Some of my favorite commenters were puzzled by my post of the End of History.
Quick notes for those who haven’t followed me all the way on
this multi-year journey
1) The End of History is the notion popularized by Francis Fukuyama that Democratic-Republicanism is the ultimate form of government and that it will be universal in the near future. This represents the End of History in that our basic struggle over political structure of society will be settled.
People push back on this notion on multiple fronts but the front I push hardest on is that Democratic-Republicanism is not likely to be the optimal form of government in the future. Rather than the End of History we are in an odd phase defined by the explosive growth and extensive biological and cultural diversity among humans. These things are likely to come to an end and produce a society that is stable and has no use for democracy.
2) The second issue which is what the title of this post speaks to, is about how long we expect the human project to go on.
Putting probabilities on our extinction is a hard. However, there are several lines of reasoning that suggest it might not be too far off. The simplest goes like this. If we extrapolate what seems to be clearly possible in terms of economic growth, peace and prosperity generally in the world, then we get a global economy growing at at least 2% per capita for several hundred years.
At that point space travel becomes relatively cheap and I don’t want to go into a lot of detail here but there is strong reason to believe that at least some group of humans will want to devote themselves to space travel and exploration.
Those humans will search out new worlds and come to cover a large portion of our visible universe.
Here is the problem. From the beginning of humanity until this scenario plays out is not very long. This suggests that once sentient life gets started its pretty easy to go out along this path.
So the question is: can we really be the first? Why isn’t our portion of the universe already filled with explorers?
One possible answer is that the process of getting to exploration involves developing technologies that ultimately lead to the destruction of the potential explorers. Its not hard to see what these techs might be: Unfriendly AI, uncontrolled nanotech, highly developed chemical or biological weapons in the hands of terrorists, etc.
Thus, it might be the case that increasing technological sophistication is ultimately self-extincting because the probability of an extinction level mistake becomes very high when your technological sophistication becomes very high.
This is the Great Filter that prevents our universe from being filled with explorers and is why we don’t see any explorers right now. Since no one else has made it past this hurdle its unlikely that we will either. We would have to “beat the odds” as it were.
Another possibility is that the universe is filled with explorers but they are purposefully hiding from us, hoping that we never actually make it off of earth. If we do make it off of earth there is reason to believe they would destroy us. I won’t go deep into that here, but I think the case for destroying potentially rival civilizations is pretty strong.
3) Malthusian stagnation. So the idea, which I feel pretty confident in, is that eventually stagnation will set back in. This is not because we will exhaust all of earth’s resources or something like that. While that could happen I don’t think of it as a serious possibility.
Instead the fundamental problem is that the “Grid of Reality” is discrete and bounded and therefore finite. That is, there are minimum sized particles that interact at minimum distances. Add, to that the fact that at any moment our descendents are bound in a finite region of space by our light cone.
This implies that we are dealing with a finite number of possible configurations of reality. Once, we have mastered the ability to manipulate those configurations there is literally nowhere else to grow.
That is, the possibilities for growth are literally not limitless because there are not an unlimited number of possible configurations for our portion of the universe to be in.
No matter how large that number is – and it is of course very large – a growing economy will hit the max at some point in the future. Thus growth simply cannot be forever.
Thus, even if you could overcome basic entropy problems you still run into the fact that exponential growth means that at some time T we will have mastered all of the configurations within our light cone and we would have to cross the light cone to continue at an exponential pace. This is impossible.
Knowing this, it becomes the case that each of our decedents at some point will only be able to exercise command over some subset of possible configurations at the expense of some other descendent having command over that subset. This sets up the fundamental Malthusian tension.
Now, it is likely the case that we will hit practical constraints before we hit this “ultimate constraint”, however, knowing that there is an ultimate constraint tells us that no amount of technological progress, innovation or ingenious breakthrough can produce indefinite growth.

10 comments
Comments feed for this article
Monday ~ November 14th, 2011 at 1:35 pm
Brett
1. We’ve only been scanning the sky for little more than a century. That’s a very narrow window of time, before which we could have had multiple explorer craft come through and take a look at our solar system before moving on.
2. Interstellar travel is very difficult, and represents a huge investment in energy, time, and technology. Considering how difficult it has been for us to mobilize resources for a space program, I wouldn’t be shocked if alien civilizations simply don’t bother when the resources in their own solar systems are plentiful.
