Hacker News Reader

Many of the changes you propose -- all of them, actually -- would tend to make me less happy and less satisfied with my life than I am currently.

We may have the capability to do all of these things within 50 years, and some of them much earlier. But I'm skeptical of whether these sorts of cultural "innovations" will see widespread adoption if they don't improve quality of life.

We've had the ability as a species to have sex without physical consequences for more than half a century now, and yet most people, once they reach a certain age, still seem to derive more satisfaction from a stable, monogamous relationship than any other arrangement. Maybe we're just wired that way.

> and yet most people, once they reach a certain age, still seem to derive more satisfaction from a stable, monogamous relationship than any other arrangement.

You still aren't accounting for societal and cultural pervasiveness of monogamous relationships. It is so historic and traditional it is, if not taught, experienced from the earliest years of life. I feel like in a society with plenty people would be more generous and "risky" in their interactions with others. So I think we are culturally wired that way, but I'm not sold that we are physically wired for monogamy, and I'd site foreign cultures like the Persians where polygamy was common, even when the primary goal was still rapid population expansion.

> once they reach a certain age, still seem to derive more satisfaction from a stable, monogamous relationship than any other arrangement

Polygamous relationships are, roughly, O(n^2). You may not want to go there. ;-)

On "polygamy": I have seen a nice gender-neutral term on LessWrong: "polyamory".

"polygamy" is already gender neutral; the gender-specific forms are polygyny (having more than one wife) and polyandry (having more than one husband).

"Polygyny". I just learned something. And so did my spell checker by the way. "Polygamy" may have become gender neutral in technical circles, but I doubt the general population have caught up yet (though by the look of the relevant Wikipedia pages, they will soon).

Also, "polyamory" doesn't have the notion of marriage in it. Maybe that could be a useful distinction.

> "Polygamy" may have become gender neutral in technical circles, but I doubt the general population have caught up yet.

The thing is that virtually all polygamy that has existed in the real world is polygyny, so the distinction between that gender-specific form and the general form (as well as any reference to polyandry) is of almost entirely of theoretical/technical/specialist interest.

> Also, "polyamory" doesn't have the notion of marriage in it. Maybe that could be a useful distinction.

I think it is.

> Waking Up and Sleep go together: Neural implants... Neural Implants‽‽ Brain surgery is a still a big deal, and is usually done as a last result to fix a life threatening condition or debilitating injury or condition.

The idea of unnecessary surgery for some perceived health benefit is not a new one. In the late 19th and early 20th century, many people had their tonsils and appendicies even when they were perfectly functional. Some people on HN commented that their grandmothers had all of their teeth removed before they were married so that their future husband would not have to pay for dental work.

> Work: Since we are moving to post-scarcity, I easily see us having automated transportation of goods, automated farming (or even better, molecular printing that fabricates food from carbon and friends), automated mining - and we should be able to easily automate construction to just taking an input design and having a machine crew do the work. Robots that can maintain their peers and themselves, communicating their defects so they can be serviced. No human involvement. People could then commit themselves to either constant leisure, artistic pursuits, or the sciences, and only if they want to, since they would no longer have to.

There are a lot of advances that need to be made before anything like this can happen. Even if it does, goods will not become free and people will still need to work to make a living. Some people need the structure of work to keep them happy.

>Eat: Soylent and its ilk are even right now aiming to change this, and if the above considerations happen, you don't need to work to feed yourself, and can print any food you want. Though it will be some time before humans start replacing their digestive tract with 3d fabricators so they just plug themselves in to electricity to "eat".

The chemical reactions that occur when cooking food are far more complex than you realize. Even if 3D printing of food become widespread, you will still need to prepare it. Putting a 3d fab in your digestive tract does not make much sense. A current 3d fab needs raw material (various plastics, etc), not just electricity. So you would still have the problem of getting the food inside your body in the first place.

