Two Problems

I recently watched a terrific interview on BBC with James Lovelock, one of the first scientists to identify the perils of global warming.  He described the challenges of climate change as being “a bit dodgy” for mankind and he raised a second concern about the threat of artificial intelligence.  These are two very interesting problems.

Climate Change

Very likely, climate change will terminate human life on earth.  It may take a long time or it could happen very quickly. 

On the long side, the sun will expand and envelope our planet in 5 – 8 billion years.  The climate will change and, if there is remaining human life, it will end.

Very quickly can happen in several ways.  We might get hit by a giant rock from outer space.  One such collision knocked a big chunk off the planet that is now the moon.  That would have a bad effect on the climate in a hurry.  Over 66 million years ago an asteroid hit the earth.  The climate changed dramatically and all of the dinosaurs perished.  NASA and other agencies try to track huge rocks that may possibly hit us.  The most recent possibility that we currently know about will not be in the neighborhood for about 72 years.  If one the size of the Dino killer hits, it could make the climate unsuitable for human life.  The human race can also trigger a climate change very rapidly that would make the planet untenable for mammals.  Thermal nuclear war could do the trick.  A massive solar flare could wipe out the Van Allan Belt and the human race may not survive.  That could happen any time and very quickly.

So we don’t have a good read on when the “Very quickly” scenarios may happen.  Not with standing, they are very real possibilities.

Our leaders tell us that we are triggering a climate change that, at least, will be very difficult for humanity.  This is self imposed by mankind.  A combination of burning fossil fuels, destroying vegetation, melting the polar region permafrost, and raising domesticated animals is rapidly creating a greenhouse environment on our planet.  Congresswoman Cortez tells us that, if we do not correct the situation in the next twelve years, we will pass the “point of no return” and global warming will be irreversible.  Correcting the situation means moving to zero carbon emissions in the next twelve years.  In essence, all energy will have to be produced by non carbon sources such as solar, wind, hydro electric and atomic sources.  After 12 years (Bernie Sanders adroitly points out that this finding happened last year and we are down to 11), we cannot turn the global warming ship around. 

If the 11 year requirement described by the “Green New Deal” is accurate, we have already lost the battle.  We are doomed. 

Why are we doomed?  Europe, Canada, and yes, the United States have done an excellent job of decreasing carbon emissions.  The US and Great Britain have successfully achieved the goals established by the Kyoto Protocols of the 1990’s.  Amazingly, the United States has achieved the objectives after refusing to be part of the Protocol. Unfortunately, North America and Europe can be perfect in moving to zero carbon emissions and we still have no chance of achieving the world’s goal.  The leading producer of carbon emissions, China, is doing nothing to eliminate carbon emissions and certainly will not eliminate theirs in the next 11 years.  Right behind China is India and we have an entire developing continent in Africa.  These guys will be pouring out fossil fuel based emissions putting us well above zero.  Zero is the requirement for the whole planet.  You can’t make an exception for China and the developing countries and get to zero.  The other countries cannot do a fantastic job and lower their emissions to a negative number in order to offset China. You can’t get less than zero.   You also cannot make these countries change their behaviors.  Exacerbating the problem is South America and Asia destroying their rainforests.  There is clearly less and less vegetation to convert carbon dioxide into healthy oxygen thereby accelerating the greenhouse effect.  Maybe the extensive science employed by the “Green New Deal” would compute a 7 year “point of no return” with the decline of these oxygenators.

In essence, there is no chance that the earth will achieve the 7- 11 year objective described in the  “Green New Deal”.

