From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sat Dec 28 2002 - 04:19:52 MST
Phil Osborn wrote:
> Let me once again try to make the issues clear:
>
> I am proposing that possibly the people running things
> in Washington, Bush & Co., actually understand that we
> are approaching a truly apocalyptically dangerous
> time, in which the species itself could be wiped out
> by some nut cases with hi-tech means.
Actually, we aren't at all close to any such thing. We won'5 be
until we have pretty full nanotech including widely available
general assemblers. Sure a knowledgeable psycho can whip up
some really nasty bug, although not as easily as some seem to
imply. But the matter of having the bug at just the right level
and kind of nastiness and dispersing it widely (or perhaps
selectively) enough is not a trivial problem. It is not within
the range of a nutcase really. So what the heck are we about?
Are we scaring ourselves into giving government total access to
every bit of our lives with total control soon to follow? Has
Big Government to save us from the alleted imminent and
immediately gloabally catastrophic dark side of technology
become the new gospel? If so the I present that the luddites
and the anti-freedom control-freaks have won this round. I hope
those who agree with this line of thinking take the time to
understand what the price of this sort of "solution" for the
alleged imminent problems really is.
> The capacity to destroy en masse is rising
> exponentially, and faster than the capacity to defend.
No, it isn't. It is not significantly higher now than it was a
decade or two ago. The capacity of states to destroy en masse
has been huge for many decades. Giving the largest state carte
blanche to strike at will on suspicion all over the world
doesn't exactly make the world less threatening. Giving it the
right to override all freedom and dignity of its citizens at
will does not make us more "safe".
> We can project that this will continue. What would
> the logical response of Bush & Co., assuming that they
> truly understood and believed the above and that they
> really wanted to stop the destruction of the U.S. or
> the species from happening, in fact be, if not to rush
> toward a global hegemony in which no place would
> remain for such terrorists to hide? I.e., a globally
> transparent society.
>
There is no such possible global hegemony unless the State truly
is a greater tyranny with far less hope of escape than ever in
human history. That is far worse in my way of thinking than the
supposed evil it is to protect us from. "Globally transparent"
is a polite way of saying "ultimate Big Brother oversight and
control of all and everything". Do not be fooled. Please,
before it is far too late.
> If so, then we can expect that if 911, Saddam, Korea,
> et al are not sufficient, then other excuses may be
> "found." One way or another, the logic inescapably
> leads to the conclusion that a very strong push toward
> a world state - or at minimum, a "Federation," led by
> the U.S., (of course) - is in the cards. Of course,
> maybe they're just playing oil games...
>
Actually, increasing the heat of animosity toward a centralized
power structure almost guarantees an increase of terrorism and
other counter-measures. This game cannot be won by greater and
more widespread force and intrusion into the lives of all and
sundry. Fermi Paradox? Most advanced civs trick themselves
into becoming universal dictatorships and thus destroy their
growing edge?
> It boils down to: are they that stupid? If not, we
> are in for some truly interesting times. How we can
> prepare for them and reduce the damage is the next
> logical question.
>
Are we stupid enough to advocate full transparency knowing the
blatant illogic that will drive decisions of what to do with the
resulting knowledge? Remember that the game is rigged such that
we are all criminals by some law or another many times a day.
Add in full transparency and literally all of us must walk on
eggs lest they come and haul us away perfectly legally any time
they please if they find us somewhat annoying or worrisome. Are
there really human beings you trust with that much power? Think
War on Drugs, think laws against various types of sexuality and
sexual expression, think the ever expanding definition of
terrorism and moving those accused beyond any sort of "due
process". Think and oppose "the transparent society" as if your
life depends on it. It damn well does whether you realize it or
not.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:55 MST