From: Earthlink Bear Account (grbear@earthlink.net)
Date: Fri Mar 24 2000 - 17:09:44 MST
Dear friends:
Robin's proposals are intriguing. Some refer back to my own, which would
hide under his table somewhere, acting as a supporting leg: we can't upload
minds into computers until we know how they work, and we simply don't. Our
ignorance is appalling in this regard, but it's par for the course on all
complex organic systems. So--we spend research on one to learn how to do the
other. (Uploading will also require some massive physics, charting
recording, unobtrusively one would hope, neural activity down to the level
of microtubules, which may store memory states and conduct other activities
in cells. Without the molecular info, you could lose massive amounts of
resolution, and maybe the whole mind.)
Cells are fantastic models for nanotech assemblers, of course; each
eucaryotic cell is a huge factory/plant roughly as complex as the Boeing
factory up close to me in Everett, Washington, with proteins doing
incredibly complicated tasks with stunning efficiency. Just maintaining a
cell's DNA is worth a hundred textbooks in terms of techniques.
Against my grain, I also must nod my head, despite years of space
proselytizing, on Robin's grim assessment of space exploration. Spiritually
edifying, scientifically fascinating, but that has never cut the cake for
too long. Still, some clever economic models and justifications could let us
convince government and entrepeneurs that space money (beyond Near Earth
Orbit, already profitable) is seed money, a general Geritol boost for the
whole economy. Might even be true.
Congratulations to Freeman! Care to buy a used spacecraft or two from Robert
Truax?
Best wishes--
Greg Bear
-----Original Message-----
From: Robin Hanson [mailto:rhanson@gmu.edu]
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 1:46 PM
To: d.brin; Gbenford@uci.edu; GRBear@earthlink.net; ksr@davis.com;
sej@aol.com; land@fr.com; dc@crispy.jpl.nasa.gov; tether@home.com;
sj@io.com; JohnB@aw.com; gnu@toad.com; barlow@eff.org; tep@sdsc.edu;
rhanson@gmu.edu; sj@io.com; swire.1@osu.edu; aflorini@ceip.org;
peterson@foresight.org; Kevin@wired.com; abq72@dial.pipex.com;
lempert@rand.org; bankes@rand.org; Jarnold@ucsd.edu;
advoyages@cornell.edu; sb@gbn.org; Extropians@extropy.org;
edyson@eff.org; Vcerf@mci.net; arlan@thingsto.com;
freemand@jason.sd.gat.com; Phillip Morrison; Richard Berendzen; Robert
Picardo; Sir Arthur C. Clarke; Wes Huntress
Subject: Re: a to-do list for the next century
At 12:59 AM 3/22/2000 -0800, d.brin wrote:
>ABSTRACT: What daring 21st century concepts or projects
>would you most like to see pursued, if money were no object?
>Hello friends, this is a quick query for some of the most
>imaginative and tech savvy people I know. *What bold
>endeavors do you wish you could see funded in the next decade?
>The reason I ask is that I've been invited to speak at a
>hifalutin meeting about philanthropy, specifically dealing
>with two extraordinary pools of capital: ... Initiatives
>with high risk-of-failure, combined with extraordinary
>benefits in the event of success.
I wasn't going to respond, but then I found I didn't care
much for all the other suggestions, though I did like
Brin's "Henchman's Fund" proposal.
One project is to convince one relatively rich economy
somewhere to completely open its borders to immigration,
even setting up a loan program to pay for transportation
costs. This might do more for the world's poor than most
anything I can imagine. And that one country could
benefit immensely.
Another project is to create one or more widely-accessible
low-transaction-cost web sites allowing general betting.
Lots of betting on technology questions is the best way
I know to improve how we learn about new technologies;
betting markets help us share and combine info in ways
that other social institutions just can not.
Yet another project is to explore the vast untouched
space of possible forms of government. Because democracy
seems better than monarchy, people seem to have concluded
that current forms of democracy are the best there is.
In fact, we have barely dipped our toe into the ocean
of possible forms of government. (For an example of
a very different possible form, as me about "futarchy.")
Regarding specific technological innovations, I think the
best way to promote them is two offer large prizes for
specific achievements. I would like to see much larger
prizes offered for progress toward nanotech assemblers,
and for progress toward uploading of humans into computers.
The big projects I think of as a waste are most space,
medicine, and education, and parenting projects. These last
three are feel good projects, but the sad truth is that
medicine, education, and parenting don't actually do very
much useful on the margin; we could cut way back on these
without much harm. Space projects now also seem a waste to
me; until costs are low enough to allow economies to
flourish in space, it's just money down the drain.
Robin Hanson rhanson@gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu
Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030
703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:27:37 MST