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

Re: [nanotech] Digest Number 510

Expand Messages
  • Steven Guy
    I meant to write Immortality for everyone or no one at all! I was very ill when I wrote this and not able to express myself. However, I still stand by it. I
    Message 1 of 11 , Aug 1, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      I meant to write "Immortality for everyone or no one at all!" I was very ill when I wrote this and not able to express myself. However, I still stand by it.
      I believe that international laws should be enacted to prevent would-be "chronovores" from coming into existence.
      Your wrong, Brian, this comment comes from deep thinking and some small amount of wisdom I have gained over the years.
      Every time individuals in some advanced country promotes the idea that some new technology is going to bring prosperity to the world.... well, we all know what happens!
      The world is too small, ecological system too fragile and there are too many people in the world for a few self-righteous and wealthy countries to act like they owe nothing to anyone but themselves.
      No one wants jihads but unless the increasingly limited resources of the world are distributed in a way that is fair we risk more wars, ecological degradation and guilt!

      There is an expression that comes from a group of people in Africa -
      "The poor man shames us all."
      The Western lifestyle is simply not going to be sustainable for much longer.
      Listen to scientists! The greenhouse is going to cause big problems for us very soon.
      If nanotechnology can help solve these problems, good. But if nanotechnology is merely going to be used to preserve and enhance the lifestyles of those fortunate enough to be born in certain wealthy countries then I question the reasons for its development.

      The rich always promise the poor that they have social consciences and that they will get around to helping when they have developed some new technology - just around the corner. But you know and I know that this is the same old lie they always expect us to swallow. The "trickle down" effect, much talked about in the early '80's, was and always will be a load of old cobblers. 

      Answer this for me: How does society as a whole and the human race benefit from preserving human beings living today into some unimaginably distant future? (I doubt whether Leonardo da Vinci or Johann Sebastian Bach would have anything more to live for if they were still around today - creativity has its limits!)
      I believe that we have our time and we should use it sensibly, compassionately, intelligently, benevolently and wisely. The greatest resource the human race has is itself and the human race needs to work towards making sure that every living person has a healthy and happy life with equal access to education. Is this 'pie in the sky'?
      Before you answer this - think! Is the Singularity 'pie in the sky'?

      Nanotechnology? - Yes!
      Immortality? - er.... why do you want it? This kind of gift seems to demand that the recipient should be required to spend many years of his/her future life in community service.

      I don't want to die. But I probably will one day. I just hope that I live a happy and healthy life.

      Indeed, one could argue that humans live far too long! (I am not advocating this)
      Surely it is the quality of life rather than the quantity of life that is important?

      Steven Langley Guy
      (I can't imagine what possible use the world of 3001 AD would have for Steven Langley Guy, other than a lab specimen or zoo animal!)

      Brian Phillips wrote:

      <Immortality for everyone or not all!>
        On the contrary. Immortality for anyone
      who can get it. :) Not to say we should
      kill other (via inaction) but I have better
      things to do than engage in ill-conceived
      social justice style jihads.  The technology
      exists presently to live in relative comfort to
      the age of a century old in my country and
      most of my contemporaries don't have the
      discipline to use it. Diet, exercise, vitamins,
      concious living. What makes you think I should
      wait for everyone to get on board to start
      the ride?
        In my opinion this comment displayed a
      serious lack of insight. Really!

      regards,
      Brian
       
       


      The Nanotechnology Industries mailing list.
      "Nanotechnology: solutions for the future."

      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

    • Samantha Atkins
      ... I find this statement very surprising. The real resources of the world are increasingly unlimited and getting more so as technology advances. It is
      Message 2 of 11 , Aug 1, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Steven Guy wrote:
        >
        > I meant to write "Immortality for everyone or no one at all!"
        > I was very ill when I wrote this and not able to express
        > myself. However, I still stand by it.
        > I believe that international laws should be enacted to prevent
        > would-be "chronovores" from coming into existence.
        > Your wrong, Brian, this comment comes from deep thinking and
        > some small amount of wisdom I have gained over the years.
        > Every time individuals in some advanced country promotes the
        > idea that some new technology is going to bring prosperity to
        > the world.... well, we all know what happens!
        > The world is too small, ecological system too fragile and
        > there are too many people in the world for a few
        > self-righteous and wealthy countries to act like they owe
        > nothing to anyone but themselves.
        > No one wants jihads but unless the increasingly limited
        > resources of the world are distributed in a way that is fair
        > we risk more wars, ecological degradation and guilt!

