What do you think?
Rate this book
Klimax
Novacene: The Coming Age of Hyperintelligence
James Lovelock, creator of the Gaia hypothesis and the greatest environmental thinker of our time, has produced an astounding new theory about future of life on Earth. He argues that the anthropocene - the age in which humans acquired planetary-scale technologies - is, after 300 years, coming to an end. A new age - the novacene - has already begun.
New beings will emerge from existing artificial intelligence systems. They will think 10,000 times faster than we do and they will regard us as we now regard plants - as desperately slow acting and thinking creatures. But this will not be the cruel, violent machine takeover of the planet imagined by sci-fi writers and film-makers. These hyper-intelligent beings will be as dependent on the health of the planet as we are. They will need the planetary cooling system of Gaia to defend them from the increasing heat of the sun as much as we do. And Gaia depends on organic life. We will be partners in this project.
It is crucial, Lovelock argues, that the intelligence of Earth survives and prospers. He does not think there are intelligent aliens, so we are the only beings capable of understanding the cosmos. Maybe, he speculates, the novacene could even be the beginning of a process that will finally lead to intelligence suffusing the entire cosmos. At the age 100, James Lovelock has produced the most important and compelling work of his life.
New beings will emerge from existing artificial intelligence systems. They will think 10,000 times faster than we do and they will regard us as we now regard plants - as desperately slow acting and thinking creatures. But this will not be the cruel, violent machine takeover of the planet imagined by sci-fi writers and film-makers. These hyper-intelligent beings will be as dependent on the health of the planet as we are. They will need the planetary cooling system of Gaia to defend them from the increasing heat of the sun as much as we do. And Gaia depends on organic life. We will be partners in this project.
It is crucial, Lovelock argues, that the intelligence of Earth survives and prospers. He does not think there are intelligent aliens, so we are the only beings capable of understanding the cosmos. Maybe, he speculates, the novacene could even be the beginning of a process that will finally lead to intelligence suffusing the entire cosmos. At the age 100, James Lovelock has produced the most important and compelling work of his life.
160 pages, Hardcover
First published July 4, 2019
About the author
James E. Lovelock
31 books287 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name. See this thread for more information.
James Ephraim Lovelock, CH, CBE, FRS, is an independent scientist, author, researcher, environmentalist, and futurist who lives in Devon, England. He is known for proposing the Gaia hypothesis, in which he postulates that the Earth functions as a self-regulating system.
James Ephraim Lovelock, CH, CBE, FRS, is an independent scientist, author, researcher, environmentalist, and futurist who lives in Devon, England. He is known for proposing the Gaia hypothesis, in which he postulates that the Earth functions as a self-regulating system.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 282 reviews
July 9, 2019
83rd book for 2019.
I have always been partial to James Lovelock's Gaia Hypothesis—that the Earth's ecosystem essentially acts as a self-regulating organism.
Early in the book Lovelock makes the important point that the Earth itself falls outside the habitable zone of planets in the solar system: that without life the average temperature of the Earth would be closer to 50°C—a temperature unpleasant for both machines and organic lifeforms—rather than our much more clement 15°C. He then goes state his belief in a variation of the strong Anthropomorphic Principle (i.e., that the purpose of the Universe was to lead to intelligent lifeforms, such as ourselves. He follows this by stating that our role is to basically to birth the machine age, which will carry on the evolution of intelligence. Humans will (he says) not be wiped out in this form of Singularity, as we have common purpose with the machines to keep global warming under control. What our role will be is unstated, and would seem that non-human life would be just as good, if not better. Anyway even if we do get wiped out, Lovelock argues we should be proud of being part of a four billion year history of organic life and accept it's time to pass on the stage to something more intelligent.
While I found the arguments in the book not particularly compelling, it was a pleasure to read, and is perhaps best read as the final playful provocation of a brilliant ninety-nine-year-old eccentric engineer.
3-stars.
I have always been partial to James Lovelock's Gaia Hypothesis—that the Earth's ecosystem essentially acts as a self-regulating organism.
Early in the book Lovelock makes the important point that the Earth itself falls outside the habitable zone of planets in the solar system: that without life the average temperature of the Earth would be closer to 50°C—a temperature unpleasant for both machines and organic lifeforms—rather than our much more clement 15°C. He then goes state his belief in a variation of the strong Anthropomorphic Principle (i.e., that the purpose of the Universe was to lead to intelligent lifeforms, such as ourselves. He follows this by stating that our role is to basically to birth the machine age, which will carry on the evolution of intelligence. Humans will (he says) not be wiped out in this form of Singularity, as we have common purpose with the machines to keep global warming under control. What our role will be is unstated, and would seem that non-human life would be just as good, if not better. Anyway even if we do get wiped out, Lovelock argues we should be proud of being part of a four billion year history of organic life and accept it's time to pass on the stage to something more intelligent.
While I found the arguments in the book not particularly compelling, it was a pleasure to read, and is perhaps best read as the final playful provocation of a brilliant ninety-nine-year-old eccentric engineer.
3-stars.
January 23, 2022
A enjoyable and quick read. Why two stars? I'm not convinced by the author's simple assertions and points.
The first two thirds of the book [The Knowing Cosmos and The Age of Fire] are a readable canter through life on Earth and especially in detail, for such a short book, the last 300 years from Newcomen's steam engine. The final third, Into the Novacene, is nothing more than a brief opinion that machines will take over the world. I don't in essence disagree but there is no argument, fact or real science here.
That may be you might say as any book predicting a future event or condition is conjecture, and yes that is correct, but equally, the thoughts of the author miss or don't consider humans: notably how difficult it is in a modern technology able world for countries to agree, work together and collaborate on a global scale - examples here might be on geo-politics, climate change, religion and even on mining and using Earth's resources or making sure all people have the same conditions and treatment.
Worth reading as the Novacene is coming, but to how it will be is no clearer here or convincing than many science fiction books of the last seventy years.
The first two thirds of the book [The Knowing Cosmos and The Age of Fire] are a readable canter through life on Earth and especially in detail, for such a short book, the last 300 years from Newcomen's steam engine. The final third, Into the Novacene, is nothing more than a brief opinion that machines will take over the world. I don't in essence disagree but there is no argument, fact or real science here.
That may be you might say as any book predicting a future event or condition is conjecture, and yes that is correct, but equally, the thoughts of the author miss or don't consider humans: notably how difficult it is in a modern technology able world for countries to agree, work together and collaborate on a global scale - examples here might be on geo-politics, climate change, religion and even on mining and using Earth's resources or making sure all people have the same conditions and treatment.
Worth reading as the Novacene is coming, but to how it will be is no clearer here or convincing than many science fiction books of the last seventy years.
July 18, 2019
My review from the Literary Review
Few people produce a new book in their 100th year; fewer still at that age produce a book containing original ideas. But if anyone was going to do it, it surely had to be Jim Lovelock. Lovelock has been having good ideas for at least 75 of the past 100 years, and is best known for one that occurred to him half his lifetime ago — the concept of the Earth as a living organism, Gaia. His new book looks forward to the future of that organism, a future in which humankind is unlikely to play a major role, having fulfilled its “purpose” by ushering in an era of artificial intelligence, the Novacene.
I should at this point declare an interest. I have known Jim for more than half my life, and nearly half of his, and have written a biography (now clearly in need of updating!) covering a large part of that life. I come to praise Caesar, not to bury him. That said, however, if his latest book had been the ramblings of a once great mind in its dotage, as a friend I would have ignored it. But because it is as important and accessible as anything he has written, if shorter than one might have hoped, I can recommend it with a clear conscious.
Underpinning Lovelock’s narrative is his conviction that as the harbinger of intelligent life our planet is probably unique, at least in our Galaxy if not in the Universe as a whole. This may seem to fly in the face of the latest discoveries of myriads of planets orbiting stars in our neighbourhood, but is based on a sound assessment of the chain of unlikely events that led our emergence. Life may be common elsewhere without having become intelligent. In emphasising how inimical to life even our near neighbour Mars is, and the likely fate of any human who ventured on to its surface, Lovelock quips “would-be spacefarer Elon Musk has said he would like to die on Mars, although not on impact. Martian conditions suggest death on impact might be preferable”.
The theme running through Lovelock’s book is the way that life has maintained habitable conditions on Earth, unlike those found on Mars, even though the heat output of the Sun has increased. Our role in this has given the name “Anthropocene” to the recent phase of Earth history. His contention is that we are now seeing the beginning of a new age, the Novacene, which will be dominated by hyperintelligences that have evolved from our machines. It all began, he argues, with Thomas Newcomen’s atmospheric steam engine, which ushered in the Industrial Revolution three centuries ago. The key was that these engines could run on their own without the need for constant attention from a human operator, thanks to the feedback mechanism of a regulator that prevented the engines from either running away and exploding or grinding to a halt. Subsequent developments can be seen as evolution at work — evolution proper, not an analogy, as successful designs were (and are) copied, reproduced, and improved. Lovelock reminds us that one description of evolution is “The organism that leaves the most progeny is selected” and says “The steam engine was certainly prolific and so were its successors”.
We have already passed the “Newcomen moment” of the dawning Novacene. Lovelock pinpoints 2015, the year when a computer programme called AlphaGo beat a professional Go player at his own game. It was succeeded by AlphaZero, which turned itself into a formidable chess and Go player by playing games against itself and learning the best techniques through a process of what Lovelock calls “AI intuition”. In 24 hours, starting only with a knowledge of the rules of the game, the machine became a better chess player than any human. As Lovelock says, “we don’t even know exactly how much better it is at any if these games than a human because there are no humans it can compete against.”
You may take comfort in the thought that the programmes were, of course, written by human beings. But that, it turns out, is not a recommendation. Human-written computer code is “the most appalling stuff”, says Lovelock. “It is absolute junk, mainly because it is simply piled on top of earlier code, a shortcut used by coders”. When cyborgs start from scratch, like AlphaZero learning chess, they will start with a blank slate and produce code far superior to ours.
Lovelock has an uncomfortable example of human inadequacy. Modern airliners have computer autopilot systems which can do everything, including takeoff and landing. For safety, these systems are tripled, so that if one system fails the others can carry on. And there are always pilots on board in case all the systems fail. But there is a rare but serious problem with this. Under extreme flying conditions, a situation can occur in which the computer systems do not know what to do. They are programmed in these circumstances to hand control back to the pilots — exactly when conditions are at their worst, and the pilots have been lulled by long experience into trusting the autopilots. Several fatal crashes have occurred when human pilots have “been presented with a problem beyond the capacity of the world’s best autopilots”. The solution might be to get a system like AlphaZero to learn how to fly an airliner by trial and error, although that could work out expensive in aircraft.
Lovelock sees three key events defining the history of life on Earth — or rather, the history of Gaia. The first occurred 3.4 billion years ago, when photosynthetic bacteria first appeared, converting the energy of sunlight into useful form; the second was in 1712 when Newcomen invented an efficient machine to convert solar energy locked in coal into useful work; the third will be when our heirs, the hyperintelligent machines, convert sunlight directly into information. And why should they stop with one star? “Perhaps the final objective of intelligent life is the transformation of the cosmos into information”.
Stated baldly, this sounds like science fantasy, not even science fiction. But even in such a short space, Lovelock, ably assisted by Bryan Appleyard, bolsters his claims with sound scientific reasoning. And what will become of us? He does not envisage a Terminator style conflict between machines and humans. Rather, that their world will be “as difficult for one of us to comprehend as our world is to a dog . . . we will no more be the masters of our creation than our much-loved pet is in charge of us. Perhaps our best option is to think this way, if we want to persist in a newly formed cyber world.”
Like all good showmen, Lovelock leaves his audience thirsting for more. And I wouldn’t put it past him to provide it. Having attended his 90th birthday party and been confidently invited then to reconvene in ten years’ time, I now look forward not only to the next party but to his next decade.
John Gribbin is the author of The Reason Why: The miracle of life on Earth (Penguin, 2012).
