From: adrian_karth_at_netconnect@smtpgate.netcon.co.za
Date: Sun Sep 07 1997 - 14:32:26 MDT
Message is undeliverable.
Reason: Unable to access cc:Mail Post office.
Please retry later.
Original text follows:
---------------------
Received: from maxwell.lucifer.com by smtpgate.netcon.co.za (ccMail Link to SMTP R6.0)
; Sun, 07 Sep 97 12:32:20 +0200
Return-Path: <postmaster@extropy.org>
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by maxwell.lucifer.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id CAA20078 for extropians-outgoing; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 02:25:04 -0600
X-Authentication-Warning: maxwell.lucifer.com: majordom set sender to postmaster@extropy.org using -f
From: adrian_karth_at_netconnect@smtpgate.netcon.co.za
Message-Id: <9709078736.AA873621188@smtpgate.netcon.co.za>
X-Mailer: ccMail Link to SMTP R6.0
Date: Sun, 07 Sep 97 10:33:08 +0200
MMDF-Warning: Parse error in original version of preceding line at aquilla.netcon.co.za
To: extropians@extropy.org
MMDF-Warning: Parse error in original version of preceding line at aquilla.netcon.co.za
Subject: cc:Mail Link to SMTP Undeliverable Message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="simple boundary"
Sender: postmaster@extropy.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org
Message is undeliverable.
Reason: Unable to access cc:Mail Post office.
Please retry later.
Original text follows:
---------------------
Received: from maxwell.lucifer.com by smtpgate.netcon.co.za (ccMail Link to SMTP R6.0)
; Sun, 07 Sep 97 00:32:54 +0200
Return-Path: <postmaster@extropy.org>
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by maxwell.lucifer.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id OAA07374 for extropians-outgoing; Sat, 6 Sep 1997 14:10:40 -0600
X-Authentication-Warning: maxwell.lucifer.com: majordom set sender to postmaster@extropy.org using -f
From: CurtAdams@aol.com
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 16:10:02 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <970906160958_467259540@emout12.mail.aol.com>
To: extropians@extropy.org
Subject: Re: NANO: Lessons learned
Sender: postmaster@extropy.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org
In a message dated 9/6/97 6:18:43 AM, sentience@pobox.com (Eliezer S.
Yudkowsky) wrote:
>I don't think it's time for a consensus yet, especially since we still all
>disagree, but my own points-in-progress are utterly different from the four
>mentioned by Nicholas Bostrum.
>
>I offer these assertions:
>
>1. Given an island vs. sea battle, the sea will win, whether the "island"
is
>a malevolent spore or a city.
Hmm. Homo Sapiens apparently started as an "island" of a few thousand
individual amidst a "sea" of hundreds of thousands of other hominids spread
throughout the tropical and temperate Old World. We're here and they're
gone. I can think of many historical examples as well - any modern major
religion, Rome, the Han Chinese, and Copernican theory proponents, for
starters. An island can do very well against a sea, particularly if it
embodies greater intelligence or better use of intelligence.
>2. As the world stands, nanotechnology cannot be freely distributed.
I expect that in its initial appearance, it will be widely distributed. The
first nanotech will be hard to make and hence many labs, companies,
foundations, and customers will all have a hand in its creation.
>3. Unintentional gray goo is not a serious problem.
Well, it's trivial next to deliberate destructive goo.
--simple boundary--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:50 MST