CRN's "System of Three Ethics" and Bologna!
- Bologna seems to be one of the greatest cities of all time. It was
founded by the Etruscans which evolved into the Roman world. Later, it
was conquered by the Lombards whom named it Bologna. It went through
all the medieval period gyrations; and then, with the crusades and the
translations of Greek and classical civilization books in Spain around
1000 A.D., Bolongna was at the center of it all again. Petrarch is one
early pre-Renaissance(1500s) name. Cardano also learned and taught
medicine there. Today, Bolongna is considered one of the five top
cities of the world! Not bad historical and contemporary value to say
the least! Why all this about Bologna though?
i thought i'd give that link first since it is the start of the show!
But, really, what I'm poining out is in the second part of this youtube!
Well, between the history of mathematics I read and this video, I took
a little bit of an interest in Bologna; and, I noticed the
correspondence between some of what James Burke says about Bologna in
this second part(the second link above) and CRN's "System of Three
Ethics." As James Burke says it, around 1050, Bologna was growing
again, and they were amongst the first to his the problem; he stands in
I'm guessing a(possibly 'the') major social/political center of
Bologna; and he points out how the place is set up; i mena he's
standing in a square concrete center with fountains and all . . . and
various great buildings which as James Burke points out correspond to a
division of various social/political concerns of a given city-state;
there is the emperor building, the town council building, church, and
merchant building(notice, there's no university building(s)! As he
says, all of them wanted to run the place, nobody was strong enough to
do it by themselves; so, with all this political back and forth,
humdrum concerns like "who threw the boiling oil" took precedence!
As Mr Burke says, the trouble was they were trying to run before they
could walk; they didn't understnad things; they didn't have education!
(not to mention, they were all split up; you can't funciton when you're
all split up!)
I'm not argueing against the 'System of Three Ethics'; i'm arguieng
that the points about the 'system of three ethics' is incomplete; who's
in charge? The military? THe scientists? Or, the business people?
CRN and really the founding fathers of the U.S.A, prove the system of
three ethics; but, I'm thinking we have a choice amongst the three(or
four, if your counting the religion!) activities of . . .
civilization. Let me point out that Nano-manufacturing and its
associated nanotechnologies allows a given person or group(I would
think a given person would chose not to be lonely) to do away with
economics. Military? If you need it. Let me point out something else;
who's going to maintain all this potentially wonderfull technologies?
Nano-manufacturing allows a given person(s) to forget about the world;
a given person(s) could grow rather forgetfull of the science and
technology we as human beings need to survive in this world; we are the
technologically dependent species; we forget that, and the
nanotechnologies break(including the nanomanufacturing system) the
nanotechnology dependent humans . . . become extinct!
In a previous post, I've pointed out that at the same time a given
state comes up with a primitive nanomanufacturing system, all the stats
of the world will have sufficient nanotechnologies to surive on their
own. There are two possibilities here. One, soembody thinks they've
got to conquer the world to prevent nano-wars(and to feed all the poor
people of the world . . . finally); the other is to not because you
don't need to; you have all the necessities of the world and nobody is
going to bother with you(except that your living in the same land as a
previous nano-era state). The previous possibility leads to world war
three; not just a nuclear war anymore; a nano-war; in this war, you
have no idea who's going to win out because you don't know what the
other side knows. The second possibility could lead to wars; but will
it lead to the extermenation of the whole species? I think not.
There will be great pressure to just expand out in space because nobody
knows what hundreds of nanotechnology states are going to do. I for
one prefer this second possibility. Why? Because in this world,
nobody can conqure the rest of the world, and two, nobody becomes
complacent with their nanotechnologies. I don't think the majority of
the nanotechnology states will wage war; and really, I have an interest
in space; i'm not going to worry about nano(and nuclear) wars, because
I'm going to be billions if not trillions of miles away. My only
concern is not having others to give insights that I cannot(becaue
everybody has insights others can't have); i'm more worried about not
having a social group that enjoys exploring the universe with me. I
know that all knowledge is incomplete and that we are dependent on
learning ever more. My goal is to set up an Isaac
Asimovian 'Foundation.' And, I'm not worried about all these other
nanotechnology states expanding in opposite directions because I know
that even if they are anti-my Jacob Bronowski scientific humanism
because they are dependent on that science and technolopgy and over
time due to the pressures of existence in this universe and the fact
that they are human beings, they will change over time.
My worry is world war three with nanotechnology and nuclear
weapons . . . and roman republic/and empire and Nazy Germany stuff;
Republics and Democracies that vote out democracy and science.
I'm propsing an Isaac Asimovian 'Foundation" which chooses science
amongst the system of three ethics with Arthur Kantrowitz's science
courts to keep those military, economic, and supernatural/vagueness
gmaing religious influences form steering my Isaac
Asimovian "Foundation" from going wrong. We should be collecting,
analysing, and synthesizing the world's knowledge in an Isaac
Asimovian "Foundation" before the nano-era really kicks in; and if some
of our group concludes the data differently, they can exapond out in
space in opposite directions . . . and we'll see who's right or wrong
about the data because those who are wrong will run into one
contradiction after another; the moral thing to do is in their court;
to change their ways.
By means of this poocess, humanities(and intelligence in the universe)
is secured in the universe; because 1) dogma does not take over and
complacency does not blidn us the breakdown of the bewildering
nanotechnologies that nobody is ever going to understand it all, and/or
number two, supernova and other astronomically energetic events
doesn't wipe us out because we have all our eggs in one basket here on