Few people produce a new book in their 100th year; fewer still at that age produce a book containing original ideas. But if anyone was going to do it, it surely had to be Jim Lovelock. Lovelock has been having good ideas for at least 75 of the past 100 years, and is best known for one that occurred to him half his lifetime ago — the concept of the Earth as a living organism, Gaia. His new book looks forward to the future of that organism, a future in which humankind is unlikely to play a major role, having fulfilled its “purpose” by ushering in an era of artificial intelligence, the Novacene.
I should at this point declare an interest. I have known Jim for more than half my life, and nearly half of his, and have written a biography (now clearly in need of updating!) covering a large part of that life. I come to praise Caesar, not to bury him. That said, however, if his latest book had been the ramblings of a once great mind in its dotage, as a friend I would have ignored it. But because it is as important and accessible as anything he has written, if shorter than one might have hoped, I can recommend it with a clear conscious.
Underpinning Lovelock’s narrative is his conviction that as the harbinger of intelligent life our planet is probably unique, at least in our Galaxy if not in the Universe as a whole. This may seem to fly in the face of the latest discoveries of myriads of planets orbiting stars in our neighbourhood, but is based on a sound assessment of the chain of unlikely events that led our emergence. Life may be common elsewhere without having become intelligent. In emphasising how inimical to life even our near neighbour Mars is, and the likely fate of any human who ventured on to its surface, Lovelock quips “would-be spacefarer Elon Musk has said he would like to die on Mars, although not on impact. Martian conditions suggest death on impact might be preferable”.
The theme running through Lovelock’s book is the way that life has maintained habitable conditions on Earth, unlike those found on Mars, even though the heat output of the Sun has increased. Our role in this has given the name “Anthropocene” to the recent phase of Earth history. His contention is that we are now seeing the beginning of a new age, the Novacene, which will be dominated by hyperintelligences that have evolved from our machines. It all began, he argues, with Thomas Newcomen’s atmospheric steam engine, which ushered in the Industrial Revolution three centuries ago. The key was that these engines could run on their own without the need for constant attention from a human operator, thanks to the feedback mechanism of a regulator that prevented the engines from either running away and exploding or grinding to a halt. Subsequent developments can be seen as evolution at work — evolution proper, not an analogy, as successful designs were (and are) copied, reproduced, and improved. Lovelock reminds us that one description of evolution is “The organism that leaves the most progeny is selected” and says “The steam engine was certainly prolific and so were its successors”.
We have already passed the “Newcomen moment” of the dawning Novacene. Lovelock pinpoints 2015, the year when a computer programme called AlphaGo beat a professional Go player at his own game. It was succeeded by AlphaZero, which turned itself into a formidable chess and Go player by playing games against itself and learning the best techniques through a process of what Lovelock calls “AI intuition”. In 24 hours, starting only with a knowledge of the rules of the game, the machine became a better chess player than any human. As Lovelock says, “we don’t even know exactly how much better it is at any if these games than a human because there are no humans it can compete against.”
You may take comfort in the thought that the programmes were, of course, written by human beings. But that, it turns out, is not a recommendation. Human-written computer code is “the most appalling stuff”, says Lovelock. “It is absolute junk, mainly because it is simply piled on top of earlier code, a shortcut used by coders”. When cyborgs start from scratch, like AlphaZero learning chess, they will start with a blank slate and produce code far superior to ours.
Lovelock has an uncomfortable example of human inadequacy. Modern airliners have computer autopilot systems which can do everything, including takeoff and landing. For safety, these systems are tripled, so that if one system fails the others can carry on. And there are always pilots on board in case all the systems fail. But there is a rare but serious problem with this. Under extreme flying conditions, a situation can occur in which the computer systems do not know what to do. They are programmed in these circumstances to hand control back to the pilots — exactly when conditions are at their worst, and the pilots have been lulled by long experience into trusting the autopilots. Several fatal crashes have occurred when human pilots have “been presented with a problem beyond the capacity of the world’s best autopilots”. The solution might be to get a system like AlphaZero to learn how to fly an airliner by trial and error, although that could work out expensive in aircraft.
Lovelock sees three key events defining the history of life on Earth — or rather, the history of Gaia. The first occurred 3.4 billion years ago, when photosynthetic bacteria first appeared, converting the energy of sunlight into useful form; the second was in 1712 when Newcomen invented an efficient machine to convert solar energy locked in coal into useful work; the third will be when our heirs, the hyperintelligent machines, convert sunlight directly into information. And why should they stop with one star? “Perhaps the final objective of intelligent life is the transformation of the cosmos into information”.
Stated baldly, this sounds like science fantasy, not even science fiction. But even in such a short space, Lovelock, ably assisted by Bryan Appleyard, bolsters his claims with sound scientific reasoning. And what will become of us? He does not envisage a Terminator style conflict between machines and humans. Rather, that their world will be “as difficult for one of us to comprehend as our world is to a dog . . . we will no more be the masters of our creation than our much-loved pet is in charge of us. Perhaps our best option is to think this way, if we want to persist in a newly formed cyber world.”
Like all good showmen, Lovelock leaves his audience thirsting for more. And I wouldn’t put it past him to provide it. Having attended his 90th birthday party and been confidently invited then to reconvene in ten years’ time, I now look forward not only to the next party but to his next decade.
John Gribbin is the author of The Reason Why: The miracle of life on Earth (Penguin, 2012).
August 22, 2019
If I wanted a religious book I would have bought one.
Unfortunately here, the author seems confronted to his own impermanence and tries desperately to make sense of the world before his own passing.
There is no doubt that Lovelock is a genius. Some of the theories he has developed over the years have been groundbreaking and he notably brought us the Gaia hypothesis.
Yet, this book is an accumulation of beliefs rather than scientific facts.
His steadfast belief in the anthropic principle followed by his certitude that we as humans are the "chosen ones" is cringey at best.
There are multiple statements that prove his bad faith when confronted with modern science:
-" String or multiverse theory [...] seems to me as no more than a get-out-of-jail-free card".
-" The quasi theological discussions of quantum theory".
-"Indeed, there are so many of life's spare parts on Earth that I can't help wondering if someone put them there".
This honestly looks to me like a man who refuses to accept the fact that light can behave both as a wave and as a particle.
While some topics are interesting and should be dwelled into further, the overall feel of this book is more that of a man trying desperately to find his place in the cosmos before the end.
Unfortunately here, the author seems confronted to his own impermanence and tries desperately to make sense of the world before his own passing.
There is no doubt that Lovelock is a genius. Some of the theories he has developed over the years have been groundbreaking and he notably brought us the Gaia hypothesis.
Yet, this book is an accumulation of beliefs rather than scientific facts.
His steadfast belief in the anthropic principle followed by his certitude that we as humans are the "chosen ones" is cringey at best.
There are multiple statements that prove his bad faith when confronted with modern science:
-" String or multiverse theory [...] seems to me as no more than a get-out-of-jail-free card".
-" The quasi theological discussions of quantum theory".
-"Indeed, there are so many of life's spare parts on Earth that I can't help wondering if someone put them there".
This honestly looks to me like a man who refuses to accept the fact that light can behave both as a wave and as a particle.
While some topics are interesting and should be dwelled into further, the overall feel of this book is more that of a man trying desperately to find his place in the cosmos before the end.
September 1, 2020
This slender book (130 pp) is something of a coda to James Lovelock’s long, distinguished career as a scientist and engineer. He’s best known for his Gaia hypothesis, and for inventing some remarkable scientific instruments. His work on Gaia was all self-supported, from income he earned from other projects. Lovelock makes a spirited defense of scientific intuition vs. linear thinking, and he predicts that advanced AIs will become intuitive thinkers.
Lovelock makes the provocative remark that the Earth radiates more heat than Venus! — as longwave IR from the upper atmosphere. He attributes this to cooling by Earthly life, and says our planet would warm to 50 deg. C without the “heat pump” of life, mostly our plants. No citations. He argues that the ever-increasing heat from the Sun, from normal main-sequence stellar evolution for a 4.5 by-old star, makes a precautionary case for phasing out fossil-fuel use. He advocates widespread use of nuclear power, but isn’t optimistic for that to become politically acceptable.
When Lovelock forecasts the invention of cyborgs, independent AIs more intelligent than humans, he moves into the realm of pure speculation, which I found unconvincing. He envisions advanced cyborgs becoming something like Guardians of the Galaxy! This would make a good plot for a science-fiction novel. So: 4 stars up to the cyborg stuff. Marked down a bit for that.
My reaction was close to Radiantflux’s, https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
But I enjoyed John Gribbin’s writeup for the Literary Review. He liked the book more than I did:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Interesting Nature review & profile:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d4158...
Lovelock makes the provocative remark that the Earth radiates more heat than Venus! — as longwave IR from the upper atmosphere. He attributes this to cooling by Earthly life, and says our planet would warm to 50 deg. C without the “heat pump” of life, mostly our plants. No citations. He argues that the ever-increasing heat from the Sun, from normal main-sequence stellar evolution for a 4.5 by-old star, makes a precautionary case for phasing out fossil-fuel use. He advocates widespread use of nuclear power, but isn’t optimistic for that to become politically acceptable.
When Lovelock forecasts the invention of cyborgs, independent AIs more intelligent than humans, he moves into the realm of pure speculation, which I found unconvincing. He envisions advanced cyborgs becoming something like Guardians of the Galaxy! This would make a good plot for a science-fiction novel. So: 4 stars up to the cyborg stuff. Marked down a bit for that.
My reaction was close to Radiantflux’s, https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
But I enjoyed John Gribbin’s writeup for the Literary Review. He liked the book more than I did:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Interesting Nature review & profile:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d4158...
December 30, 2019
Some quick thoughts on this. I picked up this book because a dear friend of mine had said she was going to read it. It sounded interesting enough so I put it on hold at the library. It took me months to get a copy, long after she was already done!
If you're not familiar with James Lovelock, as I wasn't, he's a scientist and inventor and is literally 100 years old. Among his many contributions is his Gaia theory, which is a bit beyond me but basically Earth is a self-regulating organism.
Lovelock begins by explaining why he thinks we're alone in the universe (I completely disagree btw); that we're alone is a problem, he argues, because if humans die out then all the knowing and understanding of the cosmos will die with us. Because humans are unique in that we alone can speculate and analyze the cosmos, it's our job to ensure life goes on. Unfortunately for us, Gaia is under increasing threats such as global warming.
But his answer to what may save Gaia, and humanity, may surprise you. Lovelock believes that we will soon leave the Anthropocene behind and enter a new geological era, the Novacene -- the age in which cyborgs (electronic life) will evolve from AI systems and become a million times more intelligent than us. Cyborgs will supersede humanity. In this vision, Lovelock doesn't see humans and cyborgs at war (they could surely wipe us out); instead, these hyperintelligent beings will keep us around because Gaia needs organic life.
It's certainly a lot to think about it, and the more I thought about what I read the more I liked it. I hope what I wrote didn't spoil anything - I didn't include anything that you can't find in a major review, and one can still enjoy his writing style, discussion of the Anthropocene, and all the many facts he drops throughout. My biggest gripe is that while fascinating as hell, it's all just so speculative.
All that said, I may have to read some of his other work now.
If you're not familiar with James Lovelock, as I wasn't, he's a scientist and inventor and is literally 100 years old. Among his many contributions is his Gaia theory, which is a bit beyond me but basically Earth is a self-regulating organism.
Lovelock begins by explaining why he thinks we're alone in the universe (I completely disagree btw); that we're alone is a problem, he argues, because if humans die out then all the knowing and understanding of the cosmos will die with us. Because humans are unique in that we alone can speculate and analyze the cosmos, it's our job to ensure life goes on. Unfortunately for us, Gaia is under increasing threats such as global warming.
But his answer to what may save Gaia, and humanity, may surprise you. Lovelock believes that we will soon leave the Anthropocene behind and enter a new geological era, the Novacene -- the age in which cyborgs (electronic life) will evolve from AI systems and become a million times more intelligent than us. Cyborgs will supersede humanity. In this vision, Lovelock doesn't see humans and cyborgs at war (they could surely wipe us out); instead, these hyperintelligent beings will keep us around because Gaia needs organic life.
