From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Mon May 27 2002 - 14:34:14 MDT
Steve wrote:
> (sp)
>
> This posting lacks balance & perspective. No doubt extropians and
> fundamentalist
> transhumans will call me a neo-luddite for drawing attention to futurologist
> Ian Pearson
> (BT exact technologies) article in this week's Sunday Times warning of
> dangers in
> nanotechnology, AI, and biotechs that are capable of making life on earth
> extinct.
>
Actually, many people here are very aware of the danger and are
involved individually and in groups with such charters in
mitigating the dangers while gaining the benefits.
> I think we have to put safety ahead of mindless sci-fantasy optimism, and
> want to point
> out that I object to emotive and irrelevent terms like "luddite" that are
> used incorrectly in
> this debate. Pearson and even Greenpeace & ecology movement are using
> empirical data
> and arguments and are not "anti-science" anti-rational or even
> anti-progress.
>
The best alternative to "mindless sci-fantasy" is extremely
mindful sci-fi reality creation and transformation. Safety
while utterly important, can not be acheived by standing still
or by relinquishing various technologies. This point has been
discussed here quite a bit and I am sure you can find the
relevant material (especially around Bill Joy) in the archives.
>
> What we need is a middle way in advance. We should jettison tried & tested
> techniques
> in favour of untested, speculative and potentially lethal latest innovations
> simply to
> keep up with fashion. And what is wrong with concentrating on eco-friendly
No. We should proceed with the new with reasonable safeguards
and cautions in place. This is how we advance and solve more of
our problems and transcend more of our limitations. You paint a
false dichotomy. It is certainly not a matter of "fashion".
> science
> such as wind-power & renewables ... green science can be just as
> technologically
> advanced, challenging and innovative as the 'blue sky' fads such as genetics
> & nano-tech.
>
Wind-power is grossly inadequate to the needs of our level of
civilization and this size of population. Solar of some form
(mostly not on earth's surface with current tech) shows much
promise. Nuclear fission reactors are much better than our
current foolish buring of our fossil fuels. But the way beyond
the energy crunch is through much better technology and getting
past some current economic and political gridlock.
I didn't know science came in different colors. I did know that
exploring all of the possibilities to increasingly benefit
ourselves and our descendants was colored based upon whether we
fully do this or only do it to some ideologically approved level.
With nanotech tamed almost all of the problems the greens care
about can be solved quite handily. I would expect those of such
a mind to heartily support nanotech, with of course proper
safeguards in its development and deployment, rather than
villify it.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:25 MST