From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Wed Jul 31 2002 - 15:38:56 MDT
On Wednesday, July 31, 2002, at 03:51 am, Avatar Polymorph wrote:
> Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>
> "I am beginning to doubt the whole concept of Future Shock. It never
> really hit during the end of the last century as was predicted.
> Science and technology are accelerating as predicted, but the massive
> social disruptions have been subdued compared to predictions.
> As a Singularitarian, I can't really agree with this.
This may be our primary difference. I do not believe in a rapture-like
singularity.
> Society was already unconsciously in shock culturally from the
> post-Enlightenment age expansion - the last three centuries have seen
> survival rates rise for the first time in human history from c.30-40
> years (which applied from the Roman empire to the Amazon). We had to
> deal with the "wizened old age problem", which previous societies
> (composed almost entirely of "young" people) did not (their problem was
> then-inexplicable death striking apparently "randomly").
I am not sure what you mean by shock if it is unconscious. I do believe
that all ages had to deal with horrible changes. Even though we have
our changes, they are mostly good. We have not had to deal with World
Wars, holocausts, major plagues, uncontrolled diseases, or religious
fears that hounded earlier ages. While we have added some "shocking"
features, we have eliminated others. While we may have more total
"shocking" features, we are better equipped to handle them than ever
before.
> Future shock in the trauma rather than insensate sense may occur for
> some very shortly as we are only 13 years away from sufficient surface
> control of bodies to ensure we look roughly like 18 year olds -
> skeletal structure may lag a little bit longer but not much.
> This means we have to deal with the "problem" of psychologically
> adjusting to control of form BEFORE full-blown self-reproducing
> nanotechnology becomes effective around 2020 - not too far away. The
> Singularity itself (or rather its "obvious" or "fast" period) is not
> too far ahead of that. And afterwards... Stasis shock, for some.
This is based on what? I don't think we will have fully functional
nanotechnology within 13 years. I do not believe we will have
biologically conquered aging in 13 years. I doubt we could get a magic
cure through all the bureaucracy even if it were ready to go today.
Not only do I doubt a hard take-off singularity, but I certainly doubt
it will occur by 2020. Where are these dates coming from?
> For others of course, the above course of events doesn't represent
> negativity but sheer bliss, living life to the full with far greater
> choices, the abolition of dumb work, full control of our cells and
> selves, instant expansion into the solar system (via space towers,
> rotating and otherwise, and nanotechnology) and so on (estimated time
> to terraform Mars through self-reproducing nanotech according to NASA
> is 20 YEARS).
Even with nanotech, how can expansion into the solar system be instant?
Do you have a reference for NASA claiming that we can terraform Mars
within 20 years?
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:48 MST