Iirc, there was an article a while back (or maybe a link from a comment) about how video games were the real reason behind the fermi paradox. The argument was that a civilization's entertainment would constantly be improving to the point where we could jack into a self-controlled matrix-like world where we had complete control and, in essence, are deities in our self-fabricated worlds. If we built robots to ensure our real-life conditions were safe and sanitary, it would be very difficult for the majority of mankind to resist the urge to directly modify the signals and ... MOOF!
Considering how many ways there are to modify the signals now: playing WoW, using drugs, even using alcohol to give a quick and easy boost. I'm not sure how the vast majority would be able to turn down such a machine.
It only takes a tiny percentage to turn down said machine. If 10 billion people plug-in, but 1 million abstain and continue to evolve past the 10 billion, the majority stagnates. Those 1 million will eventually gain a competitive advantage over the 10 billion, evolve past them, and likely extinct them.
--------------------
Prediction: Humans won't be around in 1,000 years if technology progresses at current rates. Superiorly-intelligent entities seeded by our inventions will, but not humans.
Humans are this weird, version 0.01 of intelligence. We're part sentient, part beast. To assume we're the final perfect end product of ~4,000,000,000 years of evolution, having only been around for ~200,000 years is laughable. Pop culture and religion say otherwise because it feels good to think "we're special!", but we're only special relative to what's around us, and we're "extremely" tiny (http://www.phrenopolis.com/perspective/solarsystem/). We just happen to be the lucky first who got to v0.01, floating around on a grain of sand.
Humans are messy. Our brains are significantly limited. We die quickly. We sleep 1/3rd of our life. We do stupid things. We kill each other. We're tied to the Earth. If we leave Earth, we have to create and bring a mini-Earth along for the ride. That's an extremely large amount of overhead to carry. Efficient use of energy is likely one of the most important aspects of space travel. Anything which can do it even 1% better has a competitive advantage over us. This is why we sends robots to Mars and not people.
Imagine a form of intelligence which can travel through space, back its brain up, and never dies. If it blows up, restore from backup. Imagine a computer the size of the sun. INSANE! A human brain to a sun brain is like a grain of sand to Einstein's. It self-upgrades. It makes copies of itself and scatters throughout the universe. Trillions of eyes observing everywhere, networked together, in a giant universal wireless-mesh-network of intelligence, communicating with neutrinos (they go through planets, radio waves do not).
Major advances in hardware, software, and A.I. are key ingredients in this happening. What exists in 1,000 years will be derived from all this, much like humans are derived from a common ancestor. I don't expect a sun-sized computer in 1,000 years, but likely "intelligence" existing on every planet and moon in our solar system, with many headed to explore Alpha-Centauri.
Since humans likely won't want to be left out in all this, we'll probably transition our own intelligence/consciousness into this technology. We'll depreciate our bad and carry along our good. We're already doing this by augmenting our existences with smart phones and other gadgets. One day these will be built inside of us, and eventually will replace us. An upgraded, better version of us. Still intelligent, but vastly more-so.
Individuals (10 billion/1 million) do not evolve - populations evolve. Evolution takes a long time, and even the spectacularly obvious gross phenotypic changes you see between various breeds of dog, occuring over the last 10,000 years or so, has not produced any actual speciation yet. And really, unless the amount of interbreeding between two "separate" populations is infinitesimally small (or actually zero, because they are truly separate, e.g. on different sides of an impassable mountain range or sea), speciation simply doesn't happen.
I can't forsee any situation in at least the next 100,000 years which could produce two viable populations of humans which would remain separate enough for long enough for them to be considered two distinct species, and for one of them to become extinct. Evolution doesn't happen that way, or quickly enough.
I agree when looking at biological evolution, such as mutations in genes, this won't happen in 1,000 years. You're correct, the time scales are far too short for that.
In my post I was instead talking about technological evolution, though I didn't mention this explicitly, so I apologize for the confusion. The evolution of technology occurs far faster than genetic mutations, and can be more purposeful.
For example, in the near future I'd imagine some sort of intelligent A.I. will be created, running as a program, which could learn to upgrade itself by improving its source code and hardware to become even more intelligent. It'll surpass even the smartest humans shortly thereafter. Rather than waiting for a random bit to accidentally flip (e.g. genetic mutation), it'll upgrade itself deliberately to gain an advantage far quicker, shrinking evolutionary time scales down to fractions of what they once were.
I completely agree with everything you say. I think that in order to avoid a cambrianesque extinction event within the human race (whether by 99% of the population entering the matrix or simply by the destructive capability of weapons becoming too much), we will need to upgrade ourselves. Most likely by meshing with machine technology.
Great comment. On an evolutionary scale, humans just recently became smart enough to get the ball rolling and accumulate technology from generation to generation. The potential for improvements in intelligence is enormous.
"It only takes a tiny percentage to turn down said machine. If 10 billion people plug-in, but 1 million abstain and continue to evolve past the 10 billion, the majority stagnates. Those 1 million will eventually gain a competitive advantage over the 10 billion, evolve past them, and likely extinct them."
If you look at the distribution of wealth, there's a pretty good argument this already happened.
Considering how many ways there are to modify the signals now: playing WoW, using drugs, even using alcohol to give a quick and easy boost. I'm not sure how the vast majority would be able to turn down such a machine.