Why does the elite want to destroy 90% of the world's population?

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

Why are 6, 9 out of 7 billion people on the planet unnecessary? What awaits humanity with the development of digital technologies and robotization of production? Why are experts increasingly talking about the threat of a digital concentration camp and the scenario of the famous film "The Matrix"?

Physicist, futurologist, science fiction writer Sergei Pereslegin tells about the results of the scientific and technological revolution in the past year and the most dangerous technological and social challenges and risks of the near future.

What events of the past year confirm your conclusions about the transition from one phase of the industrial era to another, from post-industrialism to trans-industrialism? Is Russia moving within the framework of this trend, or does it have a “special path”, as “native people” like to say?

- Where will she go? Although she does not move in it as fast as she would like. Again, how to look. We are lagging behind in robotics, but we move quite confidently in drones. An example is the Russian project "Status 6" - a self-propelled, unmanned, multi-purpose system designed to destroy enemy economic targets in the coastal region. It was developed by CDB MT "Rubin". It is interesting not that this is a military torpedo, but that it is a drone, which means artificial intelligence. The fact that the FSO and the FSB have been introducing bills on full control over drones all the time means that these devices are gradually becoming a social phenomenon, important elements of life, with the help of which you can achieve a lot.

Speaking on a "global scale", from the field of science I can note the significant results obtained by the NASA space station "New Horizons". Let me remind you that this device was launched back in 2006 to study Pluto, its moon Charon and the Kuiper belt, but the result has only been given now. The most important result of this mission so far has been the discovery of Pluto's geological activity and planetary likeness. Both, to put it mildly, are not something that is not obvious, but in the light of today's astronomical concepts, it is almost impossible. Accordingly, the result here is that the Universe turned out to be much more complex than our models - even in such "trifles" as Pluto, which was recently denied the status of a planet. And suddenly it turns out that he has a complex internal structure, some kind of "geology" …

In general, in the past year, unlike the year before, when neutrino oscillations were discovered, which cast doubt on many well-established and generally accepted theoretical models, nothing as significant happened. The year continued the trends of the previous one: robotization, additive technologies and artificial intelligence. There were many robotics exhibitions that year. I enjoyed talking with robots, they may well carry on a conversation. I don't know if they can pass the Turing test (on the ability of a machine to convince a person that it is not a machine, but a person in front of him - ed.), Most likely they can.

It is worth mentioning two important forecasts for 2016. The first is the rejection of 3D printing in additive technologies. The next version will be created - what is called quantum copying. In a nutshell: an ordinary hologram creates an optical copy of an object, while a hologram obtained with a gamma laser (that is, ultra-ultra-short beams) will create not only an optical, but also an electromagnetic image of an object. In other words, it will be possible to "touch" it. A gamma laser in a medium will create an accurate image of an object - down to molecular and even atomic structure. This is quantum copying. The second prediction: we admit (although there is no decisive confirmation of this yet) strong changes in the field of electrical engineering, including the wireless transmission of high energies.

In general, in 2016 I was delighted, oddly enough, not so much by news from the field of science or technology as from the field of politics.

What political events do you mean? Brexit and Trump's victory?

- Certainly. Because I predicted these events, and long before they happened. And it pleases me. But, besides that, which is especially pleasant, these are themselves important events for the world. Brexit is not interesting at all from the point of view of the collapse of the European Union. The topic of disintegration was interesting in 2003-07, when it was still a question of the future, today it is a question of the past. Brexit symbolizes and signals that a rather interesting political phenomenon is expected, such as the emergence of relics, more specifically, the emergence of a relic of the British Empire. This is evidenced by many facts, including the successful performance of the British at the Olympics (second place after the US team - ed.). This means the deepening of England's ties with Canada, Australia and New Zealand. New local political blocs are likely to emerge. By the way, I am deeply convinced that in this situation the British will have to set the task of building a supersonic airliner. For now, the Americans are talking more about this, but the British will have to do it.

