From: Anders Sandberg (asa@nada.kth.se)
Date: Tue May 18 1999 - 10:13:43 MDT
jonwill <jonwill@erols.com> writes:
> Gina Miller wrote:
>
> > Moving down to the subatomic
> > level, may or may not be the next step. Top down or to bottoms up, should we
> > skip? Why not keep delving into all aspects?
>
> Agreed. Since the future is an unknown quantity, one can currently only
> speculate as to which technologies will provide the desired human capabilities
> for the best life for all. Subsequently, all potential beneficial methodologies
> should be explored. The ability to take the base materials from a group of any
> type of atom, and rearrange the same to form any other type of atoms is
> something that should be pursued.
But how much? Antigravity would be very beneficial, but there are
obviously a lot of very hard work needed to be done to get it
practical - if it is possible at all, which we do not know. How much
should we pursue it compared to (say) cryonics or a better search
engine?
In the end, it is a question of how much we chose to invest in what -
put everything on a safe bet, distribute it among likely candidate
technologies, take a chance and invest in far-off stuff? The most
extropian solution would of course be a self-organized, flexible
method that encourages rational estimates; idea futures is one such
idea (just read the online excerpts of EarthWeb, some nice portrayal
there of how it might work), plain investment another. Some people
believe strongly in certain technologies and would invest in them,
others play it safe.
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/ GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:45 MST