There is something I don't think that I've heard anyone else mention. For
this western society where many are some form of Christian to not think of
this, I find amazing. According to the Bible, God created the universe and
there was law and structure out of chaos. Now what do you think is going to
happen when humanity becomes even more chaotic than they are now? Earth will
roll and humanity or what's left of it will go back to the stone age. Try,
try again...Humanity needs to learn to think ahead and be responsible for
what it creates and how it affects others. That others means the planets as
well as the other living creatures under humanities wing. Just like humanity
will act to stop a creation that gets out of control or should, so will the
gods act if humanity allows itself to loose control.
The center of the universe sends out new planets like a pin ball machine
spits out new balls, only it sends them out onto the arms of the universe.
That right there should point out to humans that the rocks the Mother throws
are as big as asteroids and planets. So it really doesn't matter how much
Nasa is looking for near earth orbiting asteroids if she can do this... Now
that article about Sophia, which I figure has deep connections with the
church, said as much. They seemed to feel that the Sun, Earth, and Moon were
living beings. Do they not believe the rest of the Mothers army, that when
there are no chemtrails we witness in the sky each night watching us, are
not living beings? Because they are learning different lessons and their
body doesn't look like yours?
Isn't it ironic that the gods have literally come down to earth and
incarnated into human bodies to help humanity evolve and still humanity does
not comprehend that the ensouled-spirit can take any form, any body it
wants. If I choose to change bodies from a womans body to a planets body,
does that make me a different being? No, the answer is I would have done the
same as purchasing a new car. I would still be me. It keeps coming down to
this one item. No matter which direction I come from it always comes down to
humanity realizing they are not their body...
]On Behalf Of Light Eye
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 10:06 AM
Subject: [ufodiscussion] Singularities And Nightmares
This is long so I'm only posting an excerpt. Click the link to read the
Love and Light.
Singularities and Nightmares
by David Brin
Options for a coming singularity include self-destruction of
civilization, a positive singularity, a negative singularity (machines take
over), and retreat into tradition. Our urgent goal: find (and avoid) failure
modes, using anticipation (thought experiments) and resiliency --
establishing robust systems that can deal with almost any problem as it
Originally published in Nanotechnology Perceptions: A Review of
Ultraprecision Engineering and Nanotechnology, Volume 2, No. 1, March 27
2006.1 Reprinted with permission on KurzweilAI.net March 28, 2006.
In order to give you pleasant dreams tonight, let me offer a few
possibilities about the days that lie aheadchanges that may occur within
the next twenty or so years, roughly a single human generation.
Possibilities that are taken seriously by some of today's best minds.
Potential transformations of human life on Earth and, perhaps, even what it
means to be human.
For example, what if biologists and organic chemists manage to do to
their laboratories the same thing that cyberneticists did to computers?
Shrinking their vast biochemical labs from building-sized behemoths down to
units that are utterly compact, making them smaller, cheaper, and more
powerful than anyone imagined. Isn't that what happened to those gigantic
computers of yesteryear? Until, today, your pocket cell phone contains as
much processing power and sophistication as NASA owned during the moon
shots. People who foresaw this change were able to ride this technological
wave. Some of them made a lot of money.
Biologists have come a long way already toward achieving a similar
transformation. Take, for example, the Human Genome Project, which sped up
the sequencing of DNA by so many orders of magnitude that much of it is now
automated and miniaturized. Speed has skyrocketed, while prices plummet,
promising that each of us may soon be able to have our own genetic mappings
done, while-U-wait, for the same price as a simple EKG. Imagine extending
this trend, by simple extrapolation, compressing a complete biochemical
laboratory the size of a house down to something that fits cheaply on your
desktop. A MolecuMac, if you will. The possibilities are both marvelous and
When designer drugs and therapies are swiftly modifiable by skilled
medical workers, we all should benefit.
But then, won't there also be the biochemical equivalent of "hackers"?