> Church: Already dying in the newer generations, due to the pervasiveness of knowledge and freely available information. If anything is the death knell for religion, it is the Internet and its ability to distribute knowledge anywhere instantly. It makes rationalizing the unknown less about guesswork and superstition and more about googling it.

This is a common misunderstanding of why religion is successful. Science and religion are not incompatible, because they don't answer the same questions, and shouldn't. You don't need to take Scripture literally to be religious.

Information has become easier to obtain thanks to the Internet, but only because governments have allowed this to happen. The structure of the Internet allows central authorities to control the flow of information very easily.

>Seek Mates: I think this will be around because human beings are stubborn and set in their ways, but beyond 50 years I expect us to transition away from sexually partnered couples with children to a system where everyone is sterilized and children are grown (with perfect genetics) as needed and raised in public institutions where (through rigorous study) we (collectively) have figured out how to best promote creativity and open minds. It is one of the greatest weaknesses in modern society that because everyone is in their developmental years bound to the behavior of their parents they can have vastly different advantages and disadvantages throughout life.

Sterilization is not a logical consequent of selective genetics. There is no way a truly democratic government will ever have sterilization as a social policy. Even countries like China that limit the amount of children that you can have have exceptions for the rich.

>In the absence of the superficial need to spawn being bound to romantic relationships, I expect people to be more fluid and have sex with various acquaintances

This already happened. That's what the "Sexual Revolution" was all about, which evolved into today's "hookup culture". The AIDS epidemic totally changed the way people thought about casual sex. Before AIDS, casual sex had a risk of VD (and pregnancy, although "the pill" is what really accelerated the sexual revolution). After AIDS, you could DIE from having unprotected sex.

Stable relationships aren't as glamorous as young romances, but nevertheless have enormous benefits. There are many people who marry and don't have children.

> It is one of the greatest weaknesses in modern society that because everyone is in their developmental years bound to the behavior of their parents they can have vastly different advantages and disadvantages throughout life.

Having parents love and care for you (whether they are your biological parents or not) provides tremendous benefits to children's emotion growth. Taking this away because some children are unfortunate enough not to have it is the wrong solution.

> Science and religion are not incompatible, because they don't answer the same questions, and shouldn't.

What about "Is there a God"? Religion says there is one, and science says it hasn't found any meaningful shred of evidence just yet. And basic epistemology says that "poof magic" explanations such as a supernatural being aren't good explanations, and as such should not be trusted.

Compare God and UFOs: there are UFOs or there are none. It's a cold, hard fact about our world. Therefore, science is set out to find out. It may not know yet, but we do hope it will. If you believe in UFOs, and there are not, you're wrong as a simple matter of fact. Ditto if you do not believe in them, and there are UFOs. As for whether you should believe in them or not, that's for the evidence you know of to decide. It's not a question of faith, or choice: you can't for instance believe in UFOs by sheer force of will if in fact you don't believe in them.

Likewise, the presence in our world of supernatural anything is a cold, hard fact about our world. [Repeat last paragraph, with "God" instead of "UFO".]

Even morality may soon enter the domain of science, once (and if) we know enough about how the human brain works.

> You don't need to take Scripture literally to be religious.

Still, you have to stick to a given interpretation of said scriptures. That interpretation still says a lot of things about our world in most cases.

---

Now, if religion is successful despite the massive amount of evidence against it, it's probably because it's damned good at building communities. Just being part of a community and chanting pretty songs once in a while feels good. I still remember the lasting tingling I felt when that priest touched my head to bless me, and I didn't even believe back then.

> Waking Up and Sleep go together: Neural implants that reduce the amount of sleep needed drastically by stimulating the brain into REM sleep immediately, or by outright replacing parts of the brain (or body) that need the recuperation time.

Sleep routines like polyphasic sleep seem to work because it increases the percentage of time spent in REM, IIRC. The biggest downside is that you have to sleep about every four hours, which can get awkward for most peoples schedule.

I have read about this, and I've always wanted to try an uberman sleep cycle, but I had a hard enough time switching to the 17/9 6 day cycle I don't want to risk it.