It's certainly a lot to think about it, and the more I thought about what I read the more I liked it. I hope what I wrote didn't spoil anything - I didn't include anything that you can't find in a major review, and one can still enjoy his writing style, discussion of the Anthropocene, and all the many facts he drops throughout. My biggest gripe is that while fascinating as hell, it's all just so speculative.
All that said, I may have to read some of his other work now.
August 11, 2019
Ramblings of an old man with very limited vision of what the future could be. His imagination is literally thinner than generations of science fiction writers has created. No theory behind his view, just an empty axiomatic. Loved that he compared himself to galileo and einstein. I’ll be gentle as he is 100 years old.
July 22, 2023
James Lovelock is a legend, genius, inventor, and futurologist, who at age ninety-nine is as much at home in the future as the past. Here, in probably his last book, he prophetically throws in his lot with artificial intelligence. AI's combination of blinding speed and capacity for self-learning will largely obsolete bio-based nerve networks. This is already happening. Lovelock believes, along with singularity thinkers like Ray Kurtzweil and Elon Musk, it's unstoppable.
Lovelock leaves some questions unanswered. Will cyborgs have the same rights as humans? Will they sit in the Senate? How do we learn to live with leaders we're too dim to understand, much less monitor? How do we know what goals AI progressively programs into itself? How does Darwinian natural selection morph into "intentional" selection as advanced systems displace nature (and human nature) to effect their calculated goals and visions? How are shadowy human aspects such as prejudice, greed, and rivalry to be sieved from the mix as AI systems code themselves forward in lightning flashes while nudging us forward to people their new world?
Lovelock perhaps naively believes that as AI advances to globally broadened perspectives, it will just conclude that the overriding challenge of preserving our small, fragile planet must inevitably lead it to enlightened ideals and methods. The highest intelligence must just lead, he thinks, to the most sensible outcomes. That's what his earlier Daisyworld simulation seemed to promise, with black and white daisy patches peaceably taking turns modulating Earth's albedo to maintain homeostasis. I wish I could share his optimism.
Whether or not he answers all fears and concerns, Lovelock is, as always, well worth reading. He will expand your mind.
Lovelock leaves some questions unanswered. Will cyborgs have the same rights as humans? Will they sit in the Senate? How do we learn to live with leaders we're too dim to understand, much less monitor? How do we know what goals AI progressively programs into itself? How does Darwinian natural selection morph into "intentional" selection as advanced systems displace nature (and human nature) to effect their calculated goals and visions? How are shadowy human aspects such as prejudice, greed, and rivalry to be sieved from the mix as AI systems code themselves forward in lightning flashes while nudging us forward to people their new world?
Lovelock perhaps naively believes that as AI advances to globally broadened perspectives, it will just conclude that the overriding challenge of preserving our small, fragile planet must inevitably lead it to enlightened ideals and methods. The highest intelligence must just lead, he thinks, to the most sensible outcomes. That's what his earlier Daisyworld simulation seemed to promise, with black and white daisy patches peaceably taking turns modulating Earth's albedo to maintain homeostasis. I wish I could share his optimism.
Whether or not he answers all fears and concerns, Lovelock is, as always, well worth reading. He will expand your mind.
Read
March 3, 2020The author is the source of the Gaia hypothesis, so he is no stranger to extreme theories. The main argument of this book is that we have nothing to fear about the certain rise of machine intelligence, because the fact that they need biological life like us to thermoregulate the planet will lead to mutual harmony. The rest of the book feature a lot of flights of fancy that are rendered legitimate mainly because the author is an elder statesman of engineering.
November 30, 2019
Great essay! Makes you think, makes you wonder...
December 7, 2019
James Lovelock acredita que apenas a inteligência artificial poderá salvar o planeta da catástrofe ambiental, embora sublinhe a necessidade de, entretanto, tudo devermos fazer em prol da redução das emissões de dióxido de carbono, não vão, no futuro, os novos seres tecnológicos resolver mudar-se para Marte e abandonar-nos ao nosso triste fado.
Que essa nova forma de vida inteligente será bem superior à nossa, sabemo-lo desde o duelo Deep Blue/ Kasparov; também após a vitória do programa de computador AlphaGo, desenvolvido pela DeepMind da Google, contra o campeão europeu de Go, o jogo de estratégia mais elaborado do mundo, e, de forma mais inquietante, desde 2017, quando uma versão melhorada desse programa, o AlphaGo Zero, derrotou o AlphaGo em todos os jogos realizados (100-0). O mais extraordinário foi que esta nova versão aprendeu as regras, recriou estratégias conhecidas e foi capaz de utilizar jogadas originais sem qualquer “input” humano, ao contrário do que sucedera com o Alpha Go, que se socorrera de informação fornecida sobre regras de jogo e possibilidades de jogadas
Tendo conseguido adquirir capacidades sobre-humanas, torna-se difícil caracterizar a superioridade do AlphaGo Zero face ao ser humano, ninguém havendo capaz de o derrotar. Ainda assim, Lovelock acredita que a Inteligência Artificial futura caminhará do nosso lado no sentido de resolver o problema mais urgente do planeta. Afirma que o sobreaquecimento é prejudicial a qualquer forma de vida, seja ela biológica ou eletrónica, de modo que as máquinas só terão a ganhar em se aliarem aos homens no mesmo propósito. A “coisa” até deve correr bem, auspicia o autor, mas não sem afirmar repetidas vezes que seremos muito provavelmente contemplados por essas supermáquinas como seres inferiores vulgares, do mesmo modo como nós, humanos, olhamos as plantas.
Acabaremos completamente dominados, mas nada há a temer, tranquiliza Lovelock, porque tudo isto faz parte de um processo evolutivo muito natural, cujo propósito (e há um Deus a adivinhar-se no texto) ultrapassa as fronteiras do ser humano e do planeta e se estende à compreensão absoluta do Cosmos. Àqueles que avisam que tudo pode correr mal, o cientista observa que sempre se pode “desligar a tomada”, interromper o fornecimento energético que mantém vivas as máquinas, caso estas decidam ver-nos como um empecilho aos seus insondáveis propósitos. Como se a velocidade de pensamento lhes não pertencesse; como se a estratégia não fosse arma já bem testada e esse plano B não pudesse ser equacionado em nano segundos, a mesma velocidade que demorariam a decidirem varrer-nos do mapa universal.
Escrevo isto e recordo-me do filme “Ex-Machina”, de Alex Garland que vi recentemente; lembro também, entre outros, o livro “Machines Like Me” de Ian McEwan: duas distopias que alertam para o pesadelo de uma IA sem freios e infiltrada em todas as áreas das nossas vidas. A lógica dessas máquinas superinteligentes, diz-me a minha inferior lógica, não pode ser caracterizada. Nenhum ser humano a conseguirá descortinar. Haverá planta que nos entenda?
Que essa nova forma de vida inteligente será bem superior à nossa, sabemo-lo desde o duelo Deep Blue/ Kasparov; também após a vitória do programa de computador AlphaGo, desenvolvido pela DeepMind da Google, contra o campeão europeu de Go, o jogo de estratégia mais elaborado do mundo, e, de forma mais inquietante, desde 2017, quando uma versão melhorada desse programa, o AlphaGo Zero, derrotou o AlphaGo em todos os jogos realizados (100-0). O mais extraordinário foi que esta nova versão aprendeu as regras, recriou estratégias conhecidas e foi capaz de utilizar jogadas originais sem qualquer “input” humano, ao contrário do que sucedera com o Alpha Go, que se socorrera de informação fornecida sobre regras de jogo e possibilidades de jogadas
Tendo conseguido adquirir capacidades sobre-humanas, torna-se difícil caracterizar a superioridade do AlphaGo Zero face ao ser humano, ninguém havendo capaz de o derrotar. Ainda assim, Lovelock acredita que a Inteligência Artificial futura caminhará do nosso lado no sentido de resolver o problema mais urgente do planeta. Afirma que o sobreaquecimento é prejudicial a qualquer forma de vida, seja ela biológica ou eletrónica, de modo que as máquinas só terão a ganhar em se aliarem aos homens no mesmo propósito. A “coisa” até deve correr bem, auspicia o autor, mas não sem afirmar repetidas vezes que seremos muito provavelmente contemplados por essas supermáquinas como seres inferiores vulgares, do mesmo modo como nós, humanos, olhamos as plantas.
Acabaremos completamente dominados, mas nada há a temer, tranquiliza Lovelock, porque tudo isto faz parte de um processo evolutivo muito natural, cujo propósito (e há um Deus a adivinhar-se no texto) ultrapassa as fronteiras do ser humano e do planeta e se estende à compreensão absoluta do Cosmos. Àqueles que avisam que tudo pode correr mal, o cientista observa que sempre se pode “desligar a tomada”, interromper o fornecimento energético que mantém vivas as máquinas, caso estas decidam ver-nos como um empecilho aos seus insondáveis propósitos. Como se a velocidade de pensamento lhes não pertencesse; como se a estratégia não fosse arma já bem testada e esse plano B não pudesse ser equacionado em nano segundos, a mesma velocidade que demorariam a decidirem varrer-nos do mapa universal.
Escrevo isto e recordo-me do filme “Ex-Machina”, de Alex Garland que vi recentemente; lembro também, entre outros, o livro “Machines Like Me” de Ian McEwan: duas distopias que alertam para o pesadelo de uma IA sem freios e infiltrada em todas as áreas das nossas vidas. A lógica dessas máquinas superinteligentes, diz-me a minha inferior lógica, não pode ser caracterizada. Nenhum ser humano a conseguirá descortinar. Haverá planta que nos entenda?
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 22, 2022
“El mundo del futuro estará determinado por la necesidad de garantizar la supervivencia de Gaia, no por las necesidades egoístas de los humanos o de otras especies inteligentes.”
James Lovelock es un científico independiente de 102 años de edad. Además, es inventor, meteorólogo, escritor, químico atmosférico, ambientalista… uno de sus inventos ha llegado al desierto de Marte.
Pero sin duda el logro que le ha dado fama es la formulación de la Hipótesis de Gaia, que explica que la Tierra es un sistema autorregulado en el que la vida es necesaria para mantener la refrigeración del planeta.
En este libro nos explica su teoría del Novaceno, una supuesta nueva era en la que los ciborgs se harán cada vez más inteligentes a ellos mismos y el papel de nuestra especie y del planeta Tierra.
Para ello nos hablará primero del Antropoceno, es decir, de los últimos 300 años de revolución científica y tecnológica, para que entendamos cómo hemos llegado al Novaceno, reflexionaremos acerca de los peligros del cambio climático y finalmente nos contará cómo cree que será nuestro futuro como especie.
Es un libro corto, con ideas muy interesantes, pero que quizás se repite en más de una ocasión. Resalto el tema de la energía nuclear como una mejor alternativa a los combustibles fósiles y su predicción esperanzadora de un futuro colaborativo junto a las nuevas inteligencias artificiales.
James Lovelock es un científico independiente de 102 años de edad. Además, es inventor, meteorólogo, escritor, químico atmosférico, ambientalista… uno de sus inventos ha llegado al desierto de Marte.
Pero sin duda el logro que le ha dado fama es la formulación de la Hipótesis de Gaia, que explica que la Tierra es un sistema autorregulado en el que la vida es necesaria para mantener la refrigeración del planeta.
En este libro nos explica su teoría del Novaceno, una supuesta nueva era en la que los ciborgs se harán cada vez más inteligentes a ellos mismos y el papel de nuestra especie y del planeta Tierra.
Para ello nos hablará primero del Antropoceno, es decir, de los últimos 300 años de revolución científica y tecnológica, para que entendamos cómo hemos llegado al Novaceno, reflexionaremos acerca de los peligros del cambio climático y finalmente nos contará cómo cree que será nuestro futuro como especie.
Es un libro corto, con ideas muy interesantes, pero que quizás se repite en más de una ocasión. Resalto el tema de la energía nuclear como una mejor alternativa a los combustibles fósiles y su predicción esperanzadora de un futuro colaborativo junto a las nuevas inteligencias artificiales.
