-forms of Earth [being] better off" without us. Whether we are here or not will affect how other life forms develop, even which survive and how the remainder develop, but the concept of the natural world being good for life-forms on Earth is one from Disney, not Darwin.

There is no concept of universal good in nature. Nature is competitive, life is brutal and short. Almost every animal dies wither by being caught, killed by brute force while fully-conscious and eaten, through illness or through starvation. None of these is a happy end. Most would lead to cruelty charges for the keeper of domesticated animals.

In fact it is only humans that bring the concept of making and creature "better off" by looking after those we encounter, and ensuring that even if they are harmed (say through hunting) they suffer far less than they would if they came to harm through a non-human cause. Votes: +5

The “Singularity” concept is that we will be able to create an artificial system that will equal and then surpass the performance of a human mind – a robot, ambulatory or stationary, or more correctly, an android.

If we can create androids that have artificial minds that surpass our own, then couldn't they create androids with even higher cognitive ability? This could go on and on with each generation of androids being more intelligent than the next. Also, given enough time and resources, when an android is created that knows all there is to know, wouldn't be a deity?

If all of this has been said before sorry. If not, I'd like this to be referred to hereafter as "The Wallace Paradox".

Thanks,
Dusty Votes: +5

I see you are what is termed a "projector." You obviously have not ventured once into the scientifically peer reviewed papers. These are not newspapers. If you think climate change is a non-issue, please cite papers that show your argument to be valid. If you cannot or will not cite those papers, please stop adding to the noise that is, as we speak, killing people.

Thank you. Votes: -1