As for Trump. The problem is not that America has a deranged president elected. In principle, this was expected for a long time. Moreover, all the candidates for the US presidential election were insane. More importantly, Trump is on the "America for Americans" position. This means that Trump will oppose multinational companies. This is the kind of conflict that will follow after the elections, and this is where their significance lies. They threaten the non-national world structures that I call dominates. But they also put a very large number of local small political elites in Europe and the post-Soviet space, which were projected by the Clinton clan. With the loss of this clan, these elites also become unnecessary. In general, purges are expected, and in America there is a real civil conflict.

How will Trump's presidency affect technological development?

- It is believed that Trump won by working with new network technologies. In this regard, his victory can be seen as a victory for network technologies. But to be honest, I tend to think that this is more an external factor than a real situation. When I predicted Trump's victory, I did not consider the issue of using technology at all. Here I would say the following: Trump will undoubtedly strive for trans-industrialism, not post-industrialism. And this means the priority of bio-, info-, nanotechnology and robotics over financial technologies and the economy of services. The problem of the sixth paradigm diagnoses that serious problems have arisen with the development of energy and powerful engine building. The energy sector is slowly starting to move, but with engine building everything is still bad. I am inclined to think that in the near future America will develop new, very powerful engines for aviation and space. But it cannot be said that this is the result of Trump's victory, it is the consensus of the entire American ruling elite.

In the book of Nobel laureates in economics Angus Deaton, Alvin E. Roth, Robert Schiller, Robert M. Solow “In 100 years. Leading economists predict the future”says about the rise in unemployment due to the robotization of production. What do you think about this?

- They are rightly afraid of robotization. An intensive process of replacing workers with robots has begun in China. This means that robots are better than cheap Chinese workers. They are cheaper, but they work better. Already now, a significant part of scientific activity can be transferred to artificial intelligence, hardly 100%, but 99% without problems. And the remaining one percent can be declared useless, not interesting, and so on.

We are in a fundamentally terrible situation. For production, in general for any field of activity - be it management, education or medicine - are unnecessary 6.9 billion out of 7 billionof all mankind. This is not just unemployment, it is the deprivation of humanity's fundamental meaning of existence. Yes, of course, you can deceive people with various forms of volunteer activity, supposedly creative work, which, they say, is beyond the power of robots. But it recreates completely unacceptable social risks. We are faced with a challenge that ultimately boils down to the challenges of the future and which has been talked about many times: either the future is for all, or for a select few.

Until now, the world elite saw the salvation of the world economy in the idea of a trans-industrial transition, knowing full well that at the next stage this would lead to a colossal social crisis.

How can he look?

- The trans-industrial transition leads to the broadest robotization of not only production, but also management, education and cognition. This makes people unnecessary, and this is the first huge risk. It is not even so important whether they will be “thrown into the street”, or they will be assigned quite acceptable benefits, from 500 to 2000 euros for modern money. Billions of people thrown out of the real economic (and, therefore, from social, political life) - this is a social crisis. Moreover, it is not at all necessary that the crisis will take the form of mass unrest or Luddism (the protest movement against the automation of production in the first quarter of the 19th century was distinguished by pogroms and destruction of machines - ed.), It can also take completely different forms. We cannot now say which ones.

The current elite believes that the issue of overcoming the crisis will be a problem for the next generation. How to be? Create a system of total control? Already, due to various types of surveillance systems, it is possible to establish complete control over the physical space. Moreover, very soon, due to the tight integration of everything into the network, there will be control over behavior. This is a neuronet system. And all this is standardly justified by the fight against terrorism. I hope there is no need to remind that the death of the Roman Republic began precisely with the fact that in order to combat piracy, some provisions of the constitution were abolished and powers that exceeded all reasonable limits were transferred to Pompey.

