Much of Australia’s response to the Millennium Drought has been good, but some of it has been disastrously wasteful. Victoria’s previous state government, for instance, spent megadollars on a pipeline, now mothballed, to take water from agricultural irrigation land north of the Great Dividing Range so as to ensure Melbourne had water to flush down its toilets. And the cost of desalination is arguably unnecessary when subsidizing the harvesting of roof runoff was apparently not even considered.

The U.S. could learn from some of our water-saving efforts—but not all of them!
Les G. Thompson
Victoria, Australia.

HEBERGER REPLIES: Both letters raise valid and interesting points. There was no room to delve into these issues in the short space available. For a more detailed review of these issues, please see Chapter 5  (“Australia’s Millennium Drought: Impacts and Responses”) in The World’s Water, Vol. 7, edited by Peter H. Gleick (Island Press, 2011).

INTELLIGENCE OPTIONS
Michael Shermer’s “In the Year 9595” [Skeptic] confuses different aspects of computer intelligence: emergence of computers that can be called intelligent or conscious (two different milestones); the “singularity” (in which a replicator starts creating generations of capability faster than humans can comprehend); and transference of a human into a different “container.”

Shermer assumes that computer intelligence will emerge because we design a computer to accomplish that. But other paths include creating learning machines that develop intelligence or consciousness from this activity, as in the human brain. Or some tipping point may occur within the complexity of computers, networks and other technology. We need not understand what will result from our creations.

I anticipate computers that can pass the Turing test of consciousness [in which answers to questions cannot be distinguished from answers a human gives] by midcentury and devices that assert their own consciousness by the end of the century. John Brunner’s supercomputer in the 1968 novel Stand on Zanzibar responded to the question “Are you or aren’t you a conscious entity?” with: “It appears impossible for you to determine if the answer I give to that question is true or false.” I suspect Brunner’s computer is correct.

There are again multiple paths to singularity. Once we have silicon devices that reproduce silicon devices somewhat autonomously, one route is established. Genetic engineering of people could also lead in this direction, as could cyborg approaches.

On transferring personality to another platform, I agree with Shermer’s skepticism. It is marginally conceivable that a “clone” might be able to receive a brain transplant. But it is very likely we will have intelligent machines before we have a platform that can adopt sufficient aspects of human personality, and once we have machines that intelligent, why would they support this activity?
Jim Isaak
Bedford, N.H.

4 Comments

1. 1. Mark656515 01:29 PM 4/20/12

   
   On “INTELLIGENCE OPTIONS”:
   
   My calculator is smarter than I am at doing math, and I don't have a Frankenstein complex there. While amoebas will strive to preserve their life, and there are more complex computers around than an amoeba, they won’t do a thing to avoid their own destruction.
   
   Computers will never be self-conscious or strive to self-preservation unless painstakingly programmed to mimic it, like that old ‘Lisa’ conversation emulation program.
   
   I don’t think artificial consciousness will ever, ever emerge spontaneously, (not being specifically programmed) or we would have the Big Blue or the Earth Simulator starting to exhibit some of the traits of an amoeba’s intelligence today (I read somewhere they were as smart as an earwig). Maybe I’m just being naïve.
   
   
   As to singularity, what humans can comprehend is amply variable, most humans don’t understand how their own TV or mobile phones work, while books, diagrams or computers (conveniently no more than merely displaying books and diagrams in electronic format, occasionally also being used as spreadsheets or calculators) are already required to deal with anything reasonably detailed. So I am also skeptic there.
   
   Perhaps our best question is inspired by the “I Robot” movie, which parodied the wonderful short story book: “Can you compose a symphony?”; “Can you?”
   
   Are WE conscious (we, readers and editors), and to what extent?
   
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. nuboat 07:41 AM 4/21/12

   What's more valuable than gold and diamonds? WE all have it in some degree or other. The Holy bible says it's understanding. And yet: an understanding in political science (politics) is an understanding in how to deceive.
   
   How does a majority of misguided people overcome a political machine that is beholden to self-preservation of a wealth hierarchy? Understanding. Understand?
   
   The public school funding must be squashed.
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. Bops in reply to nuboat 03:05 PM 4/21/12

   You can fix stupid. Just takes a little work thinking about what was said, what it could mean, looking up some information to see what it does mean, and do I accept it as the truth. Thinking smart, and supporting the right issues stops the wrong people.
   
   Public school is more healthy. Most Private schools are too self centered politically. Understand???

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. sparcboy in reply to Bops 09:12 AM 4/23/12

   "Thinking smart, and supporting the right issues stops the wrong people."
   
   And exactly who decides what is the "right" issue and who are the "wrong" people? Certainly not public school officials and teachers of whom the majority are dedicated to one political machine.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this