September 16, 2019
Strange one this. A curious mix of science, religion, philosophy and, the reason for my low rating - nonsense.
For example, although our synthetic offspring will apparently be many thousands of times cleverer than us, we will be treated as equals. Really? In the same way humans still mix with the hominids we replaced, perhaps?
The evolutionary evidence would seem to suggest otherwise. Should AI become more sentient than us, it's likely to do what we did when becoming the cleverest on the planet - its own thing. AI will no more ‘work with us’ than we consider animals to be our equals today. Which means homo sapiens are destined to suffer the same fate – as food, slaves, pets or extinction.
I sense the problem lies in Lovelock's Quaker upbringing. Although that plainly didn't stop him from becoming an outstanding inventor, he's a creationist at heart and like most religious types, can't help but let wishful thinking seep into his logical thought.
For example, although our synthetic offspring will apparently be many thousands of times cleverer than us, we will be treated as equals. Really? In the same way humans still mix with the hominids we replaced, perhaps?
The evolutionary evidence would seem to suggest otherwise. Should AI become more sentient than us, it's likely to do what we did when becoming the cleverest on the planet - its own thing. AI will no more ‘work with us’ than we consider animals to be our equals today. Which means homo sapiens are destined to suffer the same fate – as food, slaves, pets or extinction.
I sense the problem lies in Lovelock's Quaker upbringing. Although that plainly didn't stop him from becoming an outstanding inventor, he's a creationist at heart and like most religious types, can't help but let wishful thinking seep into his logical thought.
July 17, 2019
Life today life on Earth looks a lot like life 100 years ago, or 200 years ago, or, even 5 millions years ago. But, 100 years from now, life on Earth will not be like anything like we know.
Additionally, even given the vastness and age of the Universe, Lovelock believes that we are alone in the cosmos. This is because of the hugely improbable odds for the development of life.
So, we are alone, and we have created our successors: artificial intelligence. How many generations of humans have yet to be born? Perhaps only a few handfuls.
This book was upsetting, unsettling, un-centering, but profound. Some kind of funeral oratory for life as we know it. This book may demolish and unsettle many readers
Additionally, even given the vastness and age of the Universe, Lovelock believes that we are alone in the cosmos. This is because of the hugely improbable odds for the development of life.
So, we are alone, and we have created our successors: artificial intelligence. How many generations of humans have yet to be born? Perhaps only a few handfuls.
This book was upsetting, unsettling, un-centering, but profound. Some kind of funeral oratory for life as we know it. This book may demolish and unsettle many readers
September 16, 2022
"Perhaps the final objective of intelligent life is the transformation of the cosmos into information..."
Novacene was an decent short read. The author has some interesting musings in these pages.
Author James Ephraim Lovelock was an English independent scientist, environmentalist and futurist. He is best known for proposing the Gaia hypothesis, which postulates that the Earth functions as a self-regulating system. He died recently, on 26 July 2022, aged 103 years (!) RIP...
James E. Lovelock:
The book gets off on a good foot, with a well-written preface. The co-author mentions that Lovelock is a contrarian, and enjoys having his ideas scrutinized. Well, that's good, because I did question some of the assertions here. (See below)
He drops this succinct quote, that speaks to the Gaia hypothesis:
He expands a bit further:
Lovelock also states that he believes that life on Earth is an anomaly in the universe; a contentious assertion:
He also speaks of the ridiculous idea of returning the Earth to a low carbon, pre-industrial state of ~<180ppm, writing:
However, I was skeptical of some of what he writes here. For example, he keeps talking about how the Earth is "old," and is becoming "frail" and unable to withstand previously manageable system-wide shocks. He says:
Given that there have been no other discovered planets containing life in which to make any type of comparison(s), or qualitative assumptions; the above statement seems a bit questionable. Also, the Earth has long been in a cyclical state of heating and cooling, and life on the planet has both proliferated - at times, and almost gone extinct - at other times. So I don't know on what basis the author is making claims like the ones above...
To his credit, he does mention that long-term modeling of the Earth's climate is virtually impossible due to chaos theory, and writes: "As with much of climate science, we just do not know..."
Carrying on further, he correctly identifies that much of the concern over climate change has become politicized recently, but he still does sound the alarm over using fossil fuels for energy, saying that putting carbon into the atmosphere "accelerates the heating of the Earth's atmosphere." From what I've read, this is at best contentious, and at worst - not true. Patrick Moore covers this in his book: Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom. [I've covered it with a spoiler bc it's a fairly long quote] He says:
This also does not take into consideration that the countries using the most fossil fuels have under-developed economies, and fossil fuel currently provides the cheapest most reliable energy to these people. Cheap, reliable energy that can help these millions of poor people fight against the entropy that conspires to hold them to poverty-stricken lives... So, if you really care about making millions of people's lives markedly better, then fossil fuels are a no-brainer. Once these societies become more advanced, then they can look to other cleaner, reliable means of power; such as nuclear fission. Thankfully, Lovelock champions the usage of nuclear energy, while noting that many of his colleagues are against it.
However, and unlike many of his "green" collegues, he does not discard the advances brought to mankind through the anthropecene. He says:
********************
I enjoyed Novacene; for the most part. Thankfully all of the chapters were short enough to hold the reader's attention. All too often, an author veers off on long-winded tangents that lose the reader in the weeds...
The book was also an impressive work for a man who was 99 at the time of its writing.
3.5 stars.
Novacene was an decent short read. The author has some interesting musings in these pages.
Author James Ephraim Lovelock was an English independent scientist, environmentalist and futurist. He is best known for proposing the Gaia hypothesis, which postulates that the Earth functions as a self-regulating system. He died recently, on 26 July 2022, aged 103 years (!) RIP...
James E. Lovelock:
The book gets off on a good foot, with a well-written preface. The co-author mentions that Lovelock is a contrarian, and enjoys having his ideas scrutinized. Well, that's good, because I did question some of the assertions here. (See below)
He drops this succinct quote, that speaks to the Gaia hypothesis:
"...He told me about his Gaia hypothesis, but I did not grasp the idea, perhaps because, as he says in this new book, it is not expressible in ordinary logical forms. This is not because it is complex – though, in detail, it is – but because at its core is a pristine simplicity.
Life and the Earth are an interacting whole and the planet can be seen as a single organism; there you have it."
He expands a bit further:
"As a much younger man I accepted the conventional scientific view that the cosmos was a straightforward system of cause and effect. B is caused by A and then causes C. I had perhaps not paid close enough attention to Gaia. The ‘A causes B’ way of thinking is one-dimensional and linear whereas reality is multi-dimensional and nonlinear. One has only to think of one's own life to see how absurd it is to think everything can be explained as a simple linear process of cause and effect."
Lovelock also states that he believes that life on Earth is an anomaly in the universe; a contentious assertion:
"Some think that there is, surely, a chance that there have been or are highly intelligent species on at least one of the quadrillions of other planets that must orbit these stars. They would be, like us, understanders of the cosmos; or maybe their alien senses perceive an entirely different cosmos.
I think this is highly unlikely. These huge numbers of cosmic objects are misleading. It took the blindly groping process of evolution through natural selection 3.7 billion years – almost a third of the age of the cosmos – to evolve an understanding organism from the first primitive life forms. Furthermore, had the evolution of the solar system taken a billion years longer, there would be no one alive to talk about it. We would not have had time to attain the technological ability to cope with the increasing heat of the Sun. Seen from this perspective, it is clear that, ancient as it is, our cosmos is simply not old enough for the staggeringly improbable chain of events required to produce intelligent life to have occurred more than once.
Our existence is a freakish one-off..."
He also speaks of the ridiculous idea of returning the Earth to a low carbon, pre-industrial state of ~<180ppm, writing:
"So while I believe that we should do what we can to keep the planet cool, we must remember that reducing carbon dioxide levels to 180 parts per million, as some have recommended, may not lead to a pre-industrial paradise but to a new ice age. Is this what they want? There would be little or no biodiversity in the northern and southern temperate regions then, and our present civilizations would hardly flourish under ice sheets 3 kilometres or more thick..."
However, I was skeptical of some of what he writes here. For example, he keeps talking about how the Earth is "old," and is becoming "frail" and unable to withstand previously manageable system-wide shocks. He says:
"Planets, like humans, grow fragile with age. If all goes well, Gaia and I can expect a productive and pleasant period of decline – but people can have fatal accidents and so can planets. Our personal resilience depends on our state of health. When young, we can often withstand influenza or a car accident, but not when we are close to 100 years old. Similarly, when young, Earth and Gaia could withstand shocks like super-volcanic eruptions or asteroid strikes; when old, any one of these could sterilize the entire planet. A warm Earth would be a more vulnerable Earth."
Given that there have been no other discovered planets containing life in which to make any type of comparison(s), or qualitative assumptions; the above statement seems a bit questionable. Also, the Earth has long been in a cyclical state of heating and cooling, and life on the planet has both proliferated - at times, and almost gone extinct - at other times. So I don't know on what basis the author is making claims like the ones above...
To his credit, he does mention that long-term modeling of the Earth's climate is virtually impossible due to chaos theory, and writes: "As with much of climate science, we just do not know..."
Carrying on further, he correctly identifies that much of the concern over climate change has become politicized recently, but he still does sound the alarm over using fossil fuels for energy, saying that putting carbon into the atmosphere "accelerates the heating of the Earth's atmosphere." From what I've read, this is at best contentious, and at worst - not true. Patrick Moore covers this in his book: Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom. [I've covered it with a spoiler bc it's a fairly long quote] He says:
This also does not take into consideration that the countries using the most fossil fuels have under-developed economies, and fossil fuel currently provides the cheapest most reliable energy to these people. Cheap, reliable energy that can help these millions of poor people fight against the entropy that conspires to hold them to poverty-stricken lives... So, if you really care about making millions of people's lives markedly better, then fossil fuels are a no-brainer. Once these societies become more advanced, then they can look to other cleaner, reliable means of power; such as nuclear fission. Thankfully, Lovelock champions the usage of nuclear energy, while noting that many of his colleagues are against it.
However, and unlike many of his "green" collegues, he does not discard the advances brought to mankind through the anthropecene. He says:
"Of course, through its technological advances, the Anthropocene produced cruel competition for those whose only means of sustenance was selling their physical work.
And it is certainly true that our present civilization has made ecologically harmful choices. But I believe that the Earth behaves like a living physiological system and in such systems changes for the better are often accompanied by drawbacks. We have made huge changes to the Earth's environment during the last 300 years. Some of them – like the heedless destruction of natural ecosystems – are certainly bad. But what about the massive extension of life expectancies, the alleviation of poverty, the spread of education for all and the easing of our lives, not least by the widespread availability, thanks to that inventive genius Michael Faraday, of electrical power? Most of us now take IT, air travel and the gifts of modern medicine for granted. But let's think back 100 years to the time when I was born, at the end of the First World War. There was then (except for the rich) no electric lighting, no cars or telephones, no radio or TV and no antibiotics. There were shellac records playable on wind-up gramophones, with trumpets as speakers, but that was all. It is all very well to pine for a rural life amidst trees and meadows, but that should not entail a rejection of hospitals, schools and washing machines, which have made our lives so much better.
So here are a few late-Anthropocene thoughts on contemporary environmental issues, taking into account the demands made of us by Gaia.
The mistakes the Greens make arise from their politically motivated simplifications, which appear to reject all the good things the Anthropocene has brought us. We must always remember that Gaia is all about constraints and consequences. This was especially true in the story of CFCs. The Greens said they should be banned before any replacement was available. This would have meant there would be no more fridges."
********************
I enjoyed Novacene; for the most part. Thankfully all of the chapters were short enough to hold the reader's attention. All too often, an author veers off on long-winded tangents that lose the reader in the weeds...
The book was also an impressive work for a man who was 99 at the time of its writing.
3.5 stars.
January 1, 2020
An illuminating short read courtesy of the eminent James Lovelock. Much has been been said about the AI revolution and the (largely inaccurate) claims that artificial intelligence will not only replace jobs but humans as well. James Lovelock puts such worries in perspective while briefly, yet eloquently elaborating on the inventions that marked the start of the Anthropocene.
