From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sat Mar 30 2002 - 12:43:58 MST
John B wrote:
> Sayeth Mike Lorrey:
>
>>>Exactly when has it been claimed that wartime ever
>>>decreased the rate of technological development?
>>>
> Samantha Adkins:
>
>>If the tech is developed during wartime,
>>
> particularly
>
>>nanotech and AI, then they are likely to be owned by
>>the military and to be very highly classified. This
>>will not only likely slow down many extropian dreams
>>- it is likely to lead to some of our worst
>>
> dystopian
>
>>visions. So perhaps I should have said "slow down
>>technological advances useable for extropian
>>purposes".
>>
>
> Not necessarily. Computers were developed very much in
> a wartime economy and were rapidly deployed into
> commerce. Most war-time medical breakthroughs
Not neccessarily but it is and will remain a concern. It is a
concern that has often been expressed by many on this list.
Because of the scope of military and control applications of
nanotech and AI, they are of a bit more concern than early
computers were. By the way, my last name contains a "t" instead
of the "d".
> True, the tech would be less likely to be released
> today when there are such potentially disruptive
> 'dual-use' capabilities being freely passed around in
> message lists such as this one and many many others,
> as well as in print. However, there will be massive -
> truely massive - development required for any American
> government organization to be able to create a
> nanotech device to say nothing about deploying it. It
> seems much more likely to me that the government would
> outsource or contract the development to one of many
> different technological firms, and said firm would
> find a way to deploy the technology in the
> non-military arena.
>
I disagree that the development required would be massive as far
as including a lot of people, for either nanotech or AI. And I
have personally had experience of firms with military contracts
not being willing (or perhaps legally able) to license civilian
uses of even seemingly no-risk technology they had first
developed under military contract. If nanotech is first
weaponized it could be some time before the technology is seen
elsewhere.
>
>>It was not just dot com that got wiped as you know
>>from experience. The dot com inflation didn't happen
>>in a vacuum. In my humble opinion it was engineered.
>>The sheep were fattened and slaughtered. The unruly
>>tecnophiles were put in their place. The more
>>bothersome (threatening of existing power bases)
>>technologies were slowed down in their development
>>and deployment drastically, especially with the
>>addition of braindead IP laws. If all of this did
>>
> not
>
>>have engineered elements, it should have. I'm sure
>>
> it
>
>>was thought of as I would think of it if on "the
>>other side".
>>
>
>>Trying to explain away the economic meltdown as just
>>because of stupid business plans is extremely
>>unconvincing. Stupid business plans don't get
>>empowered to radically crash the economy all by
>>themselves. The dot-com thing is a symptom of the
>>fattening and the slaughter - not its cause.
>>
>
> To quote Freud out of context - "Sometimes a cigar is
> just a cigar." Sure, conspiracy theorists and
> investigators and all sorts of people will be digging
> into this mess for a long time. Heck, people're still
> looking into what happened in 1929, and there's still
> massive amounts of questions unanswered. Was it really
> the sinking of the Titanic which caused the insurance
> and therefore the banking industry's concerns which
> lead to the stock market crash? Or was that the
> excuse?
>
This cigar is not a cigar. If you wish to believe it is you are
welcome to do so. But it is too convenient by far. Saying there
will always be theories dismisses some quite important
possibilities that it may be dangerous to dismiss at this time
as they are, if realistic, in the way of our fondest hopes.
> I don't know the answer. I do know that bad things DO
> happen to good people - and good technologies. I do
> not believe that there is any sort of 'star chamber'
> or international conspiracy of the degree required to
> generate this kind of international slap-down. I do
> know that people are greedy and often do NOT do their
> research, or trust people who claim to have done the
> research.
>
If there isn't then I wonder why not frankly. It is not
undoable by any means. It would not take that thick an
organization. Just the right actions at the right points at the
right times.
> *wry grin* To be fair, there are people out there such
> as myself who shoot their mouths off without knowing
> everything about the situation. All I can honestly say
> is that if there *IS* convincing evidence of such a
> group controlling our lives, I have yet to see it in
> the (relatively few) years I've been watching.
>
If it could be seen easily it would of course not be very
effective. Personally I lean toward believing there is some
reason to be somewhat paranoid at this time.
> In short, I don't see the dot-coms as anything other
> than people betting - BETTING - on a 'sure thing' and
> getting their hands slapped financially.
So you are simply dismissing the many, many companies and
businesses who do not fall in this neat package? You are
dismissing the size of the meltdown that did not limit itself to
dot-com companies and that continues long after any real
correction? Almost all nominal companies tanked including many
high-tech and AI efforts. A lot of cutting-edge research has
been set back as far as being available to you or I.
Perhaps it was not a conspiracy but it has slowed all of us
down. My own goals of financial independence and freedom to move
to a different job, contract or start my own business have also
been effected negatively. I am not alone in that.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:09 MST