        I find this statement very surprising. The real resources of
        the world are increasingly unlimited and getting more so as
        technology advances. It is important to combine much higher
        ethics than is generally practiced with this advancing
        technology but both are crucial to our (human) advancement. We
        are not in a zero-sum game and being ruled by fear of
        retribution is tremendously counter-productive in every way. I
        agree with plenty for all but out of the bounty that is opening
        and an expansion of those we care for, NEVER out of guilt or
        fear.

        >
        > There is an expression that comes from a group of people in
        > Africa -
        > "The poor man shames us all."
        > The Western lifestyle is simply not going to be sustainable
        > for much longer.
        > Listen to scientists! The greenhouse is going to cause big
        > problems for us very soon.
        > If nanotechnology can help solve these problems, good. But if
        > nanotechnology is merely going to be used to preserve and
        > enhance the lifestyles of those fortunate enough to be born in
        > certain wealthy countries then I question the reasons for its
        > development.
        >

        The Western lifestyle will be available for all and the
        technologies under development will clear any real greenhouse
        problem before it becomes threatening. What is coming can be
        used to transform the world. I agree it is extraodinarily small
        minded if it were limited to just the few out of habits of
        self-protection and scarcity thinking. But you practice some of
        that yourself when you speak of guilt and such the way you do.

        > The rich always promise the poor that they have social
        > consciences and that they will get around to helping when they
        > have developed some new technology - just around the corner.
        > But you know and I know that this is the same old lie they
        > always expect us to swallow. The "trickle down" effect, much
        > talked about in the early '80's, was and always will be a load
        > of old cobblers.
        >

        It is not a lie. Recheck your history.

        > Answer this for me: How does society as a whole and the human
        > race benefit from preserving human beings living today into
        > some unimaginably distant future? (I doubt whether Leonardo da
        > Vinci or Johann Sebastian Bach would have anything more to
        > live for if they were still around today - creativity has its
        > limits!)

        Unimaginably distant? Hardly. Try in no more than two
        generations hence.

        I don't have any idea where your comment on creativity comes
        from.

        - samantha
      • Eugene Leitl
        ... I hope you re better now, but do you realize the presumptiousness of your statement? Modern medicine undoubtedly saves lives, yet it is expensive, and
        Message 3 of 11 , Aug 1, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Steven Guy wrote:

          > I meant to write "Immortality for everyone or no one at all!" I was very
          > ill when I wrote this and not able to express myself. However, I still
          > stand by it.

          I hope you're better now, but do you realize the presumptiousness of your
          statement? Modern medicine undoubtedly saves lives, yet it is expensive,
          and hence limited to an elite. Does this mean the elite does not deserve
          it? Says who? Oh, Mr. Steven Langley Guy, the world authority on wealth
          redistribution. And even assuming it's true, how are you going to go
          around enforcement, use people with guns? I can see the logic of it: let's
          kill more people so we can prevent people from surviving. Makes great
          sense.

          > I believe that international laws should be enacted to prevent
          > would-be "chronovores" from coming into existence. Your wrong, Brian,

          I believe that you're full of it, and there ought to be an international
          law against people talking crapola on a public mailing list.

          > this comment comes from deep thinking and some small amount of wisdom
          > I have gained over the years. Every time individuals in some advanced

          I'm sorry, I don't believe in scale-invariant wisdom. I think you
          demonstrate the staleness of your wisdom sufficiently.

          > country promotes the idea that some new technology is going to bring
          > prosperity to the world.... well, we all know what happens! The world

          Yes: look around. Technology has been certainly very good for us, and even
          !Kung San would have killed for the privilege of living in such a luxury.

          > is too small, ecological system too fragile and there are too many

          World too small: don't be dumb, don't live on a world. Get off this rock.
          Ecological system too fragile? Ditto, or make a technology that will fix
          it. But, honestly, who would want to stay on this rock?

          > people in the world for a few self-righteous and wealthy countries to
          > act like they owe nothing to anyone but themselves. No one wants

          You must explain me this owing bit. I honestly don't get it. I don't owe
          to too many people, and those I know all by names.

          > jihads but unless the increasingly limited resources of the world are
          > distributed in a way that is fair we risk more wars, ecological
          > degradation and guilt!

          Look at the headers: do you see the name of the newsgroup. You you
          understand the impacts of controlling matter at molecular scale? Yes, no
          limited resources no more, if we will exclude the number of atoms present
          in our solar system.

