From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Mon May 06 2002 - 18:17:04 MDT
Hal Finney wrote:
>
> > Hal Finney wrote:
> > > We've got these two major parallel paths into a posthuman future.
> > > The burden is on the neoluddites to block them all, or their program
> > > will have failed. Ultimately I continue to believe that our side has
> > > an overwhelming advantage in the dispute.
>
> Mike Lorrey replied:
>
> > The technologies that will create the new revolution in individual
> > liberty in this century pose a similar threat to the power structures
> > and aristocracies in control today as the crossbow did back then. They
> > will similarly outlaw them, and use their ability to mold public opinion
> > to create a consensus opinion that these technologies are evil
> > incarnate, a violation of human nature, and that anyone that uses or
> > promotes them deserves to be treated in the worst sort of way.
>
> I'm not sure exactly which technologies you are referring to, but if
> you're talking about human genetic and technological augmentation then
> I don't see your point. What is it about these technologies which is a
> threat to the power structures? How is that that letting people connect
> more efficiently to the net, or expand their strength and intelligence,
> is a danger?
Those that think the poor quality of public school education is an
accident are similarly deluded in thinking that government is for
increasing individual liberty. Those that think the government is
interested in the populace being better educated and better informed
about the law, the workings of government, about history, and about
liberty amplifying technologies are kidding themselves.
Name ONE law passed by congress in the past ten years that actually
increased the average person's liberty by any extent.
>
> The usual concern is the opposite, that these technologies will be harmful
> in that they will be more available to the wealthy and powerful since
> they will probably be expensive initially. The worry is that the poor
> will be left behind and the existing power structures will become even
> more entrenched.
The *ignorant* poor will be more entrenched. At no time in history has
it been easier for a poor person to acquire the tools of upward
mobility, and this is despite the best efforts of government.
The rapid aquisition of wealth by the intelligent tech savvy will
compress the three generation effect, where in the past family wealth
generally never makes it past the third generation. When so much wealth
is highly dependent upon the skilled technoid to generate it for
themselves, the wealth acquired by the previous generation pales in
comparison.
>
> By this argument, government has a heavy incentive not to outlaw new
> technologies, but to do everything it can to encourage them. Government
> functionaries and their wealthy contributors are the ones who will see
> the greatest benefits.
>
No, because government functionaries always will have the benefits even
if the general public is restricted from accessing them. The government
always exempts itself from it's own laws. Furthermore, the wealth of
bureaucrats comes from knowing the loopholes in laws and selling that
knowledge. Their power is perpetuated only so long as the law is written
so inscrutably that the average individual is unable to comprehend them.
When the individual on the street has a LawExpert system running on
their portable, analysing laws they come into contact, the power of the
bureaucrats is diminished. When the individual has ready access to IQ
amplification technologies, the power of the bureaucrats is diminished.
When the individual on the street is practically immortal, they become
immune to death taxes, further diminishing the power of the bureaucrats.
> > We HAVE to act now. We need to dedicate our time, our money "and our
> > sacred honor" to this cause. Fence sitters, armchair quarterbacks,
> > whiners and lollygaggers are a drag on the cause. "Now is the time that
> > tries men's souls" and all that, and summer soldiers and sunshine
> > patriots just won't get the job done.
>
> I think a good test case is the currently pending legislation to outlaw
> so-called therapeutic cloning, the Brownback bill. If this passes
> it will be a sign that our government representatives are willing to
> restrict research that could save their own lives and it should indeed be
> a wake-up call to our community. But by the same token, if it fails, as
> I predict it will, it should be taken as a sign that for all the rhetoric,
> legislators ultimately will vote to further their own self interest, and
> that means supporting research that can enhance human lives.
The Senate will reject the GOP version, will write its own. The
compromise in committee will likely allow therapeutic cloning at
non-government labs with non-government money. In the end, it is still a
victory for luddism.
>
> The "killer app" for genetic technology is not greater intelligence
> or strength. It is long life. If we can develop a treatment to
> substantially extend the healthy human lifespan, nothing will stop us.
> Fukuyama can yammer all he wants about how such a thing would be a
> tremendous change to the historical view of human nature, and he's
> right; humans with a 150 year healthy lifespan would be a clean break
> from the past. But it wouldn't matter. No one would pass this up.
> Rather than being forbidden, it would be subsidized and made available
> to everyone, if the technology permitted it (at least in Western countries).
Immortality is the bane of government control. Only the government has
the power to decide when you can die. You don't, as far as they are
concerned. If you are immortal, you won't be paying death taxes, and
this diminishes the revinue generation ability of government. Without
death taxes in the next several decades (it will kick back in in 2010,
so you better hurry up and die if you weren't planning on living
forever), the government will go bankrupt as the baby boomer generation
retires.
>
> I'll say it again, we have enormous advantages in the forthcoming dispute.
> People will always favor life over death.
Then why is it that thirty million babies have been aborted in the US
since 1972?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:51 MST