Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

798Re: The Seventh Web

Expand Messages
  • kxsills@hotmail.com
    May 8, 2000
      --- In nanotech@egroups.com, mariet@s... wrote:
      > Hi folks,
      >
      > I'm new to the list so I just wanted to say hi, and jump right into
      > the conversation.
      >
      Welcome, I like your ideas. ;) Some of my reasons for proposing the
      approach I am offering is described in post 755/ God & Selection,
      much of the rest I promise to address in the paper I am going to
      offer later this week, and a few I will address now.


      > > there is a seventh web that nanotech makes possible. I call it
      > > the "Aerobic Alliance" though that is actually more limited
      > > than it has to be.
      > >
      > >
      > So you intend to protect all life? From what? From who? How do we
      > protect herbavores from canivores? Do we protect pathogens and
      nasty or unpleasant species?


      All life is all life, but I am not for protecting the prey from
      predators except where we are either the predator or the prey. Read
      the thread on this and the other letter on God and Selection so that
      you see where I am trying to go with this better. But these are
      valid questions of Human Selection reasoning that you are proposing
      and they should be addressed individually. All Life is Sacred. And
      there is a very important issue of spirit that cannot be ignored here
      even if you want that statement to be a question; Is all life sacred?

      I think that at least nano tagging pathogens in the environment is
      the major step for controlling them. It is also more important to
      tag all symbiotic lifeforms such as Ecoli because of what is
      necessary for creating the Nano interface to the biome in general. E-
      coli can be made more efficient at digesting less food and effected
      in many more ways along with many other symbionts. People could then
      survive much better on less. We would need only need the usual
      excuse of gluttony to justify the normal levels of excess by some.

      > As for taging people, I'm guessing fairly early in the process we'll
      > all be networked up and finding an individual is going to be a
      > pretty straight forward concept (except for ludites and
      > technophobes who are committed to not becoming part of the process.)
      >

      Tagging people is central to the privacy/sovereignty debate and the
      first group to release a global tagging mechanism in isolation
      analogous to the now infamous Echelon Project will be committing what
      is viewed as a modern warlike act. It will be percieved as a violent
      incursion of both civil and national liberties/rights.

      I am saying the developers should go all the way right now and put it
      on the United Nations table of discussions as more than just modern
      effecient Global Life Management. Some of the reasons go to maximum
      mapping of resources and providing data on what is in fact
      happening. There are significant other reasons too.

      This is too broad an issue to ignore and I will add the name for the
      project, I call it building GAIA, Global Artificially Intelligent
      Awareness. The rest of this I will talk about in the second paper I
      promised already. Marie, Charlie says he is more of a Christian than
      his own family suspects and I am a notorious pagan but I bet (and
      desperately hope too) we could agree on many moral issues even if we
      disagree on some. But he and I already have a working rational
      relationship and are willing to discuss issues openly I sense.

      Not all the pilgrims tried to exterminate the natives. In fact in
      countries like Mexico, Peru, Ecuador and others around the world the
      process of "Mestizaje" has created a world wide population that has
      recognizable roots in conflicting cultures.


      >
      > I agree, direct nanowiring to primary neural centers, and long term
      > storage of life experience not to mention communication at the
      > level of thought should prove to be fascinating.
      >

      There is much more than that coming with Geno-Nano Interfaced
      technologies. There is viable multiple metamorphosis. I am not just
      a Pagan I am a witch too. Now we get to hot-wire my familiars.

      I just want to get this over with because the burnings have to stop.
      It seems to have never occured to most people that we practice the
      same science but interpret the message differently. Our motives are
      less suspect in fact (we are Nature Worshippers after all) than for
      most of the dominate peoples that have persecuted what they didn't
      understand and were afraid of for millenia. We are Good and Bad
      beings just like everyone else. But now we get to do shapshifting
      and lots of other cool stuff we have always talked about. To risk
      anticipating my own quotes:

      "Politics and religion are strange bedfellows for science but history
      shows them to be an inseparable menáge a tóis." kxs, 2000

      Yes I get to make that one up. This is an old story and I will also
      discuss it more at length later. The question now is what are we
      going to do about it? Religion and politics are already involved.