See also: Google - Total Control Technologies

And yet you need to understand: no matter what control system you create, let the same neuronet or something else, the situation with 7 billion that were left with nothing can shake any, even the most stable system. This is the second significant risk today. By the way, the experiments carried out last year showed that a certain amount of crime is necessary for the normal development of society. Almost all philosophers have this understanding, sooner or later it will come to those in power. I am inclined to believe that the collapse of the tracking and control system will happen sooner or later. For example, using quantum cryptography, that is, a set of privacy methods.

- The famous futurist Michio Kaku writes in his book "Physics of the Future": “Today robots are comparable in intelligence to cockroaches. In the future, they will grow up and equal to mice, rabbits, dogs and cats. " Today's artificial intelligence can hear and count better than humans, but it doesn't even know what it is doing. So far, this is just the same program, not intelligence. Michio Kaku also writes: “Cars will move slowly along this scale, and the person will have time to prepare. I believe that this (the emergence of artificial intelligence - ed.) Will happen towards the end of the century, so we have enough time to discuss all possible options."

Sever Gansovsky has a story “The Day of Wrath”, it begins with a quote: “You read in several languages, are familiar with higher mathematics and can do some work. Do you think this makes you a Human? Answer: Yes, of course. Do people know anything else?

Let me ask myself a question: what can a person do that could not be done by artificial intelligence now? Objectively, AI beats the world champions in chess and Go, objectively it is able to control the most complex systems in production, objectively it can control the processes of cognition. Objectively, he can accurately diagnose the disease, better than the average doctor. Objectively, he can teach at a level at least above the average teacher. This is not done just because of strong opposition from certain lobbies.

And now I ask the question: what does he not know how in the sense of what we consider the tasks of the intellect? Yes, of course, he does not know how to distinguish between the important and the unimportant. He does not know how to distinguish between working and non-working. He is already capable of creating something new, but not capable of creating something else. But tell me, how many people know how to distinguish important from unimportant or create something else? Not many, I'm afraid. And robots have already passed the first criterion of intellectualization. You can already have a conversation with artificial intelligence without realizing that you are not talking to a person. This experience has already been delivered.

Robots have not yet overcome the Lem criterion, they are not capable of creating otherwise. But how long will it take? It used to be that it took centuries to create artificial intelligence, but only a few decades have passed. Robots develop in a world created by humans in their high intellectual field. Therefore, evolution is proceeding there at an incredibly high speed. Already now, artificial intelligence is not at all the level of development of a cockroach. Yes, there is a colossal debate over whether a chess-playing machine knows that it is playing chess. But sooner or later, artificial intelligence will learn to imitate reflection, it is not very difficult now. Now tell me, how are we going to recognize whether he is imitating or is it really his reflexes?

I think that the properties of intelligence are the ability to deviate from a given program and make non-standard decisions, what you called different. And playing chess is just a selection of options for solving problems

- First, no one knows what intelligence is. A very small number of people can make non-standard decisions. And that is not always the case. As my teacher Vladimir Afrikanovich Nikitin says, "I was a person only a few times in my life." Anyone does this, too, only a few times in his life. Secondly, Lem, somewhere in 1975, quite convincingly proved that an artificial intelligence system is capable of overcoming any framework limitations set by its program. This does not mean that they will all overcome them, but after all, not all people overcome their framework limitations. Therefore, if artificial intelligence consists of a set of programs, this does not mean that it will follow them. And to an even lesser extent, it means that we will be able to discern when he is following programs and when not. By the way, the Americans released a small series "Wild West" last fall, where they analyze this problem in detail.

Finally, and most importantly, any machine today is linked to a large number of other machines. This means that program mutations are in principle possible in the system. That is: you launched the program, it passed through 10 thousand computers, interacted with something there, somewhere during transmission it changed to 1, and at the output we get the already changed program. This suggests that we do not know how the program works, software mutations deprive us of this opportunity. the creator. In this sense, we will not follow the path of imitation of life, but of its creation.

- And yet, do you have an answer on how to overcome the contradiction between robotization and employment in the future? Or will extreme social inequality become inevitable?