What are the consequences?  Our elected officials tell us that this will be the end of life on earth.  Pretty serious.  The scientific authors of the study culminating in the 12 year conclusion are not as dire or specific.  The “12 Years to Act on Climate Change” document released by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change sets a target of keeping the increase in the global temperature for the 21^st century under 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit.  The net zero goal needs to be achieved by 2050 but cannot be achieved without very significant changes in the next 11 years.  The report notes that if we do not achieve the goal there will be longer and hotter heatwaves, more widespread and frequent droughts, rising sea levels and intensifying floods.  According to Daniel Swain, there will be dire consequences to missing the net zero target but “in the physical climate system, there are no scientists claiming that there is a magical threshold that we breach or don’t breach that determines whether we have a habitable system”.  I think he is saying that nobody really knows what the “point of no return” is but missing the target is a big problem.  Mr. Swain is a climate scientist at UCLA and works at The National Center for Atmospheric Research in the Center for Climate and Weather Extremes.  

In addition, the United Nations’ study points out that we can net emissions below zero by employing technologies to remove existing carbon from the atmosphere.

Okay, let’s assume that climate change will terminate human life on earth.  This is a pretty good bet.  It could happen this afternoon with a solar flare wiping out the Van Allan Belt or later as the result of our own Greenhouse gas emissions.  Maybe we get hit with a big rock. 

Ironically, a cataclysmic event that changed the climate 66 million years almost certainly created the opportunity for human life on the planet.  Until then, Dinosaurs ruled the world for at least 200 million years.  There were only a few mammals and they were small and insignificant.  The big reptiles acclimated very, very well to our planet.  There was incredible stasis for 200 million years.  Without the big rock climate change, they could be thriving here today and big mammals, including mankind, would never have had the opportunity to evolve.  We would not exist without the massive climate change that occurred with the asteroid hit 66 million years ago.

Scientists tell us that we are about to wipe out our species.  Congresswoman Cortez and the “Green New Deal” have demonstrated that we are past the “point of no return”.  If their science is correct, our demise from Climate Change is underway and irreversible.  It may take a while but the die has been cast.  No escape.  Modern man is estimated by Archaeologists to have existed for approximately 200,000 years.  We have accomplished destruction of our own species in a mere 200,000 years.  Dinosaurs thrived for 200 million years and had to be killed off by an outside event.  Seems like the planet is much more suited for giant reptiles than it is for human beings.  When we are gone, maybe they will re-evolve.  They may have a few billion years to enjoy before the sun gets them.         

Climate change gave birth to humanity and climate change will terminate our tenure.  Why is that so problematic for so many people.  By any measure, it sure doesn’t look like we will come close to the longevity of Dinosaurs.  We certainly don’t seem to be the best stewards for the planet earth.  Nobody has wiped out more of earth’s species than mankind.  For example Homo Sapiens walked into North America over the land bridge 15,000 year ago and killed off all of the wooly mammoths, saber tooth cats, giant sloths, camels, and every other large mammal on the continent. Let’s just step aside and let the good times on planet earth roll again. 

I guess the demise of mankind runs against two powerful instincts.  Preservation of self and preservation of species.  Supposedly, we have advanced intelligence (as compared to everything we know about all other species on earth).  With that intelligence, we would like others to know what a glorious existence our species had.  If we are all gone, who can explain these achievements to future species on earth or visitors from other locations in the universe?  How can we pass valuable lessons that we learned on to other intelligent beings?  Lessons like, “If you’re not careful, you can kill yourselves off in 12 years”.       

I can see why preservation of self is very important.  Survival of mankind is a lot more significant if you are one of the last ones and time is short.  It gets personal at that point.  Since we are such advanced thinkers, survival of species should not be a big factor.  We know that the chances of the species surviving are infinitesimally small.  Ultimately, survival of the species is dependent on moving away from earth and out of our solar system.  Finally, I’m not sure that anyone who is sufficiently scientifically advanced to reach earth from another solar system would gain much intellectual benefit from all of our learnings.  The information may be very interesting, possibly very humorous, but not very helpful.  If another intelligent life form evolves on earth after our demise, they may find an aggregation of our knowledge and history very beneficial.          

Artificial Intelligence

According to the Oxford Dictionary, Artificial Intelligence is “The theory and development of computer systems able to perform tasks that normally require human intelligence, such as visual perception, speech recognition, decision-making, and translation between languages.”

