The most efficient solution likely would be working remotely, however this is something that though growing is still looked at as suspicious by most managers/higher ups as they feel less in control of their employees. This would be far more efficient economically and environmentally, but could exacerbate problems that are already growing currently(e.g. social isolation/mental health) if not managed well which I doubt it would at least at first.Riggerjack wrote: ↑Thu Jul 26, 2018 8:30 amIf it's true, and not an artifact of measuring, then the environmentally correct answer would be using existing network technology to make the density gains without the density problems. Why, exactly, do we need to move all the people physically together, at the same time, to get this network effect? And is a concrete jungle, far from food and water, the best place to meet up?
I don't think it's impossible to upload/create digital consciousness. In the end you should be able to brute force it given enough calculation power if you are able to completely simulate every atom required for a human being. Even if it turns out that for a human-like consciousness to function you would need outside input from the senses you could simulate that given enough extra power. Another question though is can we circumvent the massive amount of power required for this through smart algorithms instead in which case it might not be a question of when will we have enough computational power to do this and rather when will someone invent the right set of algorithms to achieve this which could take just as long or possibly be done any moment. Technology has taken leaps before when someone had a genius idea.
However just because we could simulate human consciences doesn't really mean you live forever. I would see it as more of a advanced legacy. Instead of leaving your thoughts/knowledge in the form of writing for future generations you could create an A.I. that has your full experience and thought patterns which would be able to leave a full legacy of who you were for the future rather than the incomplete one contained in writing or even video these days. I don't believe this A.I. would be you. It's similar to the teleporter problem. If you can "teleport" by analysing your atoms, breaking them down, transmitting the pattern to a new location and reconstructing the same pattern with new atoms you could do that without destructing the original you leaving two copies and which of those two would be the "real" you. The problem in recreating your pattern in software would be no different. If there can be two of "you" one of them has to be the "real" one and my bet would be on the original copy of the pattern as it has the uninterrupted consciousness throughout.