[NathanKP]

In my opinion it's much more likely that sentient beings apathy themselves into extinction.

Humans already show a tendency towards addiction to technology that exploits dopamine triggers, as social networks like Facebook do.

Now imagine a world in which matrix style neural implants give you all the dopamine fulfillment that you want with no need for any effort. And combine this neural implant replacement for reality with extensive automation and AI that replaces the need for physical and mental effort. With an ever decreasing amount of stuff to do in the real world more people start hooking up to the matrix.

It's quite likely a massive portion of the population will dream itself to death without accomplishing anything or giving birth to a new generation of offspring because work, invention, and sex in the real world could never compete with the feeling of something that is tied directly into your brain making you feel like you just solved the world's hardest scientific problem, or ate the best meal ever, or had the best sex ever.

It seems probable that such neural implant tech and automation could be created long before a practical interstellar travel solution is created, which would also be a depressing, but realistic explanation for the Fermi paradox.

[cubano]

So in the end, you envision addiction destroying humanity.

It's an interesting insight but I can't really see it happening the way you describe.

There are already many substances (opiates, crack, meth to name a few), some that have been around for centuries, that give intense dopamine-release rushes.

Yet, only a small percentage of people, around 5-10%, seem to have the addictive personality required to completely disengage from reality and destroy their lives with these substances.

The human species has millions of years of evolutionary programming to survive the nuerodystopia you predict.

[NathanKP]

People who don't get addicted to chemical drugs don't get addicted because they have things in their lives (rewarding work, good relationships/sex, religion and other forms of self actualization) which gives them dopamine triggers that are more enjoyable than the drug.

On the other hand people who lack things that give them the natural dopamine trigger tend to get highly addicted to chemicals that trigger the dopamine release artificially.

I'll admit I'm a highly pessimistic person but from what I see we are trending more and more towards automation and AI that will remove the need and even the possibility of having many of those natural dopamine triggers.

Imagine a world where its impossible to invent or create anything new because an AI more capable than you has already created it, and what's more the frontier of what the AI is capable of is expanding faster than your mind can physically catch up with so you will never be able to match it, ever.

And in this world when it comes to work or art there is always an AI/robot that can do it astronomically better than you can. Maybe you still get a feeling of reward from relationships with other people, but more likely the AI is better at relationships than you are, and most people in the world only have relationships with instances of the AI because that is more rewarding.

My nihilistic prediction is that our evolutionary programming won't be able to keep up with technology past a certain point, and instead we'll just be held back by our animal programming.

[Retra]

>People who don't get addicted to chemical drugs don't get addicted because they have things in their lives (rewarding work, good relationships/sex, religion and other forms of self actualization) which gives them dopamine triggers that are more enjoyable than the drug.

That sounds like something you should back up with unambiguous evidence.

[tremon]

I urge you to look up that evidence for yourself, it is easily found. There is both empirical evidence, from e.g. rats, and sociological experiments, from rehab centers.

Also, I reject your use of "unambiguous". Ambiguity is a given, we're not discussing a mathematical proof here.

[CamperBob2]

The research I've seen suggests that rats and other creatures will give up everything you listed for another hit of the right drug.

[kalmi10]

I seem to remember a study that attributed this behavior to the captive environment of the subjects (rats), and once the environment was changed, they weaned off on their own. Can't find it right now, but will keep looking.

Edit: sibling post found it, apparently its results couldn't be replicated :/

[not_kurt_godel]

Not necessarily: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park

[misja111]

Well written answer but there's a contradiction in what you're saying. You say: "Maybe you still get a feeling of reward from relationships with other people, but more likely the AI is better at relationships than you are, and most people in the world only have relationships with instances of the AI because that is more rewarding."

And your conclusion is that the result of this will be that people will get addicted on drugs rather than seeking relationships with other people. But you just said that most people will have relationships with instances of AI instead. So people will not get addicted on drugs, they will just have amazingly happy relationships with uber social AI instances.

