On Mon, 15 Nov 1999, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> David Blenkinsop <blenl@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > or for using them to build an overwhelming force of arms.
>
> In a nanotech environment, the concept of an "overwhelming"
> force of arms is very questionable. You have to guarantee
> that you have disassembled *every* last little bit of nanotech
> in an enclave that can have berserker potential.
Then there is the question _why_ you would want to build an overwhelming force...
A feudal system like the one in the Dune books also seems like a good candidate for a semi-stable government system. When light speed becomes a barrier in the speed decisions are taken, the current system of decisions-by- instant-information won't work any more.
We need a system that will keep on going, even when the individual consortiums are in fierce competition and unable to quickly exchange information with each other.
If FTL travel will ever become possible, we might even end up with the situation where a weekly postage shipment will be faster than radio transmissions. Just think about what that would do to our current information age thinking!
> > No fighting over the resources of asteroid Ceres for them,
> > their Coalition has voting Ceres a mineral preserve, or
> > something, and that is that!
>
> If you presume that we can be as "rational" as possible, then
> it makes sense to cooperate (game theory says this is most
> efficient).
With wars, we have more and more to lose and less and less to gain. Currently this is because the information age has caused our economies to become very much interlocked with each other.
In the far future, when/if the light speed becomes a barrier to instant communications and the exchange of information like we have now, wars will be economically unfeasible because the various parties involved will all be so distant from each other that the agressor will automatically lose its reputation with the others and will be faced with distrust from the others.
Nanotech could make the restrictions even stricter, with the time to react being shorter, the gains to be smaller and the risks becoming so large that nobody in his/her right mind would ever risk fighting a war.
The threat of nuclear mutual annihalation was enough to stop us from beginning a third world war. I believe that with nanotech the balance will tip even more into the risk-avoidance zone.
(damn, I should work on my english ;))
> You don't but a sovereign state can't "nano-nuke" another state
> if it potentially has hidden berserkers or strong allies. You
> only get to be "untrustable" once,
> I don't need the surface of a planet covered in berserker bots to
> feel safe, I only need a few hundred of them scattered in very
> different locations. Or you simply need strong allies.
> > Basically, we need the Coalition of Polises to come around and just
> > bomb the heck out of anyone who violates the Neutral Zone conventions --
>
> Well, say you are one of the powers -- what constitutes a good
> development plan for the available resources and what constitutes
> a bad development plan
Rik
-- The Internet is not a network of computers. It is a network of people. That is its real strength.