From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sat Mar 30 2002 - 00:15:40 MST
Mike Lorrey wrote:
> Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
>>Dan Clemmensen wrote:
>>
>>
>>>This is not a comfortable point of view. It sound like the worst
>>>sort of short-term thinking, like eating the seed corn. However, the
>>>truth is that all energy generation is disruptive. Solar, wind, and
>>>hydro generally require massive up-front capital outlay for longer-term
>>>paybacks, Coal mining rapes the landscape and builds CO2, nuclear
>>>requires a massive outlay for educating the public, etc.
>>>
>>>
>>Singularity, contrary to some opinions is not inevitable. A
>>long endless war (the dumb US one turned more hot for instance)
>>could seriously slow down technological advances as could
>>socio-political counter-measures (many of which we seem to be
>>attempting).
>>
>
> Exactly when has it been claimed that wartime ever decreased the rate of
> technological development?
>
If the tech is developed during wartime, particularly nanotech
and AI, then they are likely to be owned by the military and to
be very highly classified. This will not only likely slow down
many extropian dreams - it is likely to lead to some of our
worst dystopian visions. So perhaps I should have said "slow
down technological advances useable for extropian purposes".
>
>>
>>>In my opinion, the correct extropian evaluation uses a very sharp
>>>discount rate, because we know that technology will advance much faster
>>>than most analysts believe. Therefore, we should favor energy generation
>>>
>>We actually "know" no such thing. Look how easy it was to stop
>>a lot of high-tech startups in their tracks with the one-two
>>punch of the tech slump and 9/11 and the additional blow of
>>Bushite nonsense. Technology is not just technology, it
>>involves people, politics and business.
>>
>
> The dot com world was melting down long before Bush was even elected,
> primarily due to a lot of money being wasted on truly stupid ideas
> without coherent business plans or market research.
>
It was not just dot com that got wiped as you know from
experience. The dot com inflation didn't happen in a vacuum.
In my humble opinion it was engineered. The sheep were fattened
and slaughtered. The unruly tecnophiles were put in their
place. The more bothersome (threatening of existing power bases)
technologies were slowed down in their development and
deployment drastically, especially with the addition of
braindead IP laws. If all of this did not have engineered
elements, it should have. I'm sure it was thought of as I would
think of it if on "the other side".
Trying to explain away the economic meltdown as just because of
stupid business plans is extremely unconvincing. Stupid
business plans don't get empowered to radically crash the
economy all by themselves. The dot-com thing is a symptom of
the fattening and the slaughter - not its cause.
>
>>>that minimizes initial capital outlay. This conclusion goes against all
>>>my prejudices and upbringing and is therefore emotionally uncomfortable,
>>>but is a direct consequence in my rational analysis that the singularity
>>>is highly likely to occur before 2020.
>>>
>>I do not think this is highly likely any more. The world is a
>>good deal different than it was a couple of years ago and not
>>altogether for the good of such a prediction. I believe
>>Singularity is possible by 2020 but not so likely. If it does
>>come before 2020 I would expect it to come from nanotech
>>advances first rather than AI. I don't believe we have much of
>>a workable plan for producing a SI that soon yet.
>>
>
> I think it will come from the human augmentation market, which *will*
> advance as soon as the handicapped exceed normal human performance with
> augmentations by large margins.
>
That is an interesting idea. But how wonderful will the
augmentation be with tons of copy protection mechanisms and
anti-terrorist technologies including possibly extensive
monitoring and overrides built-in? I wonderful will it be if
only cops, soldiers and spooks are authorized for the
technology? In the current anti-terrorist, protect the dinosaurs
world this is likely to occur at best. At worse the voices
against even natural positive differences in ability will
nearly. wipe out engineered increased ability.
So, to get to Singularity, imho, we need to educate/win many
people and/or become a very effective
counter-culture/underground economy beyond the reach of the
nonsense.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:08 MST