      > > Richard Morgan, I agree with your comment about a true war on
      > > poverty. That is why I am suggesting that we consider opening up
      > > a new frontier, but not without a new concurrent ethic. There
      > > must be massive global redistribution of populations in order to
      > > alleviate existing economic and environmental stresses. But
      > > Manifest Destiny must be redefined.

      The political questions surrounding Nanotechnology cannot be
      understated. But the questions posed by our own history and how we
      got to this point must be better understood. The evolution of Humans
      on Earth is both by accident and design. Even if it is the result of
      coincidence the Church has been an institutionally controlling human
      eugenics for thousands of years. Since long before Christ and all
      modern religions. It is true of Eastern as well as Western peoples.
      It was true here in America before Europeans came here in numbers.
      This is a legitimate issue for Evolutionary Science to debate. Why?

      Controlling the institution of Mariage, for example is a Biological
      as well as Social Issue. But more than that it is an issue of
      courtship and mating in an evolutionary sense of the species. It is
      also a Socio-Economic question. The legitimacy and control that was
      the perogative of the Church for thousands of years over Family
      Wealth has now transfered effectively to the modern Nation State.
      But the issues behind the practices are not resolved and there is
      great political debate on a global scale. Theocracies still exist
      and even members of the Transnational Alliances, such as Britain
      maintain Theological/Monarchies that are State supported.

      There still exists Traditional Economies that are trying to create an
      adaptive policy to what is occuring. Mostly they are strictly
      traditionally based because of poverty and local levels of
      development/exploitation, but there is also a Socio/Cultural
      perspective.

      Traditional peoples get treated like the "Star Trek 'Borg treat every
      lifeform they encounteron the show: "Resistence is futile! You will
      be assimilated." They have only to see how the Transnational
      Economies, especially back when they were called the Colonialist
      Empire Builders have treated most local people they have come across
      in order to become highly suspicious of the declared benificent
      motives. But just like in the Cold War mostly they sit back aghast
      when they aren't dancing on strings and getting exploited by the much
      larger Hegemonic Economic Forces.

      The beliefs and practicies of the Transnational Economies are offset
      by the Social Monopolistic States with their significantly greater
      dependancy of Military/Police Enforcement of Market Stability and the
      delicate market/resource dependent Industrial Miltaries that govern
      them.
      > >
      > > Nanobodies can also augment Hemoglobin for oxygenation and
      > > maintaining gas equilibrium in the blood and body tissues. A
      > > nanoskin similar in concept to what the Navy is using for its
      > > submarines could instead provide direct respiration through a
      > > living skin instead of needing lungs for that purpose. Also
      > > they would be shaped into filter plugs for nose and mouth that
      > > could osmotically convert seawater to fresh for drinking,
      > > maintaining the lungs against atrophy, acting as lenses for the
      > > eyes, providing enhanced underwater vision with infrared and
      > > synchronized sonar visual cortex display capability. Ear plugs
      > > would also be nano tech and could mimic dolphins and orcas for
      > > sonar location and long rang underwater communication ability.
      > > These are not genetic modifications to our species but physical
      > > augments that provide mechanical adaptation. We would become
      > > reverse amphibians needing to come back to the atmosphere in
      > > order to bear our young.
      >
      > I don't think this is going to be quite as simple as you think,
      > living in an water environment has diverse and complex
      > requirements. It might require significant biological reengineering
      > for significant numbers of people to move back into the ocean.
      >
      No where near the level of engineering required for a mass exodus off
      world. And getting people to go is a lot harder into a less
      understood environment with much less chance of emotional security
      (Social Contact)or ability to adapt as Marine Migration provides.

      ET call home is a lot easier from off shore. Not all that different
      though from a qualitative development point of view. Start here and
      everything you learn is useful and transferable to Deep Space
      Development. This could work on its own though if people can be
      happy on this New Frontier. If others see the happiness then many
      will follow into this last physical frontier on Earth. This will be
      the last time that we get to have a land grab, it is here and the
      terraform domed cities in the Antarctic regions.

      They'll have the use of reflected Sunlight but that will only
      exacerbate Global Warming. Get it? The Seas will rise even faster.



      > How would you manage ocean predation on human beings?


      We are the top of the food chain and you expect the environment to be
      friendly? We are the most dangerous predator on this planet bar none
      alone, when armed with technology and vastly more so when we operate
      in our groups.