December 2, 2023
Bu paylaşım, bir miktar kişisel duygusal içeriğe sahip❗Senin derdini dinleyemem diyenler, yorumun alt kısımlarına hızlıca geçebilirler.
Bryan Appleyard bu kitap için yazdığı önsözde Lovelock'u şöyle tanıtıyor: "Sürekli kendi fikirlerini çürütecek kanıtlar, farklı bakış açıları arar, bilimsel fikirlerin temel özelliğinin belirsizlik olduğunda ısrarcıdır". Bu cümleyi okuduğumda aşırı etkilendim. Sanırım bir gün benim için de benzer şeyleri söyleyen birileri çıkar mı diye içten içe düşünmekten - ve de dürüstçe ummaktan - kendimi alamadığım için oldu bu.
Hep ileriye gitme noktasında neden kendimize ve çevremize toz konduramama eğilimi içerisinde olduğumuzu anlayamıyorum (ve açıkçası anlamak istemiyor, anlamaya yönelik özel bir çaba göstermiyor ve göstermek de istemiyorum). Yaptığımız işin tartışılması, eleştirilmesi ve aynı işe seneler sonra - ya da yakın bir süre sonra - dönüp baktığımızda bizi tatmin etmemesi, sanıyorum ki bizim daha fazlasını üretmemizi teşvik edici olmalı. Neden daha fazlası dediğinizi duyar gibiyim? Ama bilim zaten bunun üzerine kurulu değil mi? Kamunun faydası için hep daha fazlasını yapmak ve fayda sunmak değil mi amaç? Bilimsel düşünceyi ileriye götürmek ve geliştirmek değil mi? Öte yandan bu, sanırım ki, çoğu akademisyenin korkulu rüyası. Yanlışlanmak. Bundan doğacak itibar kaybı. Rezil olma korkusu. Ve daha niceleri. Burada konuşmamız gereken çokça malzeme var. Ama lafı daha fazla uzatmadan kitabın yorumuna geçeyim.
Kişisel duygusal içerik bitmiştir ❗
Lovelock bu kitabında Antroposen'in bittiğini ve Novasen'in başladığını iddia eder, yani Hiper Zeka Çağının. Bunun elbette ki tetikleyicisi hızla gelişmekte ve değişmekte olan dijital teknolojiler ve yapay zeka teknolojileridir.
Peki o zaman bu durumda Gaia teorisine ne olmuştur? Lovelock bu teorisini de güncelleyerek değişen çağın içerisinde anlamlandırmaya çalışmış, gerçeklere sırtını çevirmeyi seçmemiş. (Ki bu da başka bir tartışma konusu; çünkü niyeyse görmezden gelmek çoğu zaman daha kolay ve yaygın bir yaklaşım, neyse). Peki o zaman Novasen ne mi? Novasen, kozmosun enformasyona dönüştüğü, bizden daha zeki varlıkların (hiper zekaya sahip siborgların) tarih sahnesine çıktığı değil, yönetmen koltuğunu devraldığı bir dönem. Ama çoğu pesimist kıyamet senaryosundan farklı olarak bu defa kozmosa sahip çıkma, koruma, iyileştirme ve geliştirmeye yönelik olarak siborglar bizimle işbirliği yapacaklar.
"Her şeyin neden-sonuca dayalı basit çizgisel bir süreç olarak açıklanabileceğini düşünmenin ne kadar saçma olduğunu görmek için insanın sırf kendi hayatına bakması yeter" (s.30).
Bu kitabı herkesin okumasını kesinlikle ama kesinlikle tavsiye ediyorum. İkna olup olmamak, kabul edip etmemekten öte, bu bakış açısını görebilmeniz ve daha fazlasını konuşabilmemiz için.
Keyifli okumalar!
Kitaplarla kalın!
Bryan Appleyard bu kitap için yazdığı önsözde Lovelock'u şöyle tanıtıyor: "Sürekli kendi fikirlerini çürütecek kanıtlar, farklı bakış açıları arar, bilimsel fikirlerin temel özelliğinin belirsizlik olduğunda ısrarcıdır". Bu cümleyi okuduğumda aşırı etkilendim. Sanırım bir gün benim için de benzer şeyleri söyleyen birileri çıkar mı diye içten içe düşünmekten - ve de dürüstçe ummaktan - kendimi alamadığım için oldu bu.
Hep ileriye gitme noktasında neden kendimize ve çevremize toz konduramama eğilimi içerisinde olduğumuzu anlayamıyorum (ve açıkçası anlamak istemiyor, anlamaya yönelik özel bir çaba göstermiyor ve göstermek de istemiyorum). Yaptığımız işin tartışılması, eleştirilmesi ve aynı işe seneler sonra - ya da yakın bir süre sonra - dönüp baktığımızda bizi tatmin etmemesi, sanıyorum ki bizim daha fazlasını üretmemizi teşvik edici olmalı. Neden daha fazlası dediğinizi duyar gibiyim? Ama bilim zaten bunun üzerine kurulu değil mi? Kamunun faydası için hep daha fazlasını yapmak ve fayda sunmak değil mi amaç? Bilimsel düşünceyi ileriye götürmek ve geliştirmek değil mi? Öte yandan bu, sanırım ki, çoğu akademisyenin korkulu rüyası. Yanlışlanmak. Bundan doğacak itibar kaybı. Rezil olma korkusu. Ve daha niceleri. Burada konuşmamız gereken çokça malzeme var. Ama lafı daha fazla uzatmadan kitabın yorumuna geçeyim.
Kişisel duygusal içerik bitmiştir ❗
Lovelock bu kitabında Antroposen'in bittiğini ve Novasen'in başladığını iddia eder, yani Hiper Zeka Çağının. Bunun elbette ki tetikleyicisi hızla gelişmekte ve değişmekte olan dijital teknolojiler ve yapay zeka teknolojileridir.
Peki o zaman bu durumda Gaia teorisine ne olmuştur? Lovelock bu teorisini de güncelleyerek değişen çağın içerisinde anlamlandırmaya çalışmış, gerçeklere sırtını çevirmeyi seçmemiş. (Ki bu da başka bir tartışma konusu; çünkü niyeyse görmezden gelmek çoğu zaman daha kolay ve yaygın bir yaklaşım, neyse). Peki o zaman Novasen ne mi? Novasen, kozmosun enformasyona dönüştüğü, bizden daha zeki varlıkların (hiper zekaya sahip siborgların) tarih sahnesine çıktığı değil, yönetmen koltuğunu devraldığı bir dönem. Ama çoğu pesimist kıyamet senaryosundan farklı olarak bu defa kozmosa sahip çıkma, koruma, iyileştirme ve geliştirmeye yönelik olarak siborglar bizimle işbirliği yapacaklar.
"Her şeyin neden-sonuca dayalı basit çizgisel bir süreç olarak açıklanabileceğini düşünmenin ne kadar saçma olduğunu görmek için insanın sırf kendi hayatına bakması yeter" (s.30).
Bu kitabı herkesin okumasını kesinlikle ama kesinlikle tavsiye ediyorum. İkna olup olmamak, kabul edip etmemekten öte, bu bakış açısını görebilmeniz ve daha fazlasını konuşabilmemiz için.
Keyifli okumalar!
Kitaplarla kalın!
April 17, 2020
If you’re looking for an exploration into ‘Futurism x Environmentalism’, sadly I can’t recommend this book. There’s a very clear contradiction between what this book purports to be to be about, and what it actually is: whilst he claims hyper intelligence is the future for humanity, Lovelock dedicates 80% of the book to describing THIS age - Anthropocene - rather than the envisioned Novacene. Anthropocene, for those unaware, describes the era in Earth (or Gaia’s) lifecycle by which intelligent life creates significant changes to it’s environment, whilst Novacene describes when artificial/hyper intelligence begins transforming the land.
Lovelock is very capable of communicating these key ideas in this book. An analogy used is that A.I or cyborgs may view us the way we view plants, in that their ability to think and react is so slow and arduous, whilst they’re infinitely more advanced. It’s just that most of these insights aren’t as compelling as the one just mentioned. Many of them are rudimentary investigations into what the future holds for us, including an automated economy and Government, or space colonisation, aren’t exactly new thoughts for 2019. Most are very unspecific and nebulous and it’s hard to gauge if he’s speaking about the next 300 years or 10,000 years. More concerning, Lovelock tries to sweep any political discourse under the rug, yet can’t seem to be committed to this ideal, as he is quite angry at ‘the Greens’ and is very fond of capitalism (or at least, markets). Whilst I can certainly understand the notion that perhaps pollution and warming don’t contradict Gaia’s wishes, and she presumably created us (I‘ll have to see if George Carlin ever credits this view to Lovelock specifically), his efforts to be apolitical aren’t made earnestly.
Maybe I went into this book with the wrong expectations. I do think I’ll read his most famous book, the Gaia Hypothesis, as he seemed much more confident writing about that topic and Anthropocene. Just don’t expect anything substantive in the way of how to balance the exciting horizons of super computers and A.I, with the looming threat of global collapse.
Lovelock is very capable of communicating these key ideas in this book. An analogy used is that A.I or cyborgs may view us the way we view plants, in that their ability to think and react is so slow and arduous, whilst they’re infinitely more advanced. It’s just that most of these insights aren’t as compelling as the one just mentioned. Many of them are rudimentary investigations into what the future holds for us, including an automated economy and Government, or space colonisation, aren’t exactly new thoughts for 2019. Most are very unspecific and nebulous and it’s hard to gauge if he’s speaking about the next 300 years or 10,000 years. More concerning, Lovelock tries to sweep any political discourse under the rug, yet can’t seem to be committed to this ideal, as he is quite angry at ‘the Greens’ and is very fond of capitalism (or at least, markets). Whilst I can certainly understand the notion that perhaps pollution and warming don’t contradict Gaia’s wishes, and she presumably created us (I‘ll have to see if George Carlin ever credits this view to Lovelock specifically), his efforts to be apolitical aren’t made earnestly.
Maybe I went into this book with the wrong expectations. I do think I’ll read his most famous book, the Gaia Hypothesis, as he seemed much more confident writing about that topic and Anthropocene. Just don’t expect anything substantive in the way of how to balance the exciting horizons of super computers and A.I, with the looming threat of global collapse.
Read
February 12, 2024“The experience of watching your garden grow gives you some idea of how future AI systems will feel when observing human life.”
James Lovelock died in 2022 at the age of 103 years— he has lived long enough to see local politics and ideologies crumble to dust and global temperatures rise to Hell's level... He is the father of Gaia hypothesis and defender of nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuels to stop the growing global warming and the deadly (for us humans at least...unfortunately not only us...) greenhouse effect.
Novacene is a book, that despite talking about extremely advanced and complex science (barely understandable for all, like me, non-scientists on the side of average/low level of intelligence), was written in a simple and accessible language. Some of the ideas expressed here are, to say the least, surprising and even shocking, to all of us educated with the scientific dogmas of academic curricula and infected with Hollywood's pseudo-scientific garbage.
Whether Lovelock is right or not I can't tell and is less important to me than the fact that this book belongs to that category of exceptional books that makes us "Think" and perhaps reconsider some preconceived ideas we have in our brains; clinging to our convictions like cobwebs in an old barn.
To me, a "MUST" read...
James Lovelock died in 2022 at the age of 103 years— he has lived long enough to see local politics and ideologies crumble to dust and global temperatures rise to Hell's level... He is the father of Gaia hypothesis and defender of nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuels to stop the growing global warming and the deadly (for us humans at least...unfortunately not only us...) greenhouse effect.
Novacene is a book, that despite talking about extremely advanced and complex science (barely understandable for all, like me, non-scientists on the side of average/low level of intelligence), was written in a simple and accessible language. Some of the ideas expressed here are, to say the least, surprising and even shocking, to all of us educated with the scientific dogmas of academic curricula and infected with Hollywood's pseudo-scientific garbage.
