For Robert, Anders and everyone else,
Thanks for better explaining to me, the probable nature of nanotech
development and implementation. It makes sense that things will happen
incrementally and that the software and hardware would be carefully crafted
to stop at least most hacking.
And of course, there would be countermeasures that could be carried out by a
neighbor, municipality, state or nation or global alliance, depending on the
severity of the incident. And hopefully, the vast majority of humanity will
be wise in their use of it, out of respect for others or out of fear of
quick and powerful reprisal.
I have to admit that the idea of a first world nation, a democracy, being a
"captor" of it's population in terms of demanding taxes and denying the
right to freely leave and not return, is pretty bizarre to me, but there is
a logic to it. I have a hard time sometimes seeing the full scope of
transformation that may come to our society.
sincerely,
John Grigg
Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@www.aeiveos.com)
Tue, 7 Mar 2000 16:32:21 -0800 (PST)
Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
[ Next ][ Previous ] In reply to: john grigg Next in thread: Anders Sandberg
On Tue, 7 Mar 2000, john grigg wrote:
>I could really see the federal government feeling that near-anything boxes
>in homes would be somewhat like letting citizens have their own personal
>nukes. Once there is even one major incident/scare the gov't would move in
>a way that would make the gun control issue look minor by comparison.
>
John, you really need to get that this isn't going to work. The people who
want to play with "everything" boxes will simply move someplace else! We
either have to go to a complete police state where even your thoughts are
monitored or else develop the means of trusting people and their creations.
>In the name of public safety and national security, we may never be allowed
>these replicators within our homes in the first place. The gov't and
>corporate powers may say, "come to us, and for a "nominal" charge we will
>create what you want."
This doesn't solve anything. I can spend my time on my computer designing
those things I want, take a fast ship to some remote asteroid and build it,
then send it back to dismantle Earth. Do you *really* think once Zyvex or
IBM has announced that diamondoid nanoassembly is possible that dozens of
people won't start working on building their own!!! This isn't nuclear-tech
where you need an actual uranium mine. The raw materials (C) can be
extracted from the air for heaven's sake.
>
>Underground groups would have massive federal resources allocated against
>them, to put them behind bars. The hacker hunts would pale by comparison.
>Nano would be used to violate civil liberties that would be reminiscient of
>the war on drugs but more clandestine and for that reason even more
>threatening to people's rights.
>
For you to have massive Federal resources, you have to have massive
"funding" for the hunters. After everyone has stopped paying taxes and/or
left the U.S. if it gets too intrusive, *who* do you think is going to do
the "hunting"? Only if you have AIs that are cheap and tireless will this
possibly resemble what might happen.
Do you think that any government will survive that tries to imprison its
population and force them to pay taxes in an era when this is unnecessary?
>My hope is that home nanoreplicator technology will develop very
>incrementally and we will see it gain a foothold in the private citizen's
>realm that will not be possible to reverse.
Its already impossible to reverse. There are so many paths to
nanoreplicators of various kinds (the phase space for the chemistry of
nanoassembly of various materials is huge) that the government *cannot* stop
this without killing just about everyone with an above average IQ.
>May corporate greed and the forces of capitalism triumph in this area!
I think "corporations" as we currently imagine them are probably pretty
doomed as well. I would guess that perhaps only the entertainment
conglomerates and perhaps education or tourism promoters will survive in the
long run. "Classical" corporations may do ok during the interim period until
everyone has all of their basic survival needs met, but after that there is
going to be a big restructuring.
>With capitalistic inducements, proper safeguards and no individual or group
>overcoming them to do something really vicious as an excuse for the gov't,
>we may see our dreams come true.
For a group to cause trouble, you need to make a case for *what* would
motivate them to cause trouble. Increased wealth and mobility should give
people the ability to simply avoid or transcend the things that have
motivated trouble makers in the past (oppression, taxation, prejudice,
etc.). Only if we get some loony-tunes religious or anarchist terror groups
that think their way is the only way will we have something to worry about.
Its not the average wo/man you need to worry about, its the people who would
want to control *all* of us that are a concern.
Robert
(end)
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:04:45 MDT