      I want clear controls and limits on our Hunter/Gatherer Phase of
      oceanic development. Another sneak peak, Smart Coral is a definite
      place to develope the Geno/Nano interface. Reefs could be
      preprogrammed to build themselves into genetically encrypted
      Archetectual structures. These would be planted by the pioneering
      groups. The cities could then be growing while the idea of a
      possible new place grows in the mind of the larger group of
      Humanity. Nanotech could probably improve the efficiency of Coral
      Reproduction such that a fast type could be created that can do the
      work of thousands of years in just a few decades. But these are
      Global Projects and must have Global understanding.

      > How would you manage the effects of high pressure on the human body?

      This is one of the easier ones. We don't have to go naked into this
      New World. But it is an integrated view of Human hydrostability
      based on such existing ones as the Manta model. It gets a lot easier
      when you aren't breathing Nitrogen. Actually the O2 source is what
      happens to O3 when it gets dissolved in water. The lungs don't have
      to be used for direct respiration but they could stay in operation
      for CO2 exhaust though that can also be done by urine at these
      pressures which can handle carbonation without effervesence. Though
      if you were at the surface for a while, or came up too quickly it
      could get quite uncomfortable, sort of like flatulence from the wrong
      end.


      > How would you manage gas transfer O2 and CO2?

      look above

      > How would you manage issues of body heat?

      look above.

      But nano can internally heat too and body heat is generated by
      metabolism and that would need cooling as much as warming by the
      vastly greater energy output capability of this 'borg mod and frankly
      with the now possible improvements in oxygenation and muscular
      augmentation an underwater environment might be necessarily cooler.
      A 'Borg may heat up and burn out in atmospheric condition if their
      power curve ratios give them the ability to expend enourmous energy
      if they aren't equipped with better cooling than sweat.

      The "Bends" by the way is a consequence of Nitrogen being effervesced
      in the blood with rapid ascent because of breathing compressed
      atmospheric Nitrogen. Which you no longer need to do anymore than
      come to the surface except to change environments.


      > How would you manage augmenting human function for reasonable
      > mobility?

      This is the fun part. I am a primate and have no intention of giving
      up such a versatile tool set. But If you look at the current
      artificial muscle technology and I will be provding the links if
      everybody doesn't beat me to it with the paper I am promising. That
      technology woven into a good Nano/armored/wetsuit will give a person
      with valve jet flippers the ability to keep up with a slow dolphin on
      the long migration and some people might be able to make the swim.
      But this isn't without the web and all that it offers and the ocean
      is a lot closer and easier to reach than the stars. But I don't see
      these as in any way mutually exclusive and expect the Marine
      Inhabitants to be an important part of Deep Space Development.


      > How would you manage O2 toxicity under high pressure?

      This is a combination of AI and already existing Biofeedback. It is
      easier than you might expect because of the same mechanisms that are
      controlling the Nano-Globin Interface. In fact the range of
      operation for this aspect of metabolism is greatly extended beyond
      the existing limits. That too will be a crucial crossover for the
      cyber-naught in deepspace exploration.

      > How would you prevent the bends?

      Been there done that...


      > How would you manage issue of bouyancy, spacial perception, and
      > our ability to function in a lightless environment?

      Actually I alluded to all this in the original text if you read it
      more carefully. But when it comes to the food part I should add that
      the worlds poor desperately need the alimentary aspect of this plan.
      This is the new breadbasket that allows some of the surface world to
      be depopulated again and returned to a more balanced norm. The Sea
      is the ultimate source of all life on this planet. Another major
      global project could be using Nano for toxic tide control
      (Nanoprocessed algae based food supply) and offset Plankton as a food
      source for many marine based wildlife herds, schools, and rebuilding
      the collapsing food chain that provides the basis for the dwindling
      species that humans already depend on. "When life hands you lemons,
      learn to make lemonade".


      > What would we eat? /\ /\ /\ /\ /\

      > Where would we live?

      New World habitat with New World rules. I already let the hat out of
      the bag for Smart Coral built cities but I have more than genetically
      programmed buildings to discuss.