Whether Lovelock is right or not I can't tell and is less important to me than the fact that this book belongs to that category of exceptional books that makes us "Think" and perhaps reconsider some preconceived ideas we have in our brains; clinging to our convictions like cobwebs in an old barn.
To me, a "MUST" read...
September 6, 2019
Mostly nonsense. This rambling blog post of a book hits it's thesis early and often: humans have created the conditions for artificial intelligence to evolve, and AI may soon overtake humans as the dominant species on Earth, and this may not be a bad thing. The author avoids facts, statistics, evidence, etc like a plague, stating early on that he's being his conjecture on intuition, which is better than reason anyhow. This weak justification for his conclusions undermines the whole premise, which could have been incredibly compelling and convincing in more rigorous hands. If you intuitively know that AI will replace (or evolve from) humans, do you need the author to justify your intuition?
September 2, 2019
This short book came out on the author's 100th birthday – and that's just the first remarkable thing about it. Old age has made this scientist neither pessimistic nor dotty. Quite the opposite – his ideas are so simple, so mind-blowingly original, that they kept me awake, engrossed in thought, just wondering about our role in the universe. Indeed, the future he foresees is so surprising one could easily dismiss it as sci-fi, if this old seer hadn't been proved right time and time again over his long career. In the 1970s, his Gaia hypothesis – that Earth functions as a self-regulating organism that will maintain the right conditions for life, with or without us – was at at the wacky end of fringe, but is now widely accepted. Gaia produced us, but our time is fast coming to an end, and we should not mourn our passing. Because we are midwives to the next great geological period of Earth time: the Novacene, the age of machine hyperintelligence, a digital civilisation.
Lovelock overturns some lifelong beliefs I'd always held to be scientifically sound. First, that Earth is just the right distance from the sun, neither too near nor too far, for life to evolve and flourish. Well, apparently it isn't. Earth is way too close to the sun; it's only our oxygen-rich atmosphere, produced by organic life, that shields us. Second, we are probably alone in the universe. (I know... really?) There may be simple, microbial life out there, but not intelligent life. The billions of galaxies comprising trillions of stars make us think that sheer statistics favour an abundance of intelligent life. But intelligent life on Earth took 3.5 billion years to evolve, and from very chance and unpromising beginnings. That's a very long time – almost one third of the age of the universe itself. Ancient though it is, our universe just isn't old enough to have produced many intelligent civilisations. Any that preceded us would by now be in their Novacene periods – hyperintelligence, intelligence millions of times more intelligent than us, which would literally be everywhere. But for all our star gazing and searching, the cosmos appears barren. Third, our planet is now in its old age. Just as a youth can easily recover from a bad bout of flu or a broken leg, an old person can't. If the Earth suffers another mass extinction event like the many it's suffered in the past, it's unlikely that life could start evolving here all over again. And here's where Lovelock becomes truly interesting. Gaia created us, we create hyperintelligence; hyperintelligene will protect Gaia. And beyond that... hyperintelligence will make the universe itself conscious and self-aware. I realise this verges on the theological, but coming from such a scientist as Lovelock it makes that cynical old debunker Richard Dawkins seem petty in the extreme. One of the most surprising things about this book is its optimism. Lovelock envisages a golden age of us co-exising with hyperintelligence, which, initially at least, will need our co-operation in stopping global warming – the most urgent danger facing us AND hyperintelligence. 50C° is just about the top tolerance limit for human and digital machines. I admit that this is where some doubts started to creep in. Once hyperintelligence has found ways to cool and stabilise the climate... what possible use will it have for 9 billion humans?
Lovelock overturns some lifelong beliefs I'd always held to be scientifically sound. First, that Earth is just the right distance from the sun, neither too near nor too far, for life to evolve and flourish. Well, apparently it isn't. Earth is way too close to the sun; it's only our oxygen-rich atmosphere, produced by organic life, that shields us. Second, we are probably alone in the universe. (I know... really?) There may be simple, microbial life out there, but not intelligent life. The billions of galaxies comprising trillions of stars make us think that sheer statistics favour an abundance of intelligent life. But intelligent life on Earth took 3.5 billion years to evolve, and from very chance and unpromising beginnings. That's a very long time – almost one third of the age of the universe itself. Ancient though it is, our universe just isn't old enough to have produced many intelligent civilisations. Any that preceded us would by now be in their Novacene periods – hyperintelligence, intelligence millions of times more intelligent than us, which would literally be everywhere. But for all our star gazing and searching, the cosmos appears barren. Third, our planet is now in its old age. Just as a youth can easily recover from a bad bout of flu or a broken leg, an old person can't. If the Earth suffers another mass extinction event like the many it's suffered in the past, it's unlikely that life could start evolving here all over again. And here's where Lovelock becomes truly interesting. Gaia created us, we create hyperintelligence; hyperintelligene will protect Gaia. And beyond that... hyperintelligence will make the universe itself conscious and self-aware. I realise this verges on the theological, but coming from such a scientist as Lovelock it makes that cynical old debunker Richard Dawkins seem petty in the extreme. One of the most surprising things about this book is its optimism. Lovelock envisages a golden age of us co-exising with hyperintelligence, which, initially at least, will need our co-operation in stopping global warming – the most urgent danger facing us AND hyperintelligence. 50C° is just about the top tolerance limit for human and digital machines. I admit that this is where some doubts started to creep in. Once hyperintelligence has found ways to cool and stabilise the climate... what possible use will it have for 9 billion humans?
March 12, 2021
Dieses Werk beinhaltet sehr interessante und wissenschaftlich plausible Hypothesen zum Übergang vom Anthropozän ist das neue, von der künstlichen Intelligenz dominierten, Zeitalter des sog. Novozäns. Im Alter von 99 Jahren berichtet der unabhängige britische Wissenschaftler Lovelock von der bevorstehenden, selbstständigen Entwicklung einer neuartigen, hyperintelligenten Daseinsform, die den Menschen in dieser Hinsicht weit übertreffen wird.
Für meinen Geschmack sind Lovelocks Aussagen zu spekulativ, liefern aber dennoch spannende Denkimpulse über die Entwicklung von intelligentem Leben im Universum.
Für meinen Geschmack sind Lovelocks Aussagen zu spekulativ, liefern aber dennoch spannende Denkimpulse über die Entwicklung von intelligentem Leben im Universum.
March 24, 2020
Never read a book like it. Very interesting take on the future by a distinguished and learned scientist.
October 6, 2020
Che James Lovelock sia un personaggio fuori dall'ordinario, è abbastanza pacifico. Geniale inventore, brillante ingegnere e scienziato dagli interessi multipli, è notissimo per l'ipotesi Gaia, ossia la teoria secondo la quale la Terra abitata dai viventi (crosta terrestre, atmosfera e biosfera) è un superorganismo in grado di autoregolarsi. L'ipotesi, a lungo criticata e osteggiata da parte della comunità scientifica, ha un certo appeal presso il grande pubblico, più che per i suoi meriti scientifici per una certa facilità ad essere interpretata nel senso della consueta anima mundi che delizia sempre neoplatonisti, fricchettoni new-age e cultori delle discipline orientali.
In questo libro scritto in collaborazione con il giornalista Bryan Appleyard, Lovelock, che ha superato il secolo (è nato nel 1919!), propone uno scenario futuro in cui l'intelligenza artificiale si affianca all'essere umano che l'ha creata per inserirsi nelle dinamiche di autoregolazione di Gaia: trattandosi di un'intelligenza ipersviluppata, più potente di quella umana perché basata sull'intuizione e l'autoapprendimento anziché sulla logica classica, la nuova componente si rivelerà in grado di risolvere i gravi problemi di inquinamento e approvvigionamento di energia che turbano gli equilibri del pianeta, aprendo così una nuova era geologica, che Lovelock chiama Novacene.
Certo, con un curriculum come quello di Lovelock e con una capacità di ragionamento come quella mostrata nel libro (ben scritto e ben tradotto), a 101 anni ci si può ritenere soddisfatti. Purtroppo meno soddisfatto è chi legge questo saggio raffazzonatissimo con un minimo di spirito critico. Il libro, circa un centinaio di pagine, è una sorta di minestrone in cui Lovelock ha riversato avanzi e frammenti di tutto ciò che ritiene degno di interesse, a torto o a ragione. Ci sono note autobiografiche, osservazioni ambientalistiche, riletture più o meno sensate della storia della scienza, previsioni vaghissime e oscillanti, appelli all'umanità per uno sfruttamento sostenibile del pianeta, spiegazioni del funzionamento di certi dispositivi, citazioni da scienziati e filosofi, frecciate ai colleghi etc. etc., il tutto mescolato con il ramaiolo della teoria dell'informazione (poteva mancare?) e della magica AI (le cui prestazioni però, curiosamente, rimangono avvolte nel mistero). In molti punti si ha l'impressione di ascoltare un guru ormai anziano che ripete certi punti fermi del proprio pensiero, stupito che ancora non siano stati accettati da tutti come verità conclamate. In alcuni punti si ha l'impressione che il suddetto guru abbia preso qualche abbaglio un po' grave.
Uno può anche fissare l'inizio dell'Antropocene alla data del 1712, anno dell'invenzione della macchina di Newcomen: deve però chiarire perché una data del genere è accettabile geologicamente (cosa che Lovelock non fa), altrimenti come direbbe padre Pizzarro "stamo a parla' de' tutto e de' niente, stamo a parla'!". La Rivoluzione industriale inizia del 1760 e la macchina di Newcomen aveva un rendimento bassissimo (tant'è che fu perfezionata nel 1763 da Watt, che rese la macchina davvero competitiva).
Le critiche al concetto di fascia di abitabilità sono piuttosto capziose e francamente offensive verso i planetologi. Va bene citare Stoermer per l'introduzione del termine Antropocene, ma ignorare completamente Crutzen mi pare scorretto. Ci sono poi varie incoerenze: prima si dice che il problema del riscaldamento globale verrà risolto in automatico da Gaia, poi che tale problema è il più serio che abbiamo e sarà l'AI del futuro a risolverlo. I nuovi esseri che popoleranno il pianeta (i nostri eredi) saranno nostri alleati, oppure saremo loro indifferenti, oppure opereranno in modo da metterci fuori gioco? Da un capitolo all'altro, la posizione di Lovelock cambia radicalmente. Su questa nuova AI, che dovrebbe essere il punto chiave del libro,si danno pochissimi dettagli: a un certo punto L. dice che se li immagina come sfere... mah? E poi, perché chiamarli cyborg, se il cyborg è tutt'altro? Anche le citazioni di Asimov e Karel Čapek sembrano del tutto estemporanee. A un certo punto si ha l'impressione che Lovelock stia parlando di quantum computers, ma anche in questo caso si arriva a un vicolo cieco.
Ci sono poi alcune affermazioni contestabili (internet sarebbe unicamente il risultato di "esigenze militari"; l'unico a preoccuparsi che la QM non è comprensibile sarebbe stato nonno Albert), altre semplicistiche (fino a oggi nessuno si sarebbe reso conto della debolezza della logica lineare aristotelica), altre ancora un po' ruffiane (le donne avrebbero una visione più adeguata del cosmo perché rifiutano la logica lineare e adoperano l'intuizione). Rimane infine poco chiaro come la nuova AI obbedirà all'evoluzionismo darwiniano: su questo tema fondamentale, Lovelock dice pochissimo...
Per riprendermi leggerò un saggio di Amedeo Balbi sull'ultimo orizzonte della conoscenza umana del cosmo... almeno so che vado sul sicuro! ;)
In questo libro scritto in collaborazione con il giornalista Bryan Appleyard, Lovelock, che ha superato il secolo (è nato nel 1919!), propone uno scenario futuro in cui l'intelligenza artificiale si affianca all'essere umano che l'ha creata per inserirsi nelle dinamiche di autoregolazione di Gaia: trattandosi di un'intelligenza ipersviluppata, più potente di quella umana perché basata sull'intuizione e l'autoapprendimento anziché sulla logica classica, la nuova componente si rivelerà in grado di risolvere i gravi problemi di inquinamento e approvvigionamento di energia che turbano gli equilibri del pianeta, aprendo così una nuova era geologica, che Lovelock chiama Novacene.