[kaybe]

A less pessimistic view on the future would be not a divergence of humans and AI/computers but a co-development. If we can merge we might be able to keep up.

[ams6110]

I know a lot of people who hate or are ambivalant their jobs, have bad or no relationships/sex, and are not drug addicts or even recreational users.

[dev1n]

We now face the danger, which in the past has been the most destructive to the humans: Success, plenty, comfort and ever-increasing leisure. No dynamic people has ever survived these dangers.

- John Steinbeck [1]

[1]: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/559551-we-now-face-the-dang...

[Razengan]

They are "dangers" only when your neighbors don't have them. When the whole world has success, plenty, comfort and ever-increasing leisure, there's little reason for anyone to become agitated and attack someone.

At least until we run into an agitated alien species with better toys than us.

[Malician]

"There are already many substances (opiates, crack, meth to name a few), some that have been around for centuries, that give intense dopamine-release rushes."

Yeah, but consider something that directly stimulates the brain - the best first hit of heroin anyone has ever experienced, under the best conditions, would be nothing by comparison. We can't even imagine the results of that kind of hit.

[api]

I've wondered before if one "great filter" might not be utopia. Species achieve a very pleasant steady state, adopt some form of epicurean philosophy, and then sit there until they fade away or something kills them.

The filter would be whether an intelligence, having achieved a very satisfying "utopian" local maximum, chooses "irrationally" to continue striving.

It's really not so irrational though if you understand what a local maximum is and the implications. But it might feel that way.

This is basically the plot and core idea of goethe's Faust. The deal he makes with the devil is that the devil will give him knowledge and power but can take his soul the moment he becomes content.

[Razengan]

> It seems probable that such neural implant tech and automation could be created long before a practical interstellar travel solution is created, which would also be a depressing, but realistic explanation for the Fermi paradox.

So everyone out there is basically sleeping in their beds? :)

[NathanKP]

That'd be my guess. The tech wouldn't even have to be that sophisticated to be the most addictive thing ever, unfortunately.

Your brain already has the ability to hallucinate worlds very vividly (in fact it does so every night when you sleep). All you need is a device that keeps you sleeping and dreaming, while periodically triggering your brain to dump a bunch of dopamine.

Maybe I'm just too nihilistic, but the way I see the only thing that truly motivates people is that dopamine reward loop in the brain. All the things people enjoy: work and invention, eating, sex, art, even religion are only enjoyable because our brain rewards us by releasing some chemicals in our brains when we participate in them.

Now imagine a neural implant that makes you feel like you simultaneously ate a great meal, had the best orgasm of your life, and did the best work of your life. And you can get this basically free without any real work. There would probably be 100% addiction rate on this thing. Anyone who tried it would be forever ruined on reality.

[jackmodern]

"Now imagine a neural implant that makes you feel like you simultaneously ate a great meal, had the best orgasm of your life, and did the best work of your life"

It's called acid, and other psychedelics. Sure, people get addicted to it, but not a huge number percentage wise.

[ars]

> Sure, people get addicted to it, but not a huge number percentage wise.

Is that because they don't get addicted, or because they don't try it?

[garrettgrimsley]

No, their rotting corpse is laying there, and there are no children or grandchildren there to mourn them (or carry on the existence of the species) because they never had any offspring. As Cubano said, I don't think this is too likely. Some people would see what's happening and simply never hook up.

[krapp]

Your definition of "sentient being" seems too anthropocentric to me. Why should anyone but humans happen to have evolved something like a brain with dopamine centers and the capacity for pleasure or addiction?

[tremon]

His position doesn't really change if you accept the use of "dopamine center" as a metaphor. For as far as we know, reward/punishment are essential triggers for adaptive neural networks. I don't think it's anthropocentric to presuppose that any advanced lifeform can artificially stimulate its own reward mechanisms.