From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Wed Mar 27 2002 - 15:43:54 MST
Dan Clemmensen wrote:
> I thought that most to the folks on this list had made
> personal analyses of the date of the singularity. If your
> analysis results in a date in the next 30 years, then new nuclear
> plants are unnecessary. We can and should employ the "least disruptive"
> current technologies even if there are long-term side-effects, because
> we (or our brilliant successors) can easily deal with them.
Wait a sec. Nuclear power is cleaner and causes less deaths
right now (stupidities like the Russian idiocy to one side). Do
we not care about the people that die due to non-nuclear power
in the meantime?
>
> This is not a comfortable point of view. It sound like the worst
> sort of short-term thinking, like eating the seed corn. However, the
> truth is that all energy generation is disruptive. Solar, wind, and
> hydro generally require massive up-front capital outlay for longer-term
> paybacks, Coal mining rapes the landscape and builds CO2, nuclear
> requires a massive outlay for educating the public, etc.
>
Singularity, contrary to some opinions is not inevitable. A
long endless war (the dumb US one turned more hot for instance)
could seriously slow down technological advances as could
socio-political counter-measures (many of which we seem to be
attempting).
> In my opinion, the correct extropian evaluation uses a very sharp
> discount rate, because we know that technology will advance much faster
> than most analysts believe. Therefore, we should favor energy generation
We actually "know" no such thing. Look how easy it was to stop
a lot of high-tech startups in their tracks with the one-two
punch of the tech slump and 9/11 and the additional blow of
Bushite nonsense. Technology is not just technology, it
involves people, politics and business.
> that minimizes initial capital outlay. This conclusion goes against all
> my prejudices and upbringing and is therefore emotionally uncomfortable,
> but is a direct consequence in my rational analysis that the singularity
> is highly likely to occur before 2020.
I do not think this is highly likely any more. The world is a
good deal different than it was a couple of years ago and not
altogether for the good of such a prediction. I believe
Singularity is possible by 2020 but not so likely. If it does
come before 2020 I would expect it to come from nanotech
advances first rather than AI. I don't believe we have much of
a workable plan for producing a SI that soon yet.
> This does not mean that I'm
> waiting for the tooth fairy to bring about the singularity. It does mean
> that I'm no longer interested in the power debate.
>
Why? Because the SI (supposedly) will figure it all out for us
as soon as it kicks in? This seems very dangerous to me.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:07 MST