From: ABlainey@aol.com
Date: Fri Jun 28 2002 - 13:28:57 MDT
>> After the singularity, I feel it would be fair to say that we will
>> still have crime. In fact I feel it fair to say that as long as WE survive
in
>> some form or another we will still have crime.
>Yes. But the consequences of crime and the incidence of crime could
>well be different. If people have backup copies murder of a body
>would be closer to assault and vandalism than "real" murder; if
>anybody can replicate most material posessions theft might become
>more akin to software piracy or stealing post-it notes. Also, in a
>society dominated by very smart agents rational selfishness would
>be a strong factor - and even if criminality is part of human
>nature, so is altruism and a sense of justice. They would likely be
>similarly expanded in scope.
I agree to an extent. This does bring up the argument of originals and
backup's (In the case of uploads). If you destroy the continually running
conscience, Is this murder? I would say it is. I would also agree with the
idea about material possessions. I was thinking more along the line of crime
for power or resources (In what ever form is valuable at the time). Altruism,
sense of justice and the criminality would logically expand similarly, but I
would argue that there has been an increase in crime and decrease in altruism
in modernised countries? obviously debatable. Sense of justice, I think Is a
constant. Also I would argue that the threat from criminals would greatly
increase as technology develops, Exactly as per your next statement.
>The real issue is the problem of destruction, that the destructive
>power of individuals is growing. This means that malign or
>irrational individuals can do more damage.
>Let's see, today it is demonstrably possible for one or a few
>people to kill a few thousand people in an act of terrorism. A
>hundred years ago I expect that the most one could do would be to
>go rampage with a machine-gun, which would likely kill a few tens
>of people before being stopped. Around 1800 the weapons were even
>cruder, and the numbers would be lower. At medieval technology you
>would have to use slow to reload crossbows or whack people with
>swords; I guess a medieval killing spree would be around ten
>people. If we compare this with the growth of population, we have
>had a roughly sixfold increase in population but maybe a
>hundredfold in destructive power. The risk is that this destructive
>power continues to increase to such an extend that individuals
>become threats to all people.
I'm with you 100%. We are virtually at the stage where a single person could
virtually wide out the majority of the human race. Biological warfare would
seem to be the biggest threat. We have already had a taste of this. Imagine
Smallpox instead of Anthrax.
>Solutions suggested to this have been either along the line of
>relinquishing advanced stuff (not terribly likely, and not
>evolutionarily stable), leaving it to an enlightened elite that
>knows what to do with them (but who to trust?), leaving it to some
>automatic trustworthy system (the old nanarchy or the more modern
>sysop idea; again, why trust this system?), making people nice
>(either by assuming niceness memes to spread or by direct
>modification), spreading out (a good idea if it can be done in
>time) or instituting fairly detailled monitoring under the control
>of many (the transparent society).
>By having a multipolar society with strong accountability and
>openness, power abuse becomes harder and more powerful
>crime-prevention systems can be used to deal with real risks (a
>sysop or enlightened elite is a system with the risk for a single
>point failure; a network of watchers that watch each other and the
>world is requires far more unlikely failures/corruptions to fail).
>Mental redesign could be ethically iffy (is society for the
>individual or the individual for society?) and might not even work
>on certain mental architectures. Spreading out is probably the
>single most efficient way of reducing risks, and it is hard to
>achieve under a centralized protection agency.
Agreed an all points. Decentralisation of resources and government would be a
very smart move for damage limitation. Unfortunately this is opposite of the
current trend. Capitalism dictates that centralisation is the most cost
effective method for just about everything. I have always thought this very
dangerous in the long term. Both for arguments like this and in general. This
would just leave spreading out as the most viable
option for continued survival. Im all for it. I'd happily be a mars colonist,
i'm not sure the wife would agree :o)
>I think the goal ought to be a highly resilient system that can
>bounce back from any likely attack, not necessarily unhurt but
>with the ability to continue to grow and flourish. We don't want to
>embed our post-singularity societies in a brittle matrix.
agreed
Alex
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:05 MST