What are we going to do when kids all over the world can analyze and
synthesize any organic compound, at will? In that event, we had better hope
for accompanying advances in artificial intelligence and robotics... at
least to serve our fast food burgers. I'm not about to eat at any restaurant
that hires resentful human adolescents, who swap fancy recipes for their
home molecular synthesizers over the Internet. Would you?
Now don't get me wrong. If we ever do have MolecuMacs on our desktops,
I'll wager that 99 percent of the products will be neutral or profoundly
positive, just like most of the software creativity flowing from young
innovators today. But if we're already worried about a malicious one percent
in the world of bits and byteshackers and cyber-saboteursthen what happens
when this kind of 'creativity' moves to the very stuff of life itself? Nor
have we mentioned the possibility of intentional abuse by larger
entitiesterror cabals, scheming dictatorships, or rogue corporations.
These fears start to get even more worrisome when we ponder the next
stage, beyond biotech. Deep concerns are already circulating about what will
happen when nanotechnologyultra-small machines building products
atom-by-atom to precise specificationsfinally hits its stride. Molecular
manufacturing could result in super-efficient factories that create wealth
at staggering rates of efficiency. Nano-maintenance systems may enter your
bloodstream to cure disease or fine-tune bodily functions. Visionaries
foresee this technology helping to save the planet from earlier human
errors, for instance by catalyzing the recycling of obstinate pollutants.
Those desktop units eventually may become universal fabricators that turn
almost any raw material into almost any product you might desire...
... or else (some worry), nanomachines might break loose to become the
ultimate pollution. A self-replicating disease, gobbling everything in
sight, conceivably turning the world's surface into gray goo.2
Others have raised this issue before, some of them in very colorful
ways. Take the sensationalist novel Prey, by Michael Crichton, which
portrays a secretive agency hubristically pushing an arrogant new
technology, heedless of possible drawbacks or consequences. Crichton's
typical worried scenario about nanotechnology follows a pattern nearly
identical to his earlier thrillers about unleashed dinosaurs, robots, and
dozens of other techie perils, all of them viewed with reflexive suspicious
loathing. (Of course, in every situation, the perilous excess happens to
result from secrecy, a topic that we will return to, later.) A much earlier
and better novel, Blood Music, by Greg Bear, presented the up and downside
possibilities of nanotech with profound vividness.
Especially the possibility that most worries even optimists within the
nanotechnology communitythat the pace of innovation may outstrip our
ability to cope.
Now, at one level, this is an ancient fear. If you want to pick a single
cliché that is nearly universally held, across all our surface boundaries of
ideology and beliefe.g. left-versus-right, or even religious-vs-secularthe
most common of all would probably be:
"Isn't it a shame that our wisdom has not kept pace with technology?"
While this cliché is clearly true at the level of solitary human beings,
and even mass-entities like corporations, agencies or political parties, I
could argue that things aren't anywhere near as clear at the higher level of
Elsewhere I have suggested that "wisdom" needs to be defined according
to outcomes and processes, not the perception or sagacity of any particular
individual guru or sage. Take the outcome of the Cold War
the first known
example of humanity acquiring a means of massive violence, and then mostly
turning away from that precipice. Yes, that means of self-destruction is
still with us. But two generations of unprecedented restraint suggest that
we have made a little progress in at least one kind of "wisdom." That is,
when the means of destruction are controlled by a few narrowly selected
elite officials on both sides of a simple divide.
But are we ready for a new era, when the dilemmas are nowhere near as
simple? In times to come, the worst dangers to civilization may not come
from clearly identifiable and accountable adversarieswho want to win an
explicit, set-piece competitionas much as from a general democratization of
the means to do harm. New technologies, distributed by the Internet and
effectuated by cheaply affordable tools, will offer increasing numbers of
angry people access to modalities of destructive power--means that will be
used because of justified grievance, avarice, indignant anger, or simply
because they are there.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
a.. Visit your group "ufodiscussion" on the web.
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]