      > I'm sure these issues are manageable once you can alter matter at
      > the nano scale, but there are a whole lot of issues to be managed.
      > studiing cetaceans and other water dwelling creature would be
      > essential for us to make such a dramatic move.
      >
      > Why not reengineer ourselves as amphibious?

      I am saying to do exactly that and keep most of our basic human form
      with an AI augmented semiliving skin that can be removed easier than
      a snake's. What's also tantilizing is that it can be put back on to.
      >
      > Or maybe we could rip off cetacean DNA for a hybrid human that
      > lives in the ocean easily and elegantly?

      Yes, now you understand. We are entering into a period of Human
      Divergant Evolution. It is part of the issue underlying why I am
      calling for Global recognition of Human Selection as having replaced
      Natural Selection. According to a recent Zogby poll half of the
      people in the US still think that creationism is a form of science.
      and that its "Belief" should be taught along side Natural Selection
      as science in the schools.

      Hell, Darwin was lucky enough to be in the right place at the right
      time in history, with the right tools to see a region with no
      industrial, or simple human impact in order to recognize the existing
      Natural phenomenon. Australia had been hit 50K years before he got
      there and it confused some of his observations and reasons for what
      he saw but frankly he got it almost perfect in one try for the
      mechanism of evolution, and the Galapagos Islands made that possible.

      If you did this today any objective scientist would have to recognize
      that it is Human Selection operating by design/denial/neglect that
      determines what is occurring on the planet for all lifeforms.

      We didn't start it but we have already messed it up too far to go
      back. This is the consequence of our success as the species that got
      to the top of the food chain. It is due to our environmental impact
      as a species. Mostly we are neglectful and ignorant of what we do.
      It is a good day when we are just benign more than maligant on a
      global balance scale. I don't think we can consider our behavior
      sufficiently benign any day for the last few centuries. Maybe more.

      Pioneer generations can move in first as 'Borg but subsequent future
      generations will be Modern Aquatic Mammals. We aren't that different
      from our Ceteacian cousins anyway.

      >
      > At first it seems appropriate that once you stop aging and postpone
      > death until major trama or gross serendipity, that ZPG practices
      can
      > and should be made part of the price of admission. This of course
      > will
      > make the Mormons and the Catholics scream, and could mean a
      complete
      > end to those religions as we know them.
      >
      > Ultimately the best answer is to migrate ourselves off the planet
      as
      > quickly as humanly possible. Or, migrate ourselves off of protein
      as
      > quickly as possible. Either way, our impact on the planet receeds
      to
      > virtually nothing after only a couple generations.

      Important recent studies of the fossil record show that damage of the
      type we are causing takes more in the vicinity of ten million years
      for Earth recovery. If we continue the destructive impact that we
      are having it can even risk much greater cataclysmic proportions.
      Nanotech is an Elemental technology that if missused can destroy even
      the potential for life on this planet. It will be our fault if it
      occurs this way.

      Also thank you for noticing I am not saying forever but I think that
      we don't have the time to worry about more than token gestures on
      some of this. The population curve could absorb the numbers of
      longlives for at least the first generation without any appreciable
      difference in the Maltheusian math. The problem is that by the end
      of one generation the damage will have been done, or not.

      Marie, we are all in this together already. I don't believe we have
      two generations to get it right. This is the make it or break it
      time. We are the generation to decide on the next course of
      evolution for life on Earth. After we get through with this problem
      we need to start worrying on a Transplanetary System Scale or we
      won't have anything to worry about at all, we'll be dead.

      Arthur, I hope you are reading this. You outlived Lazarus Long and
      made it to see our Childhood's End. We are maturing fast though,
      hopefully fast enough. It is getting faster everyday at least.


      Kenneth X. Sills

      PS. Oh, and Jonathan Desp <jonathandesp@...> Here is the
      ironic part, I am what many traditionalists fear as Satan yet I am
      the one defending their interests on this. You can't ban nanotech.
      First of all it is too late and Second it will require a global
      consensus that you are unlikly to achieve. I am anyway appealing for
      a limited (Voluntary) moratorium for some applied tech and to provide
      time for creating a global presentation format. It does not bode
      well if this continues in secret. Even though that is due more
      to "General Ignorance" than "Major Conspiracy". Like Free Speech:
      Can we agree to defend eachother while rationally disagreeing?
    • Show all 3 messages in this topic