From: Dan Clemmensen (Dan@Clemmensen.ShireNet.com)
Date: Tue Jan 20 1998 - 21:18:22 MST
Weslake, Brad BG wrote:
>
[in response to my (Dan Clemmensen's) earlier post]
> So you propose that the control is not in the hands of the technologists
> themselves - this leaves any control primarily in the hands of those who
> would regulate the technology being developed. At the current time, this
> is the government. If the technologists themselves are not in control of
> the implications of technological developments what hope do governments
> have of responsibly creating policies?
>
> Alternatively the question becomes: "Is the guiding force of the
> government sufficient to responsibly ensure human survival in the face
> of rapidly advancing technology? If not, what is the solution?"
>
I said nothing about the government. I propose that no one is
in control and that no one can be in control. I don't say that
I like or dislike this state of affairs. Government can try to
control this but the reaction time of government, or anyone else,
is simply too slow. The only way to control this chaos would be
to severely restrict the availability of computers and computer
communications, and this will not happen unless a world government
does it. The structural impedements to a powerful world government
are too large to overcome in the time available, so this is a
non-starter.
Thus, we will see the end of our current society and the advent
of its successor fairly soon. I'm optimistic about the results.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:48:29 MST