We humans have been the dominant species on earth for some time now. How did we do it? To be synthetic and to use only three words (which are not sun, heart and love): intelligence, social structures, technological dexterity.
Our nature, in short, has made us unique in the greater Nature. A beautiful unicum. O terrifying, it depends on who has to put up with us.
Already. Because our very nature, the proponent of this progress, is now hindering it. And it is also hindering the planet, which certainly does not send them to say, reciprocating with interests the annoyance we cause him.
Will the technological singularity be better than us?
Humans have countless limitations that the technological singularity will not have. It will not have, for example, divisions and prejudices of any kind. I will have no desire to distract you from your goals. The singularity will not have the need to transmit knowledge to a subsequent generation, nor to dwell within the limits of a single body. It will be a continuous exponential growth, virtually without our physical limits.
All this and more, of course, as long as we don't want to insist on designing it by taking our brain as a model. We do not yet know how it works, let alone give it to a "technological conscience".
Limitless
As mentioned, I believe that a technological singularity would have none of the internal conflicts inherent in human society, but it could be just as productive. Or more. Because it would be a society without individuality, not limited to one body at a time.
Imagine if Einstein could have made copies of himself with all his memories for the sole purpose of advancing science. The #teamEinstein would practically outclass every physicist of his time, rendering him useless and increasing his knowledge endlessly. Quite right? Or by drawing on a limited patrimony (although Einstein would have multiplied his potential, there would have been some limits) would he have ended up slowing down the progress of physics?
The example (which can be improved, of course) only serves to make the point. The technological singularity will be "the Einstein who self-implies", and it will be for all fields of human knowledge, completely outclassing us. In all.
What are we going to do?
Money (have I listed it among the problems? My forgetfulness) has become the measure of a person's contribution to society. However, when the "human contribution" in economic terms is no longer relevant, what will happen to the money?
And what will happen, as a result, to the institutions that regulate its use? What will the technological singularity of those political and financial powers do that in the name of money place limits on human freedom, when the need to rely on ourselves reaches zero?
They will disappear. You can count on it.
They will disappear, and our survival from then on will depend on us alone. No technological singularity will put it at risk: we will have to reinvent ourselves on other principles and values: the alternative is to fall back into the wild, to what Hobbes called “Homo homini lupus”.