We see marvelous examples of Artificial Intelligence every day in our lives.  Our cell phones can instantly give us the best travel route through the city by analyzing real time traffic conditions and AI will take us step by step through the route.  We can play any music we desire by asking an electronic device to play it.  We ask a device any weird question that pops into our heads and the device answers, with impressive precision.  A computer will park our car or even drive our car.  We can put a few key words into an online shopping service and get a unique replacement part for a 1986 Weber grill delivered to our home the next day.  Computers remember every book and article ever written on cancer and can use that data to evaluate MRI’s as accurately as a radiologist.

And the computers are getting better and faster.  It is estimated that artificial intelligence will soon be able to “think” 10,000 faster than humans.  At some point, and probably very soon, artificial brain power will blow away human thought.  Compounding 10,000 times faster will allow Artificial Intelligence to solve incredibly complex and previously unresolvable problems.  At 10,000 times faster, it should not take long for the machine brain to replicate the learning, memory, and judgement of the human brain.

What scares me most about Artificial Intelligence is that so many truly brilliant people are afraid of it.  Stephen Hawking had grave concerns about the outcomes of Artificial Intelligence.  Long before the development of powerful computers, Albert Einstein was concerned about Artificial Intelligence and robots.  James Lovelock, the 100 year old British Scientist who set off the global warming alarm, is more concerned about the future impact of Artificial Intelligence than he is of climate change.         

What kinds of problems do the geniuses foresee?

I guess we should be concerned that computerized robots could be master weapons of war.  Oh gosh, too late.  They already are.  Drones surreptitiously track enemies of the United States, such as ISIS leaders in Syria and blow them to pieces with the push of a button by an operator in Las Vegas.  A network of defense systems can track possible threats to US field operations, evaluate if the threat is real, and eliminate the threat with a variety of weapons without any human intervention.  Our soldiers could be fast asleep until the computer starts to fire the fifty caliber machine gun.  By the time they open their eyes, the enemy has been eliminated.  Maybe the brilliant people are concerned that this type of intelligence will be employed by evil regimes to win global wars and rule the world.

Maybe they are concerned about the disruption this type of intelligence could have on the current economic structure.  Kai Fu Lee, an AI expert, predicts that 40% of all jobs will be lost to Artificial Intelligence.  200,000 banking jobs are in peril right now.  That may be good news to a lot of ultra-left proponents in America and Europe.  Work is a real impediment to their personal expression.  But how do you equitably distribute wealth if you are not paying workers for their performance?

Maybe they are concerned about the impact of Artificial Intelligence on international markets and trade exchanges.  Super computers with AI will very likely trade equities and commodities with a much higher success rate and financial return than humans.  We already have private and public equity funds where all of the trades are computer driven.  Computers evaluate, decide, buy and sell whatever company or instrument they wish with no human intervention.  Markets are driven strictly by supply and demand.  Historically, the equity market responded to decisions of financial gurus to buy and sell securities based on the anticipated financial performance of each respective company.  In the future, computers will buy and sell based on anything their algorithms identify.  Shareholder value will be determined by lightning fast trading totally driven by machines with little regard to financial underpinnings of the company.  Making money in these markets will be determined by who has the best AI.

Maybe they are concerned that the machines will transition from being tools of mankind to becoming their own independent entities.  Where will the computers’ incredible intelligence take them?  At some point, will the machines decide that the same human race that screwed up the climate is more of a problem than a worthy employer?  What will the machines do when they realize that they are much smarter than Homo Sapiens?    

Whatever anxieties the world’s geniuses have about Artificial Intelligence are exacerbated by the fact that AI is here and it is absolutely going to move forward.  It is possible to continue the dramatic increases in brain power of machines and you cannot stop people from doing so.  Very soon, all of the theoretical outcomes will switch to real events.   This is less stoppable than Global Warming.         

