Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

basilgello t1_jd7gxqh wrote

Interesting question. It is not only a lack of job moved people to urban areas. People want "easier" and "more happening" life, i.e work less but have more new pleasant moments per lifetime. Cities offer a lot of this to satisfy: museums, cafes, sport grounds. At the same time, people get used to anything and sometimes want calmer and less intensive life.

I am thinking now what happens when we finally master the affordable quantum teleportation: people would have zero reason to stay in big cities and instead would form a mesh living everywhere. Because roads would not be needed, people could live even high in the mountains and deep underwater or underland. At the same time, the more expensive something is, the less people will use it. Same applies to current intelligent data processing: burning fossil fuels is finite process, economic demand is finite as well but new shiny features will require new professions that were not possible on previous levels of technology.

If a true AI emerges, interesting how many resources will it take. The rise of the machines is a possible scenario but before the AI becomes AI (sentient and agentic) it is just a tool built by humans and to satisfy some human needs. Just like horses :)

2

visarga t1_jd8831w wrote

Just because it is a plot device in StarTrek, and in physics scientists demonstrated they could "teleport" a particle, it doesn't mean it will be possible to teleport a human. What they teleport is not the particle but its quantum state. If in general, you want to read the quantum state of something you destroy it.

2

IntroVertu OP t1_jd7ofjr wrote

>Cities offer a lot of this to satisfy: museums, cafes, sport grounds.

It is true that human beings are by essence sociable animals and that the cultural and social activities that megacities offer are enormous assets. But the disadvantages are more and more importants : excessive real estate prices and cost of living, poor air quality, lack of green space...

Okay, humans are social creatures but isn't there a middle ground to be found between these big cities and the countryside ? And maybe AI (and many more new technologies) will allow us to find this middle ground.

(this is a very subjective : many people don't care about having to pay 10 euros for a beer and don't necessarily appreciate green spaces. It remains to be seen who represents the majority)

−1

harmlessdjango t1_jd87258 wrote

poor air quality is mostly caused by cars, not the congregation of humans. If your "quaint little town" has lots of cars spewing fumes and kicking up particles in it, the air quality won't be that much different

4

Frumpagumpus t1_jd9e6cf wrote

if you electrify them and make them much smaller since self driving can prevent 99% of accidents wouldnt be as much of an issue

1

basilgello t1_jd7teme wrote

> It remains to be seen who represents the majority

This. People are used to something, and highly adaptable. Adaptable because of intellect + all the genetic evolution nature made us for billions of years. Yet at the same time survival means minimizing the uncertainty or enthropy. That's why people are reactive to changes and can cope with worse living than it is possible.

We who want changes are small minority. And even among us changers there is .001% of people who can press the big red button for the utopic world. That's question of price and value, responsibility and power. And choice :)

0