I suspect this will not get linked into the discussion properly but
one must make an attempt...
My comments & links to the bills can be viewed at:
http://nanodot.org/news/01/08/01/1333227.shtml
Extropians should be very afraid -- you *are* having rights
denied/made illegal.
Brian wrote:
> At some point the matter (as in atoms) must fall under someone's
> control, and personally I don't relish the idea of having to
> constantly protect myself from everyone else who can't be trusted
> with nanotech and AI.
This statement contains some assumptions that mis-represent
the problem. You *are* already at war with bio-nanotech
entities who have no interest in your personal survival.
Your immune system is generally effective in defending
against such entities without the requirement for constant
intervention. Further, you link nanotech and AI in a way
that suggests a threat that may be invalid. You can have
nanotech and you can have AI but for either of them to be
overwhelmingly threatening their heat/surface area dissipation
has to have a very recognizable signature. You have to make
a strong assertion that such organizations of matter can
hide themselves from detection or elimination. If you cannot
make that case then it does not matter whether or not such
organizations of matter can be "trusted".
> All it takes is one Blight to wipe us out. That kind of threat
> does not go away as humans progress to transhumanity, rather it
> increases in likelihood. What is the stable state if not Sysop
> or total death? There may be some other possibilities, can
> you name some?
Well, evolution in an upward spiral committed to extropian
principles seems like a stable state. Note that this is
an unstable state for humanity as it likely concludes that
the instantiation of organized matter as "humans" is an
inefficient use of the locally available resources and must
be concluded.
So, the question would be, can one (as an extropian)
provide a coherent defense of the use of the material
and energy required for you to remain "intact" in the
light of more efficient reallocation of the resources
you are consuming?
This is the moral problem -- Are you committed to the evolution
of matter to its highest extropic state or are you committed
to the preservation of oneself in a form that seems comfortable
to you?
Do the needs of the many (the potential application of the atoms
at our disposal) outweigh the needs of the one (your personal survival)?
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:01 MDT