From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Mon Apr 01 2002 - 13:08:57 MST
John B wrote:
> "This cigar is not a cigar. If you wish to believe it
> is you are welcome to do so. But it is too convenient
> by far. Saying there will always be theories dismisses
> some quite important possibilities that it may be
> dangerous to dismiss at this time as they are, if
> realistic, in the way of our fondest hopes."
>
> I agree, it's awful convenient for the Luddite and/or
> power-conservation blocs, among the groups who most
> benefit from such action. In the first place, the tech
> was destabilizing and the "camel's nose under the
> tent" (meaning the first indication you were about to
> be visited by a most objectional neighbor), and in the
> second the economic response was destabilizing. In
> either case, they (the potential conspirators) need to
> do something to halt the destabilization.
>
> However, both would require significant access into
> the technological sector (aka the 'dot coms') to set
> this up. Do-able, but objectional to both groups
> either due to morals or economic risk. It'd be more
> likely that one or both (or the possibility that both
> are represented in the same organization of people)
> have access to/control of the venture capitalists.
> Considering just how bumptious that group is,
> something which I must consider unlikely.
Actually it would not require any significant access into the
technological sector. Most of the effect could have been run at
the financial level. It does not have to have included that
many VC people as they are a secondary specialized type of
financial folk who could have been considered at best
unavoidable "collateral damage".
>
> If I'm wrong about this, please, do correct me. I'd
> love to have a valid target.
>
I can prove my suspicions but I can't dismiss them at this time
either.
> I stated earlier, "All I can honestly say is that if
> there *IS* convincing evidence of such a group
> controlling our lives, I have yet to see it in the
> (relatively few) years I've been watching.". Ms Atkins
> responded, "If it could be seen easily it would of
> course not be very effective. Personally I lean toward
> believing there is some reason to be somewhat paranoid
> at this time."
>
> True, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean
> they're not out to get you. However, paranoia is often
> counterproductive in that you spend too much time
> looking for connections that aren't there. *shrug* To
But if the connects are there your looking may eventually yield
you and others a bit more safety.
> each their own, and I hope you find anything that's
> out there. If you do, please DO let me know, and we'll
> see what can be done. I'm just a loudmouth with a
> fraction of the brains of some of the people on this
> list, but I'm willing to stand up and speak as I feel
> the need - and, quite frankly, in that type of
> situation I probably would feel the need. *wry grin*
>
Fair enough.
>
> As for having slowed the advance of technology down -
> you betcha. It's much harder to get funding - and
> therefore jobs and new technology - into the technical
> sectors. And yes, it's affected my life as well,
> significantly.
>
> But, is this necessarily a bad thing? That we have
> TIME to adjust to this bunch of new technologies (new
> processor types, new communication routes,
> expansion/enhancement of old types like fiberoptics,
> new software standards and 'standards' such as
> Microsoft's .NET and XML respectively)?
>
As many of us are in our forties or older now any significant
slowdown of technology has potentially fatal personal
consequences. Plus the US is dragging significantly on some
technologies such as wireless that could significantly impact
our competitiveness. MS can go straight to hell along with
.NET. I will happily help them along the way. There is no
reason to take our time about things that are that simple (some
would say brain-dead).
> I've argued here before that we need to understand the
> tech while we can. Eventually, assuming the technology
> continues its historical exponential growth, it's not
> going to be possible as we are now. However, the
> longer we're able to maintain comprehension the less
> problems we'll have. And if we're capable of
> generating friendly AI or IA before we loose that
> comprehension, we may never need go through some of
> the nastier potentials of the Singularity.
>
What do you mean by "comprehension" here? Without significant
technological advances, particularly in the direction of
augmented intelligence, I don't believe we comprehend very much
of our world now well enough to wisely make choices. We already
have very significant problems (most of them not technological)
that we are having a difficult time keeping abreast of. Our
world already moves faster than our current level of
intelligence and interaction is sufficient to handle. We can't
get to full AI, friendly or otherwise, without going full-steam
in technology development. Going slow will not be to our
benefit at this time in history.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:11 MST