- If it were social inequality, I would treat it with amazing calmness, inequality does not bother me. I am afraid of the social equality of almost the entire population of the Earth in the face of the lack of purpose, meaning and content of life. It is the problem of equality that will lead to the degradation of humanity, including the demographic one. And what to do with this problem, I do not know. No one has yet an explicit decision on what to do with the problem of “extra people” in a global sense. A crisis of this type has been described many times long ago, but there is no solution to it.

Maybe the solution is to provoke environmental, natural disasters, epidemics, wars?

- I even once made a report “Global Catastrophe as the Optimal Solution”. So there is such a risk. But you can overdo it.

What about transhumanist projects? We have already seen the bionic hand. Will it be possible to talk about equality, and negative, when a cyborg with superpowers appears?

- Transhumanism is something that is done out of complete hopelessness. This is a frank attempt to say that homo sapiens is no longer good for anything, he has completely lost the competition with his own creations and our last hope is for homo super, for a superman. Cyborgization, artificial genome control and so on. Further, a situation arises in which the border between believers and unbelievers is crossed. For a believer, a person was created by the Lord, which means that he was created correctly, and attempts to create supermen will result in a worse person who deviated from the “God's standard”. For others, believers and non-believers, the development of humanity occurs through a stochastic choice of evolutionary models. They, of course, believe that with their minds they will undoubtedly create something that will be better than themselves and their ancestors. Both sides are ontologically certain that they are right.

But, unfortunately, both sides have to consider one extremely simple thing. Our species, homo sapiens, are extremely selfish and insist on their monopoly of reason. In the past, there were other options for the development of mankind: Sinanthropus, Neanderthals and so on, but for some reason only one species remained - ours, all the rest were destroyed. Superhumans, if present, will be considered an alternate species. In fact, it is not so important whether we consider them non-humans or they are us, but the fact that the creation of a superhuman will lead to a colossal species struggle is obvious. It will be such a war that the thermonuclear wars between the USA and the USSR from science fiction books of the 1950s and 60s will be perceived as a children's matinee.

- Probably, since all changes will occur slowly compared to the average human life, the majority will not notice these changes. But thinking and active people want to know about the future right now and prepare for it, so as not to become those very “superfluous people”. What advice would you give them?

- Firstly, you will not do anything about this situation on an individual level. Anyone who claims that the future is not for everyone thinks to themselves that they are irreplaceable, adventurous and intelligent. No, I'm sorry, but the current situation threatens everyone. Russia, Europe, China, India do not see any problem here and do not take measures to solve it. The United States sees the problem, takes measures, but, from my point of view, their measures are insufficient.

What will the US do? The first is, of course, space. It is not enough to keep millions of people busy, but it is enough to change the way we look at the Earth. Move from geopolitics, geoeconomics and geoculture to astropolitics, astroeconomics and astroculture. That is, to make the world fundamentally open and thus to take the most important positions that have not been occupied by anyone yet.

But does humanity really need space? What do images of distant galaxies give other than aesthetic pleasure?

- Space is politics, America has made it a political necessity. Even if you go to astropolitics, you still remain tied to the Earth for a very long time. You can build colonies on the Moon or Mars, but these will be colonies of only hundreds of people. Compared to billions of earthlings, this will not matter much. But the understanding that the Earth ceases to be whole, but becomes only a part, greatly changes the picture of the world. America does this because of the need for an ontological change in people; it changes the mythology and ideology of its part of humanity.

The problem is this. Any culture that lives in linear time, and we live in it, either develops and goes beyond boundaries, or stops developing and goes into cyclicality. Even in this sense, we need space. And if we talk about the applied sense of space exploration, then, for example, geology cannot be a normal science until we have a comparison with other planets. We work with a unique object, but we cannot draw any conclusions based on it. The foundation of all geological science is plate tectonics. Question: Do other planets also have plate tectonics or is this a feature of the Earth? Therefore, space is important for us as the only opportunity for planetary reflection.

- Okay, back to how America will deal with the crisis of "extra people".

