From: Michael S. Lorrey (retroman@turbont.net)
Date: Wed Jun 14 2000 - 04:29:25 MDT
Zero Powers wrote:
>
> >From: Brian D Williams <talon57@well.com>
> >
> >From: "Zero Powers" <zero_powers@hotmail.com>
> >
> > >I would not be so quick to give up on communism. It has been
> > >adulterated by those modern regimes who now call themselves
> > >communist, and its true that current conditions probably do not
> > >lend themselves to an effective form of communism but, eventually,
> > >I believe Marx will prove to have been on to something good.
> >
> >Yeah, all you need is a transparent society controlled by a
> >totalitarian regime, and populated by robots.
>
> Actually I was thinking more of a society of people enlightened enough to
> realize that what's good for the whole is good for the individual. It's
> simply a matter of realizing that the surest way to keep your neighbor from
> stealing your bread is to be sure that he has enough to keep his own belly
> full. I call it "enlightened self-interest."
>
> Unfortunately such a society is unlikely to be stable for long as long as
> there is not enough to go around for *everyone*. But hopefully that minor
> problem will soon be solved by the good folks over at Foresight :)
With nanotech, you don't need to give a hoot what your neighbor is doing
to feed himself. And what is good for the whole is most decidedly NOT
good for the individual. Its good for the whole if the clothing industry
only needs to make one style of clothing, and the most efficient design
is this nice brown Mao suit. Its obviously good for the whole if
everyone wore Mao suits all day. Where is yours, Zero? Lead by
example...
Mike Lorrey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:29:11 MST