Certo, con un curriculum come quello di Lovelock e con una capacità di ragionamento come quella mostrata nel libro (ben scritto e ben tradotto), a 101 anni ci si può ritenere soddisfatti. Purtroppo meno soddisfatto è chi legge questo saggio raffazzonatissimo con un minimo di spirito critico. Il libro, circa un centinaio di pagine, è una sorta di minestrone in cui Lovelock ha riversato avanzi e frammenti di tutto ciò che ritiene degno di interesse, a torto o a ragione. Ci sono note autobiografiche, osservazioni ambientalistiche, riletture più o meno sensate della storia della scienza, previsioni vaghissime e oscillanti, appelli all'umanità per uno sfruttamento sostenibile del pianeta, spiegazioni del funzionamento di certi dispositivi, citazioni da scienziati e filosofi, frecciate ai colleghi etc. etc., il tutto mescolato con il ramaiolo della teoria dell'informazione (poteva mancare?) e della magica AI (le cui prestazioni però, curiosamente, rimangono avvolte nel mistero). In molti punti si ha l'impressione di ascoltare un guru ormai anziano che ripete certi punti fermi del proprio pensiero, stupito che ancora non siano stati accettati da tutti come verità conclamate. In alcuni punti si ha l'impressione che il suddetto guru abbia preso qualche abbaglio un po' grave.
Uno può anche fissare l'inizio dell'Antropocene alla data del 1712, anno dell'invenzione della macchina di Newcomen: deve però chiarire perché una data del genere è accettabile geologicamente (cosa che Lovelock non fa), altrimenti come direbbe padre Pizzarro "stamo a parla' de' tutto e de' niente, stamo a parla'!". La Rivoluzione industriale inizia del 1760 e la macchina di Newcomen aveva un rendimento bassissimo (tant'è che fu perfezionata nel 1763 da Watt, che rese la macchina davvero competitiva).
Le critiche al concetto di fascia di abitabilità sono piuttosto capziose e francamente offensive verso i planetologi. Va bene citare Stoermer per l'introduzione del termine Antropocene, ma ignorare completamente Crutzen mi pare scorretto. Ci sono poi varie incoerenze: prima si dice che il problema del riscaldamento globale verrà risolto in automatico da Gaia, poi che tale problema è il più serio che abbiamo e sarà l'AI del futuro a risolverlo. I nuovi esseri che popoleranno il pianeta (i nostri eredi) saranno nostri alleati, oppure saremo loro indifferenti, oppure opereranno in modo da metterci fuori gioco? Da un capitolo all'altro, la posizione di Lovelock cambia radicalmente. Su questa nuova AI, che dovrebbe essere il punto chiave del libro,si danno pochissimi dettagli: a un certo punto L. dice che se li immagina come sfere... mah? E poi, perché chiamarli cyborg, se il cyborg è tutt'altro? Anche le citazioni di Asimov e Karel Čapek sembrano del tutto estemporanee. A un certo punto si ha l'impressione che Lovelock stia parlando di quantum computers, ma anche in questo caso si arriva a un vicolo cieco.
Ci sono poi alcune affermazioni contestabili (internet sarebbe unicamente il risultato di "esigenze militari"; l'unico a preoccuparsi che la QM non è comprensibile sarebbe stato nonno Albert), altre semplicistiche (fino a oggi nessuno si sarebbe reso conto della debolezza della logica lineare aristotelica), altre ancora un po' ruffiane (le donne avrebbero una visione più adeguata del cosmo perché rifiutano la logica lineare e adoperano l'intuizione). Rimane infine poco chiaro come la nuova AI obbedirà all'evoluzionismo darwiniano: su questo tema fondamentale, Lovelock dice pochissimo...
Per riprendermi leggerò un saggio di Amedeo Balbi sull'ultimo orizzonte della conoscenza umana del cosmo... almeno so che vado sul sicuro! ;)
May 31, 2021
This is a really interesting take on the future of the human race, written by a truly fascinating mind. It's very hypothetical, but that's no reason not to enjoy it.
July 13, 2020
What an interesting view of the state of development of mankind and actually the universe. Expressed in simple and short chapters.
April 10, 2023
Interesting and informative. Recommended.
May 15, 2021
It sounds very science fiction, but considering what Elon Musk has been doing, and all the drones, watch dogs...etc., the era of Novacene is almost inevitable. Just how far will we go and will we be willing to let go of the power in control?
September 24, 2019
This is a fascinating and very accessible little book. Novacene's argument is quite clear: humanity is developing a successor species in the form of artificial intelligence, and that's probably a good thing.
So on the one hand this is a work of futurism, exploring the well known if burgeoning field of posthumanism. It reminds me of Robin Hanson's Age of Em, which similarly argues for a new, digital lifeform about to appear on Earth. Novacene sees these posthuman entities growing gradually, then very quickly (like Hemingway's line about bankruptcy), ultimately supplanting humanity by the end of the 21st century (102), as the Anthropocene gives way to the titular Novacene.
On the other hand, what makes Novacene unusual is one of its authors. James Lovelock is the British scientist best known for offering the Gaia hypothesis, which holds the world to be a kind of vast, single mega-organism. Lovelock foregrounds Gaia throughout Novacene, arguing that digital entities are the next part of Gaia, and seeing AIs* as carrying out Gaia's self-protection mission.
This offers an unusual take on posthumanity. For example, Lovelock and his co-author think that the Earth's biggest danger is overheating - not just from anthropogenic climate change in the short term, but rising solar output in the seriously long term (115). Therefor Gaia wants to keep the planet cool, even preferring frequent ice ages (55). Posthuman silicon-based entities will logically strive to chill out the planet. Gaia's desires are central to the book; humanity's are marginal. That Gaia, so often beloved by low- or anti-technology folk, would choose to create a world-spanning digital order is a fun thought.
Lovelock's presence in the book as a character adds to Novacene's charm and accessibility. There are autobiographical episodes which might interest readers in the history of science. There's a striking passage which begins with Lovelock describing a bizarre experiment in human pain tolerance, and ends with his holding an infant Stephen Hawking in his arms (62-3). Throughout Lovelock enjoys his own strange mind and career, quietly celebrating himself as a British eccentric. I found that delightful. And he wrote this at 99 years of age.
This book offers a bracing vision of the future. It's also a very big-picture one, focusing on time frames of millions of years. That scale and the book's brevity (barely over 100 pages) mean so much is left out. There isn't much room for discussion of culture, for example. Scientific issues loom largest.
Recommended for anyone thinking of the future.
*Lovelock actually uses the term "cyborg" instead of AI, which is odd. He seems to mean entities which are either software-only or intelligent robots (29ff). It's not the usual sense of the word, which describes hybrid entities combining humanity and technology.
So on the one hand this is a work of futurism, exploring the well known if burgeoning field of posthumanism. It reminds me of Robin Hanson's Age of Em, which similarly argues for a new, digital lifeform about to appear on Earth. Novacene sees these posthuman entities growing gradually, then very quickly (like Hemingway's line about bankruptcy), ultimately supplanting humanity by the end of the 21st century (102), as the Anthropocene gives way to the titular Novacene.
On the other hand, what makes Novacene unusual is one of its authors. James Lovelock is the British scientist best known for offering the Gaia hypothesis, which holds the world to be a kind of vast, single mega-organism. Lovelock foregrounds Gaia throughout Novacene, arguing that digital entities are the next part of Gaia, and seeing AIs* as carrying out Gaia's self-protection mission.
This offers an unusual take on posthumanity. For example, Lovelock and his co-author think that the Earth's biggest danger is overheating - not just from anthropogenic climate change in the short term, but rising solar output in the seriously long term (115). Therefor Gaia wants to keep the planet cool, even preferring frequent ice ages (55). Posthuman silicon-based entities will logically strive to chill out the planet. Gaia's desires are central to the book; humanity's are marginal. That Gaia, so often beloved by low- or anti-technology folk, would choose to create a world-spanning digital order is a fun thought.
Lovelock's presence in the book as a character adds to Novacene's charm and accessibility. There are autobiographical episodes which might interest readers in the history of science. There's a striking passage which begins with Lovelock describing a bizarre experiment in human pain tolerance, and ends with his holding an infant Stephen Hawking in his arms (62-3). Throughout Lovelock enjoys his own strange mind and career, quietly celebrating himself as a British eccentric. I found that delightful. And he wrote this at 99 years of age.
This book offers a bracing vision of the future. It's also a very big-picture one, focusing on time frames of millions of years. That scale and the book's brevity (barely over 100 pages) mean so much is left out. There isn't much room for discussion of culture, for example. Scientific issues loom largest.
Recommended for anyone thinking of the future.
*Lovelock actually uses the term "cyborg" instead of AI, which is odd. He seems to mean entities which are either software-only or intelligent robots (29ff). It's not the usual sense of the word, which describes hybrid entities combining humanity and technology.
September 22, 2020
Wat een ongelooflijke rollercoaster ride is dit boek... Ik heb het in een ruk uitgelezen en kon gewoon niet meer stoppen. En dat terwijl ik het met de hoofdthesis van het boek eigenlijk helemaal niet eens was. Laat ik even stap voor stap door het boek gaan (wat Lovelock waarschijnlijk enorm zou irriteren omdat het geen intuitive benadering is maar een lineaire, maarja dat is zoals hij zelf stelt ook de beperking van taal):
- De hoofdthese van Lovelock is: Het doel van de kosmos is intelligent leven te vervaardigen omdat de kosmos bestaat uit informatie (denk bv zwaartekracht) en intelligent leven zich bewust zal worden van die informatie. Uiteindelijk zou hierdoor een bewuste kosmos ontstaan (als een soort levend holistisch geheel). Dit komt voort uit Lovelocks eerdere Gaia theorie, namelijk dat de aarde een groot organisme vormt dat zichzelf in stand houdt. De aarde moet zichzelf namelijk koel houden om een plek te kunnen zijn waar leven kan blijven bestaan. Als de aarde te koud of te warm is zal het leven verdwijnen. Hierdoor vormt leven dus een soort complex feedback systeem dat zelf zorgt dat het klimaat binnen de grenzen blijft (denk aan bomen die CO2 uit de lucht halen en opslaan en daarmee het broeikaseffect tegengaan).
Ik denk dat de Gaia theorie heel plausibel is, want waarom zou de aarde niet een groot ecosysteem kunnen zijn dat zichzelf in stand houdt? Zeker als je kijkt hoe lang leven op aarde al bestaat en hoeveel rampen het leven op aarde al overleefd heeft en hoe de aarde daarna terug geschoten is naar die stabiele temperaturen. Echter, met dat de mens een "uitverkoren" soort is en dat de kosmos een "bepaald doel" zou hebben ben ik het absoluut niet eens (behalve het getal 42 dan he :P ). Ik denk dat dat zeer antropocentrisch is en dat het voorbij gaat aan de grote invloed van toeval. Algemeen wordt binnen de biologie aangenomen dat evolutie geen doel kent, maar dat zaken zich toevallig de ene of andere kant op bewegen en dat (uit miljarden keren dat het misgaat) toevallig eens een keer een gunstige eigenschap vormt over de tijd (afhankelijk van de levensduur van een organisme). Gunstiger in de zin dat het organisme meer nakomelingen krijgt, niet in de zin dat het "beter" is, want evolutie is neutraal en dus waarde vrij. Enige andere gedachte (vooral als het gaat om "dingen worden beter") vind ik altijd eng dicht bij sociaal darwinisme uitkomen...
- De mens zal het leven geven aan "cyborgs" die veel intelligenter zullen zijn dan wij en die ons (organisch leven) lange tijd zullen tolereren omdat het ook voor de cyborgs belangrijk is dat de temperatuur op aarde niet te warm wordt. Vanaf 50 graden zullen zij namelijk ook oplossen, dus ook zij zullen niet willen dat de aarde een 2e Venus wordt.