          > There is an expression that comes from a group of people in Africa -
          > "The poor man shames us all." The Western lifestyle is simply not

          Would you please stop "argumenting" in empty phrases. Restatement of a
          belief does not make it an argument. Repeat it long enough, and you'll
          become about as interesting as hamster in a running wheel.

          > going to be sustainable for much longer. Listen to scientists! The

          Scientists? I do, of course. Now you listen to me: I'm a scientist, too.

          > greenhouse is going to cause big problems for us very soon. If

          Apart from the fact that climate makes natural excursions of a far larger
          amplitude, I honestly doubt the problems will be all that big (at least
          where I sit), unless we've got a sudden stop in the sea current
          circulation dynamo due to sudden influx of freshwater, resulting in
          widespread glaciation. In any case, one of the few technologies capable of
          regulating the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is --
          drumroll, applause -- nanotechnology.

          And yeah: get off this rock.

          > nanotechnology can help solve these problems, good. But if
          > nanotechnology is merely going to be used to preserve and enhance the
          > lifestyles of those fortunate enough to be born in certain wealthy
          > countries then I question the reasons for its development.

          More empty phrases. First, the world is not a zero sum game. Quite the
          opposite in fact. So, the wealth created is not taken from poor slob in
          the Sahel zone. But the poor slob in the Sahel zone can profit from a
          technology that does water desalination essentially for free, or makes
          food and water from thin air and sunlight, clothes him, protects him from
          elements, and delivers the knowledge of the world to her fingertips.

          > The rich always promise the poor that they have social consciences and
          > that they will get around to helping when they have developed some new
          > technology - just around the corner. But you know and I know that this

          I don't promise anything. I know people who're in 3rd world help programs,
          and it's tough business. If you listen to people promising you easy
          solutions for free, you'll get what you paid for.

          > is the same old lie they always expect us to swallow. The "trickle
          > down" effect, much talked about in the early '80's, was and always
          > will be a load of old cobblers.

          The funny thing, in 2001 the state of the world as a whole (with the
          possible exception of reemergence of plagues, for what we cannot claim any
          credit) is much improved over the early 1980s. I wonder why.

          > Answer this for me: How does society as a whole and the human race
          > benefit from preserving human beings living today into some
          > unimaginably distant future? (I doubt whether Leonardo da Vinci or

          Unimagininably distant for *you*. I will personally benefit from that by
          -- gosh -- not dying, and I hope the others will have the good sense to do
          just the same. You might find out that the increased temporal depth alone
          will make better people, and cull the idiots by (mutual) self-termination.

          > Johann Sebastian Bach would have anything more to live for if they
          > were still around today - creativity has its limits!) I believe that

          Creativity may have limits, but your knee-jerk ignorance certainly seems
          to have none.

          > we have our time and we should use it sensibly, compassionately,
          > intelligently, benevolently and wisely. The greatest resource the

          Your choice of words stinks. "benevolently and wisely", eh. Such a
          compassionate, intelligent benevolent and wise beings as yourself,
          probably.

          > human race has is itself and the human race needs to work towards
          > making sure that every living person has a healthy and happy life with
          > equal access to education. Is this 'pie in the sky'? Before you answer

          Excellent plan, but how do you propose to go about to implement it? Not by
          redistributing the wealth, with the firehose, I hope?

          > this - think! Is the Singularity 'pie in the sky'?
          >
          > Nanotechnology? - Yes! Immortality? - er.... why do you want it? This

          Which concern of yours is it?

          > kind of gift seems to demand that the recipient should be required to
          > spend many years of his/her future life in community service.

          You're too funny, honestly. Rarely seen such a droll troll.

          > I don't want to die. But I probably will one day. I just hope that I
          > live a happy and healthy life.

          Good for you. Now please live your happy and healthy life, die in peace,
          and leave the rest of us. To live. In peace.

          > Indeed, one could argue that humans live far too long! (I am not

          Excellent, so let's kill them all, starting with you. Because live is such
          a terrible thing, it can't be allowed to be.

          > advocating this) Surely it is the quality of life rather than the
          > quantity of life that is important?

          I would like to have quantity, to have sufficient time to start worrying
          about such luxuries as quality.

          > Steven Langley Guy
          > (I can't imagine what possible use the world of 3001 AD would have for
          > Steven Langley Guy, other than a lab specimen or zoo animal!)

          Why wait so long? You can be a specimen, now.

