From: Emlyn (emlyn@one.net.au)
Date: Wed Dec 13 2000 - 18:21:04 MST
Yup, there's probably room for putting together some good batches of Soylent
Green under those kinds of assumptions.
Ownership of atoms... maybe there's some money to be made from finding a way
to "brand" atoms.
Down on the atom ranch; we'll have little nano sheepdogs, rounding up stray
atoms; atom rustlers? Send out the NanoPosse, replete with Photon Blasters,
and string up the fiends (using a benzene ring?)
This could cause some serious problems on the macroscale.
Emlyn
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <mlorrey@datamann.com>
To: <extropians@extropy.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 1:25 AM
Subject: Re: Libertarian sh*tcaking, was Re: extropians-digest V5 #340
> Ah, well, to extend the beer analogy, I'm sure there will be socialists
> who will say that society only rents you the atoms that make up your
> food, totally ignoring the fact that food atoms wind up as YOU, which
> would therefore mean they are, again, supporting slavery of the
> individual to society, as Proudhon said 155 years ago.
>
> Emlyn wrote:
> >
> > Hal wrote:
> > > But to go from there and say that you own the products of your labor
is
> > > entirely unjustified, unless these products emerge directly from your
body
> > > (and I doubt that anyone will fight you over those products).
> > >
> >
> > Given a future including general assemblers, it looks as though there is
the
> > possibility of an extreme form of libertarianism, who's devotees will
> > assemble objects only from their own bodily waste, just for the moral
weight
> > that this carries re: ownership.
> >
> > When you go that far, you need to ask about who owns the input atoms,
> > presumably from food. Maybe those atoms are someone else's? Maybe the
> > ownership of the physical body is less clear cut than it seems?
> >
> > Emlyn
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:32:22 MST