My point is that it’s pretty drastic to leap from “we don’t see any alien explorers in our solar system, or pick up radio traffic” to “there may be a Great Filter that causes civilizations to destroy themselves once they get to a certain tech level”. Particularly when it could simply be a result of time, distance, and technological limitations.
I’m skeptical of that extrapolation, particularly with an aging world population that is going to level off late in the 21st century.
Monday ~ November 14th, 2011 at 3:04 pm
Axel
Are you sure Reality is discrete? Anyway growth should be about the way we interact with reality. And to this aim we use representations (which you say postulates reality is discrete and the one we get access to in our life is bounded). But we will never be able to know if what we think about reality is really true. We cannot think of much more than models/proxies. Which essentially creates potential growth : one can always improve a representation and build a representation of the representation if growth is really needed…
Monday ~ November 14th, 2011 at 4:21 pm
Becky Hargrove
Now I see my first problem – not being able to find the book (when I wanted to read it), which I would have disagreed with anyway. Already the democratic-republican paradigm is broken in that government can not do what either party desires.
However we have not even really started on the road to potential growth, much of which can be measured in increasing skill capacities, person to person. Even so, real growth can happen monetarily by creating more mobile environments to live and work in which can free up tremendous amounts of passively held capital, not to mention the passive agressive games of (real estate and asset) chicken in countless legal environments. We need to move towards a legal, social and economic world in which each individual is able to control his or her own environment instead of trying to constantly control the environment of husband, wife, family or whatever.
The biggest problem now is that too many people are being left out of the entire process, irregardless of the skills they have acquired in their lives. Understandably though regrettably, some of those individuals would like to leave behind a charred world, and they have to be included in humanity before it gets to that point.
Monday ~ November 14th, 2011 at 4:38 pm
Lord
I think we can actually be first, or among the first. It is still early in the evolution of the universe and takes several stellar cycles to produce us. If we acclimatize to space, I think the motivation to return to planetary dwelling will be greatly diminished. The odds of destruction by another civilization presumes we are more valuable dead than alive. They may be resource bound but not necessarily by any resource valuable to us or we may be the resource, for good or bad. The two ways I see dealing with Malthus are increasing wealth by decreasing the number of people to divide our wealth over and transitioning from reproduction to persistence, stagnation of a bounded sort that makes the absence of others less problematic. Finally, we may not be bound by our light cone and these could raise the dimension for expansion. Would there still be limits? Perhaps, but probably too far off to concern ourselves with or alternatively are already a simulation under such limits.
Monday ~ November 14th, 2011 at 5:14 pm
lfv
The fourth and likeliest possibility is that interplanetary expansion is technologically feasible but that interstellar is not.
Monday ~ November 14th, 2011 at 5:43 pm
Ryan
I can accept your arguments about there being a limit to growth rates. But I wonder how important it is. If humans ever live in a world where time stops being a scarce resource and boredom is no longer a cost, does it matter if growth rates slow to an arbitrarily small number, so long as it’s positive? For example a human consciousness inside a machine that can costlessly put itself to sleep for any period of time. Does “slowly” have any meaning if you can experience the passage of time at any rate you choose? You can experience any growth rate you like.
There’s still an argument about an absolute maximum level of utility, of course, but I think you can avoid the Malthusian argument by having arbitrarily large experienced growth rates up until the end of the universe (or until the level of utility starts falling).
Monday ~ November 14th, 2011 at 8:38 pm
Becky Hargrove
A good growth rate is important as long as we rely upon credit as a major part of economic activity. However I would like to see buy-as-you-go assets for lower income that do not rely so much upon credit. If credit remains hard to come by for lower classes, hopefully manufacturers and municipalities will make ownership structures more flexible so that credit is not always necessary for this group.
Friday ~ December 2nd, 2011 at 1:41 am
সাতকাহন « Mukti
[...] As Keynes said, in the long run, everybody’s survival rate drops to zero — wait, he didn’t say that. [...]
Tuesday ~ April 24th, 2012 at 6:06 pm
Glen
I hope you have the time to respond. You say that no explorers in our universe have come forward because they simply do not wish to, or they to are facing the same Great Filter. Well, is it not also possible that other explorers simply do not exist in our universe? You seem to assume that there is life out there which, as far as I am aware and I could be wrong, cannot be proved at this moment.
Friday ~ May 3rd, 2013 at 2:42 am
Cheap Air Jordan Retro 5 Grey Black shoes
I truly appreciate this post. I?|ve been looking all over for this! Thank goodness I found it.