- Now the Americans will organize a crisis both at home and in the world. Within the framework of this crisis, they may be able to create a situation in which the use of robots on a huge scale for various reasons will be extremely difficult. Perhaps this will be the solution.

But the worst thing is not even that. Now we have a collapse of new ideas for the future. We do not live in a very large number of ideas. This is the construction of the galactic empire, the Azimov construction of the late 1940s - early 50s. This is the construction of noospheric communism by Vernadsky, Leroy, de Chardin, and at a later time by Efremov, Strugatsky and other Soviet fiction of the 1960s-70s. This is the concept of sustainable development, the semi-ecological "green" raving about carbon-free cities that took shape in the 1990s. And Vernor Vij's concept of technological singularity. Actually, these are all the basic constructions of the future. None of these constructions can cope with the problem. By the way, there is a lot of work for the humanities: what other concepts can there be?

You think a lot and write about education in Russia. What kind of education to get, what knowledge and skills to master? What professions to prepare children for?

- I will give you two answers - specific and philosophical. What professions to prepare children for? Engineering in all its forms, ranging from simple engineering, technical, and ending with genetic, informational and, which is very important, geological, that is, engineering of the Earth, is the management of landscapes and spaces. In a word, engineering is a way to solve problems in different areas, it will be in demand in the world of the future.

See also: Who and Why Needs Humanitarians?

Now for a philosophical answer. Alexander Alekhin once said about the chess player Aron Nimtsovich that he has a lot of games lost in the opening, because he probably attaches too much importance to openings. I mean, when a person grows up and learns, it really doesn't matter what exactly they do. Our only competitive advantage over robots: in a huge information flow, we can highlight the key, separate the important from the unimportant. Plus, we are really capable of thinking outside the framework of utilitarianism, solving problems that do not yet exist. To learn both, you just need to be able to think. And in what form - through physics, mathematics, philosophy, engineering, theology, and so on - is actually not so important. Remember the dialogue from Alice in Wonderland:

- Where should I go from here?

- Where do you want to go?

- And I do not care, just to get somewhere.

- Then it's all the same where to go. You will definitely get somewhere.

- Cyborgization technologies are developing in Western countries, while in Russia they are still intensively building Orthodox churches, chasing gays and denouncing this very West of being "disheartened." Will superhumans appear exactly there and from there begin to expand around the world?

- As always, most of the technologies are in the States, the fastest are made in China, and the best people understand why it doesn't work and what needs to be changed is in Russia. Here is your answer.

Vision of the future from Sergei Pereslegin in quotes:

• “There will be technologies based on the combination of artificial and organic systems. Many IT specialists say that this is a question of the near future"
• “99% of scientific activity can already be transferred to artificial intelligence. You can already have a conversation with artificial intelligence without realizing that you are not talking to a person."
• “Now the Americans will organize the crisis at home and in the world. Within the framework of this crisis, a situation may be created where the use of robots on a huge scale will be extremely difficult. Perhaps this will be the solution."
• “Space is not enough to occupy millions of people, but it is sufficient to change the way we look at Earth. Understanding that the Earth ceases to be whole, but becomes only a part, greatly changes the picture of the world"
• “The creation of a superman will lead to a colossal species struggle. Thermonuclear wars between the USA and the USSR from science fiction books will be perceived as a children's matinee"
• "Engineering - a way to solve problems in different areas - will be in demand in the world of the future"
• "Most of the technologies are in the States, the fastest they are made in China, and the best people understand why it does not work and what needs to be changed is in Russia."
• “The collapse of the European Union is a matter of the past. Brexit is interesting because it signals the emergence of a relic of the British Empire"
• “With the defeat of the Clintons, it becomes unnecessary to have a very large number of small political elites in Europe and in the post-Soviet space, which were projected by this clan. Purges are expected, and civil conflict is real in America"
• "Trump will strive for trans-industrialism, which means the priority of bio-, info-, nanotechnology and robotics over financial technology and the economy of services."
• "The crisis will most likely end with a phase rollback, and then we return to a fairly deep past, to technological barbarism."