          -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204/">leitl</a>
          ______________________________________________________________
          ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204
          57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3
        • Ooo0001@aol.com
          In a message dated 8/1/01 8:56:04 AM, smguy@ihug.com.au writes:
          Message 4 of 11 , Aug 1, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 8/1/01 8:56:04 AM, smguy@... writes:

            << Every time individuals in some advanced country promotes the idea that
            some new technology is going to bring prosperity to the world.... well,
            we all know what happens! >>

            Well, considering that even the poor in many countries possess television,
            telephones, vehicles, improved nutrition and medical access, and greater
            freedom than their counterparts centuries ago, I'd say yes, we all know what
            happens: things get better for the poor! I am NOT saying we still don't have
            a long, long way to go, nor that the plight of the poor in some countries is
            bleak; what I am saying is that technology has, overall, increased the
            standards of living for all socio-economic levels. There's no one-shot
            technological panacea for the problem of poverty (at least not yet), but each
            breakthrough nudges the standards of living up a smidge. If the poor receive,
            say, just 1% of the benefits that the rich receive from some technological
            breakthrough, then that's 1% they didn't have before. Given a great enough
            techological leap (such as mature nanotechnology), that percentage could go a
            long way. Dismissing the development of a technology because it doesn't
            greatly reduce poverty is taking the short view. It's also not realistic,
            since who's going to abdicate the benefits of some technology just because it
            might not immediately or directly benefit the poor (not that nanotechnology
            won't)?

            << Answer this for me: How does society as a whole and the human race
            benefit from preserving human beings living today into some unimaginably
            distant future? (I doubt whether Leonardo da Vinci or Johann Sebastian
            Bach would have anything more to live for if they were still around
            today - creativity has its limits!) >>

            Easy. I suspect your doubts are in error. Who says creativity has its limits?
            Who says genius in any of its forms can't be applied to the modern world? You
            don't think Einstein might have come up with more brilliance with the help of
            computers and his contemporaries? What might Da Vinci come up with with his
            far-reaching mind if given a modern understanding of aerodynamics,
            electronics, etc? Besides, who says society has to benefit from their being
            alive--they might be happier alive than dead too, and individual happiness
            counts for something, don't you think?

            << I believe that we have our time and we should use it sensibly,
            compassionately, intelligently, benevolently and wisely. The greatest
            resource the human race has is itself and the human race needs to work
            towards making sure that every living person has a healthy and happy
            life with equal access to education. Is this 'pie in the sky'?
            Before you answer this - think! Is the Singularity 'pie in the sky'? >>

            Pie in the sky implies unrealistic. I don't think either goal is
            unrealistic...but both require continuing advances in technology to be
            achieved.

            << Nanotechnology? - Yes!
            Immortality? - er.... why do you want it? This kind of gift seems to
            demand that the recipient should be required to spend many years of
            his/her future life in community service.

            I don't want to die. But I probably will one day. I just hope that I
            live a happy and healthy life. >>

            You ask why anyone would want immortality? You answered it with the second
            paragraph: "I don't want to die." Simple enough, isn't it? Also, if you can't
            come up with things to fill your time with, you're not trying very hard.
            Immortality doesn't DEMAND community service...although it could be argued
            that it should come with the price of no reproduction allowed. Immortality
            sounds like a huge gift right now, but it may become mundane eventually.

            << Steven Langley Guy
            (I can't imagine what possible use the world of 3001 AD would have for
            Steven Langley Guy, other than a lab specimen or zoo animal!) >>

            Sure, if you were frozen in time, you might be nothing more than an
            antiquated curiosity. So why not grow and advance with the technology? In
            3001 you might be as advanced and productive as any contemporaries, with the
            additional benefit of a millennium of memories and (hopefully) wisdom behind
            you.

            Derek
          • Jeffrey Paul Soreff
            ... Agreed, Brian, on several levels: - Technologies get introduced at the high cost, high value, typically high income market segments, then costs get reduced
            Message 5 of 11 , Aug 1, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In nanotech@y..., "Brian Phillips" <deepbluehalo@e...> wrote:
              > <Immortality for everyone or not all!>
              > On the contrary. Immortality for anyone
              > who can get it. :) Not to say we should
              > kill other (via inaction) but I have better
              > things to do than engage in ill-conceived
              > social justice style jihads.

              Agreed, Brian, on several levels:

              - Technologies get introduced at the high cost, high value, typically
              high income market segments, then costs get reduced and they spread
              more broadly. Transistors used to be expensive, even _steel_ used
              to be a specialty item. Enforce a "to everyone at once, else to
              nobody" policy, and "to nobody" is what you will get.