Ik heb hier niet heel veel op te zeggen behalve dat ik het idee enorm fascinerend vindt. Ook dat deze wezens waarschijnlijk een ander besef van tijd en ruimte zullen hebben. Daarnaast vindt ik zijn brainstorm over hoe een cyborg taal eruit zal zien, ook heel heel fascinerend. Ik moest gelijk denken aan Arrival en die alien-octopussen die een veel meer intuïtief 3d schrift hebben dan wij.
- Lovelock stelt dat hetgeen wat wetenschappelijk denken nu vaak nog beperkt taal is en het lineaire denken dat daaruit vloeit. Hij is een voorstander van technisch of intuïtief denken.
Vind ik erg interessant en ik denk dat er een kern van waarheid in zit, zeker als het gaat om kwantum theorie maar ook wel filosofie. We hebben voor sommige zaken (nog) niet de woorden om ze te beschrijven, maar er is wel een soort intuïtief begrip. Iets dat ik ook herken: Je wil iets uitleggen, maar kan de woorden niet vinden ondank dat je het enorm goed begrijpt. Dit is natuurlijk ook waarom de uitvinding van de taal van de wiskunde zo ontzettend belangrijk is geweest. Intuïtief (of misschien wel 3d denken) en daar taal aan weten te koppelen is denk ik iets wat een tekortkoming kan zijn in het verder komen met de wetenschap.
- Hij is geen groot fan van milieuactivisten omdat hij vindt dat dat allemaal primitivisme zijn die terug willen naar de tijd voor de industriële revolutie en een moderne vorm van de originele zonde (mens die natuur begon te verwoesten, wanneer deze geen jager-verzamelaar meer was; oftewel mens slecht en natuur goed) hebben geïnternaliseerd. Daarnaast stelt hij dat klimaat verandering en vervuiling niet politiek is.
Dit snap ik oprecht niet. Hij is ook continu aan het afgeven op (groen) links. Echter, milieuactivisten zijn echt niet allemaal primitivisten die terug willen naar de prehistorie, sterker nog ik durf te zeggen dat dat een heel heel kleine groep is. De meeste milieuactivisten willen niet per direct plastic verbieden, maar overheden en bedrijven pushen en activeren om alternatieven te bedenken en schade zoveel mogelijk te verminderen. Hierom zijn dit soort zaken per definitie politiek en Lovelock schiet zichzelf daarom ook een paar pagina's later in de voet te zeggen dat eenmalig verpakkingsmateriaal gereguleerd moet worden (een overheidstaak).
- Lovelock is een tech-optimist die neigt naar een "doel heiligt de middelen" visie. Hij stelt namelijk dat mensen het nu wellicht slecht hebben, maar dat dat het allemaal waard zal zijn wanneer cyborgs een soort van "verlossing" zullen brengen.
Ik kan hier kort over zijn: Hier ben ik het natuurlijk geheel niet mee eens. Hij zit wellicht met 100 jaar comfortabel in een huisje aan zee met het einde van zijn leven in zicht, maar dat valt niet te zeggen voor al die jongeren die opgroeien in landen of vluchtelingenkampen waar geen enig perspectief op een leuk leven is. Het doel heiligt niet de middelen.
- Lovelock heeft ontzettend veel mee gemaakt en mensen gekend en het is adembenemend. Hij vertelt bijvoorbeeld hoe hij Stephen Hawking nog als baby in zijn armen heeft gedragen, hoe hij mee heeft gewerkt aan de eerste mars en maan missies in de jaren 60 en 70, hoe auteur William Golding ("Lord of the Flies") zijn theorie de naam Gaia gaf, etc etc. De man heeft zoveel mooie verhalen te vertellen en zoveel kennis verzameld. Dat maakt dit boek denk ik zo ontzettend innemend.
Kortom, ik ben het meet veel niet eens, maar desondanks heeft het boek een enorme indruk achtergelaten en zal het zeker nog na vibreren in mijn hersenen en misschien ook wel een beetje minder verdrietig zijn als ik al die sci-fi films kijkt waarbij de mens het moet afleggen tegen intelligentere robots.
Oja, wat ik me nog wel afvraag: Do Androids dream of electric sheep? oftewel, tot in hoeverre zullen mens en cyborg emoties voelen en dit een onderscheidt betekenen? Als Lovelock meer feministische literatuur had gelezen had hij het hier wellicht wel meer over gehad. Op een zin na heeft hij het namelijk helemaal niet over emoties bij cyborgs en dát zou wel eens de onderscheidende factor kunnen zijn tussen dier en cyborg! Naast de vraag wat intelligentie überhaupt is (puur informatie verwerking zoals Lovelock zich volgens mij voorstelt of wellicht ook abstractere dingen), wordt er natuurlijk ook vaak gesteld dat er emotionele intelligentie is. Zouden dieren daar superieur aan blijven tov de cyborgs? ... cliffhanger...
- De hoofdthese van Lovelock is: Het doel van de kosmos is intelligent leven te vervaardigen omdat de kosmos bestaat uit informatie (denk bv zwaartekracht) en intelligent leven zich bewust zal worden van die informatie. Uiteindelijk zou hierdoor een bewuste kosmos ontstaan (als een soort levend holistisch geheel). Dit komt voort uit Lovelocks eerdere Gaia theorie, namelijk dat de aarde een groot organisme vormt dat zichzelf in stand houdt. De aarde moet zichzelf namelijk koel houden om een plek te kunnen zijn waar leven kan blijven bestaan. Als de aarde te koud of te warm is zal het leven verdwijnen. Hierdoor vormt leven dus een soort complex feedback systeem dat zelf zorgt dat het klimaat binnen de grenzen blijft (denk aan bomen die CO2 uit de lucht halen en opslaan en daarmee het broeikaseffect tegengaan).
Ik denk dat de Gaia theorie heel plausibel is, want waarom zou de aarde niet een groot ecosysteem kunnen zijn dat zichzelf in stand houdt? Zeker als je kijkt hoe lang leven op aarde al bestaat en hoeveel rampen het leven op aarde al overleefd heeft en hoe de aarde daarna terug geschoten is naar die stabiele temperaturen. Echter, met dat de mens een "uitverkoren" soort is en dat de kosmos een "bepaald doel" zou hebben ben ik het absoluut niet eens (behalve het getal 42 dan he :P ). Ik denk dat dat zeer antropocentrisch is en dat het voorbij gaat aan de grote invloed van toeval. Algemeen wordt binnen de biologie aangenomen dat evolutie geen doel kent, maar dat zaken zich toevallig de ene of andere kant op bewegen en dat (uit miljarden keren dat het misgaat) toevallig eens een keer een gunstige eigenschap vormt over de tijd (afhankelijk van de levensduur van een organisme). Gunstiger in de zin dat het organisme meer nakomelingen krijgt, niet in de zin dat het "beter" is, want evolutie is neutraal en dus waarde vrij. Enige andere gedachte (vooral als het gaat om "dingen worden beter") vind ik altijd eng dicht bij sociaal darwinisme uitkomen...
- De mens zal het leven geven aan "cyborgs" die veel intelligenter zullen zijn dan wij en die ons (organisch leven) lange tijd zullen tolereren omdat het ook voor de cyborgs belangrijk is dat de temperatuur op aarde niet te warm wordt. Vanaf 50 graden zullen zij namelijk ook oplossen, dus ook zij zullen niet willen dat de aarde een 2e Venus wordt.
Ik heb hier niet heel veel op te zeggen behalve dat ik het idee enorm fascinerend vindt. Ook dat deze wezens waarschijnlijk een ander besef van tijd en ruimte zullen hebben. Daarnaast vindt ik zijn brainstorm over hoe een cyborg taal eruit zal zien, ook heel heel fascinerend. Ik moest gelijk denken aan Arrival en die alien-octopussen die een veel meer intuïtief 3d schrift hebben dan wij.
- Lovelock stelt dat hetgeen wat wetenschappelijk denken nu vaak nog beperkt taal is en het lineaire denken dat daaruit vloeit. Hij is een voorstander van technisch of intuïtief denken.
Vind ik erg interessant en ik denk dat er een kern van waarheid in zit, zeker als het gaat om kwantum theorie maar ook wel filosofie. We hebben voor sommige zaken (nog) niet de woorden om ze te beschrijven, maar er is wel een soort intuïtief begrip. Iets dat ik ook herken: Je wil iets uitleggen, maar kan de woorden niet vinden ondank dat je het enorm goed begrijpt. Dit is natuurlijk ook waarom de uitvinding van de taal van de wiskunde zo ontzettend belangrijk is geweest. Intuïtief (of misschien wel 3d denken) en daar taal aan weten te koppelen is denk ik iets wat een tekortkoming kan zijn in het verder komen met de wetenschap.
- Hij is geen groot fan van milieuactivisten omdat hij vindt dat dat allemaal primitivisme zijn die terug willen naar de tijd voor de industriële revolutie en een moderne vorm van de originele zonde (mens die natuur begon te verwoesten, wanneer deze geen jager-verzamelaar meer was; oftewel mens slecht en natuur goed) hebben geïnternaliseerd. Daarnaast stelt hij dat klimaat verandering en vervuiling niet politiek is.
Dit snap ik oprecht niet. Hij is ook continu aan het afgeven op (groen) links. Echter, milieuactivisten zijn echt niet allemaal primitivisten die terug willen naar de prehistorie, sterker nog ik durf te zeggen dat dat een heel heel kleine groep is. De meeste milieuactivisten willen niet per direct plastic verbieden, maar overheden en bedrijven pushen en activeren om alternatieven te bedenken en schade zoveel mogelijk te verminderen. Hierom zijn dit soort zaken per definitie politiek en Lovelock schiet zichzelf daarom ook een paar pagina's later in de voet te zeggen dat eenmalig verpakkingsmateriaal gereguleerd moet worden (een overheidstaak).
- Lovelock is een tech-optimist die neigt naar een "doel heiligt de middelen" visie. Hij stelt namelijk dat mensen het nu wellicht slecht hebben, maar dat dat het allemaal waard zal zijn wanneer cyborgs een soort van "verlossing" zullen brengen.
Ik kan hier kort over zijn: Hier ben ik het natuurlijk geheel niet mee eens. Hij zit wellicht met 100 jaar comfortabel in een huisje aan zee met het einde van zijn leven in zicht, maar dat valt niet te zeggen voor al die jongeren die opgroeien in landen of vluchtelingenkampen waar geen enig perspectief op een leuk leven is. Het doel heiligt niet de middelen.
- Lovelock heeft ontzettend veel mee gemaakt en mensen gekend en het is adembenemend. Hij vertelt bijvoorbeeld hoe hij Stephen Hawking nog als baby in zijn armen heeft gedragen, hoe hij mee heeft gewerkt aan de eerste mars en maan missies in de jaren 60 en 70, hoe auteur William Golding ("Lord of the Flies") zijn theorie de naam Gaia gaf, etc etc. De man heeft zoveel mooie verhalen te vertellen en zoveel kennis verzameld. Dat maakt dit boek denk ik zo ontzettend innemend.
Kortom, ik ben het meet veel niet eens, maar desondanks heeft het boek een enorme indruk achtergelaten en zal het zeker nog na vibreren in mijn hersenen en misschien ook wel een beetje minder verdrietig zijn als ik al die sci-fi films kijkt waarbij de mens het moet afleggen tegen intelligentere robots.
Oja, wat ik me nog wel afvraag: Do Androids dream of electric sheep? oftewel, tot in hoeverre zullen mens en cyborg emoties voelen en dit een onderscheidt betekenen? Als Lovelock meer feministische literatuur had gelezen had hij het hier wellicht wel meer over gehad. Op een zin na heeft hij het namelijk helemaal niet over emoties bij cyborgs en dát zou wel eens de onderscheidende factor kunnen zijn tussen dier en cyborg! Naast de vraag wat intelligentie überhaupt is (puur informatie verwerking zoals Lovelock zich volgens mij voorstelt of wellicht ook abstractere dingen), wordt er natuurlijk ook vaak gesteld dat er emotionele intelligentie is. Zouden dieren daar superieur aan blijven tov de cyborgs? ... cliffhanger...
Displaying 1 - 30 of 282 reviews