From: mark@unicorn.com
Date: Tue May 18 1999 - 11:16:11 MDT
jonwill [jonwill@erols.com] wrote:
>Thanks. My belief is that since everyone desires a good life,
But what kind of 'good life' do they desire? If two groups have entirely
different ideas of what a 'good life' entails, then who chooses which 'good
life' we work for?
>we should make
>the same a common goal, and devote some more resources toward finding the
>knowledge
>to make it a reality for all.
And what of those whose idea of a 'good life' does not involve spending
their time working to provide a 'good life' for others?
>Humanity's future is not limited to our solar system.
Humanity *is* limited to this solar system for decades to come; and even
if we do leave it we won't be able to acquire resources fast enough in
other solar systems to allow everyone to have everything they could desire.
>True. But if all mental and physical desires are fulfilled who would be
>in the market to purchase the same, and what incremental value would one
>charge if they have all mental and physical desires fulfilled?
"If no-one wanted anything, who would want anything?" Duh.
>True. But won't future abilities allow for the replication of the same?
You think the Israelis and Arabs will be happy to each have a duplicate
of Jerusalem, rather than the real city?
>Robots won't be able to eventually perform such tasks?
Many of the tasks you want to eliminate will require human-level sentience.
What exactly is the benefit of enslaving a human-level sentience made of
silicon so that a human-level sentience made of goop doesn't have to do
the work?
>The achievement of a higher level of increased conscious-being may
>eliminate such behavioral pathologies. If not, people so disposed will
>have to find alternative remedies such as playing dictator in virtual
>reality.
And if they refuse to do it in VR and choose to become a dictator for
real?
Mark
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:45 MST