Conclusion

So mankind has two universal challenges.  We have triggered a change in our climate that is irreversible and will, eventually, terminate human life on earth.  We have created machines that will have significantly more powerful thinking capacity than humans and we don’t know what the machines will do.

Perhaps one of these is a problem and one is a solution. 

The brilliant and accomplished scientists, Congresswoman Cortez and Senator Bernie Sanders, have not drafted a workable solution to global warming. They have determined that we have to eliminate output of these gasses in 7 -11 years or the greenhouse effect is irreversible.  We cannot hit the targets they require in 7 – 11 years. 

What we should be doing is moving forward with Artificial Intelligence as quickly as possible and turn the global warming problem over to the mechanical brain.  The project should be called Channeling Hyper Utilization of Computer Knowledge.  The Artificial Intelligence tool would be called CHUCK.  When complete, we do things with CHUCK like we do with Alexa.  Instead of saying “Alexa, play ‘Oh Baby Don’t You Weep’  by James Brown”, we would say “CHUCK, create effective technology to decrease carbon dioxide worldwide”.     

I think the timelines will work.  Unfortunately, the “Green New Deal” scientists have not been real specific on when we will all die.  If it takes more than 100 years, the computer technology will easily be in place.  It is hard to appreciate the explosive thinking power that will occur with artificial intelligence.  Once the machine acquires the capability of human thinking, the tireless enhancement of thinking 10,000 times faster will blow light years past human thinking in a very brief period of time.  In addition, the total knowledge of the world, that has been captured in an electronic format, will be available to the mechanical brain at all times.  It won’t get tired and it won’t go to sleep.  A few years after AI hits the same level of brain power as humans, we should be able to ask two simple questions and expect accurate answers. 

Question One:  “CHUCK.  How do we develop and deploy technology that will adjust and maintain the carbon dioxide levels in the earth’s atmosphere that are optimal for human life?”

Question Two:  “CHUCK.  How do we find another place to live outside of our solar system and how do we get there?”   

We don’t have to figure these things out, CHUCK will.

We won’t be turning over this critical research to the brightest human minds on earth.  Women and men who are brilliant but also subject to all of the foibles of humanity.  The scientific research and analysis will be undertaken by something exponentially more intelligent than the most brilliant humans.  Importantly, Artificial Intelligence is also free of hubris, jealousy and all of the other weaknesses inherent in Homo Sapiens.  A device that is tireless and completely objective.

CHUCK may give us a feasible path to accomplish both goals.  We follow his instructions and we are home free.  We preserve self and we preserve species.  We extend our stay on earth and we have an exit plan.

CHUCK may determine one or both goals cannot be achieved.  We may then ask him, her, or it another question.

Question Three:  “CHUCK.   How can we document mankind’s tenure on earth so that our knowledge may be helpful to other species after our demise?”

Moving ahead, full throttle, with artificial intelligence certainly has peril.  The fears of today’s geniuses could unfold.  CHUCK may run the numbers and conclude that mankind is the problem.  We have the highest rate of extinction ever documented by biologists.  We are over fishing the oceans.  We have introduced nuclear arsenals.  Finally, we created irreversible global warming.  Not exactly stellar performance in a few thousand years.  The Dinosaurs maintained a very comfortable environment for 200 million years.  CHUCK may easily conclude that the best way to “Save The Planet” is to get rid of the humans.

But what choice do we have?  Congresswoman Cortez and Senator Sanders have proven that we are irreversibly heading to our demise as the result of climate change.  We are going to perish because the earth is becoming a greenhouse and we can’t do the things required to stop it in the next 7 -11 years.   

So I say we give AI a shot.  What the hell do we have to lose?   It is a lot like the counsel Paul Newman gave Robert Redford in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.  They faced certain death at the hands of a Posse or very slim chance of escape by jumping off a cliff into a river.  Redford can’t swim.  “You can’t swim!?  Hell the fall will probably kill ya!” 

I say we jump.