              - Why should a treatment for aging be different than for any other
              illness? My HMO covers quite a few treatments that are unavailable
              (except for political elites, grr...) in the 3rd world. So what?
              I am not required to exhibit special merit for a tetanus booster or
              a lyme vaccine or high blood pressure medication. Why should,
              hypothetically, a medication that stopped free radical damage be
              any different?

              - A gain to the citizens of the first world is still a gain. As long
              as other people aren't made actually worse off, why the whining?

              - To the extent that the 1st and 3rd world compete for, for instance,
              copper, in the marketplace, I could see someone in the 3rd world
              being pissed at a rise in _population_ of the 1st world. It makes
              _no_ sense, however, for the 3rd worlders to care about what the
              life expectancy is in the 1st world, with population held constant.
              A single 1st worlder, living a thousand years, and a stream of
              1st worlders, each replacing the last at 80 year intervals, would
              compete for the supply of copper in about the same way.

              Best wishes,
              -Jeff
            • Steven Guy
              Thanks for your reply, Mr Leitl. I hope the that the world is full of Eugene Leitl s several million years from now. I won t be there but I am sure that the
              Message 6 of 11 , Aug 1, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                Thanks for your reply, Mr Leitl. I hope the that the world is full of 'Eugene Leitl's' several million years from now. I won't be there but I am sure that the world will be a much better place when people like me who choose to question and 'play the devil's' advocate are long gone!
                Certainty is a wonderful thing, Mr Leitl!
                I'm glad you've got it.
                You are a scientist and I am merely Baroque musician, househusband and father of two wonderful little boys.

                Regards,
                Steven

                PS: I look forward to the benefits of nanotechnology, even yet, but I despair of the way we treat each other. (I am as guilty as anyone of occasional overreaction and foolishness)

                Eugene Leitl wrote:

                On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Steven Guy wrote:

                > I meant to write "Immortality for everyone or no one at all!" I was very
                > ill when I wrote this and not able to express myself. However, I still
                > stand by it.

                I hope you're better now, but do you realize the presumptiousness of your
                statement? Modern medicine undoubtedly saves lives, yet it is expensive,
                and hence limited to an elite. Does this mean the elite does not deserve
                it? Says who? Oh, Mr. Steven Langley Guy, the world authority on wealth
                redistribution. And even assuming it's true, how are you going to go
                around enforcement, use people with guns? I can see the logic of it: let's
                kill more people so we can prevent people from surviving. Makes great
                sense.

                > I believe that international laws should be enacted to prevent
                > would-be "chronovores" from coming into existence. Your wrong, Brian,

                I believe that you're full of it, and there ought to be an international
                law against people talking crapola on a public mailing list.

                > this comment comes from deep thinking and some small amount of wisdom
                > I have gained over the years. Every time individuals in some advanced

                I'm sorry, I don't believe in scale-invariant wisdom. I think you
                demonstrate the staleness of your wisdom sufficiently.

                > country promotes the idea that some new technology is going to bring
                > prosperity to the world.... well, we all know what happens! The world

                Yes: look around. Technology has been certainly very good for us, and even
                !Kung San would have killed for the privilege of living in such a luxury.

                > is too small, ecological system too fragile and there are too many

                World too small: don't be dumb, don't live on a world. Get off this rock.
                Ecological system too fragile? Ditto, or make a technology that will fix
                it. But, honestly, who would want to stay on this rock?

                > people in the world for a few self-righteous and wealthy countries to
                > act like they owe nothing to anyone but themselves. No one wants

                You must explain me this owing bit. I honestly don't get it. I don't owe
                to too many people, and those I know all by names.

                > jihads but unless the increasingly limited resources of the world are
                > distributed in a way that is fair we risk more wars, ecological
                > degradation and guilt!

                Look at the headers: do you see the name of the newsgroup. You you
                understand the impacts of controlling matter at molecular scale? Yes, no
                limited resources no more, if we will exclude the number of atoms present
                in our solar system.

                > There is an expression that comes from a group of people in Africa -
                > "The poor man shames us all." The Western lifestyle is simply not

                Would you please stop "argumenting" in empty phrases. Restatement of a
                belief does not make it an argument. Repeat it long enough, and you'll
                become about as interesting as hamster in a running wheel.

                > going to be sustainable for much longer. Listen to scientists! The

                Scientists? I do, of course. Now you listen to me: I'm a scientist, too.

                > greenhouse is going to cause big problems for us very soon. If

                Apart from the fact that climate makes natural excursions of a far larger
                amplitude, I honestly doubt the problems will be all that big (at least
                where I sit), unless we've got a sudden stop in the sea current
                circulation dynamo due to sudden influx of freshwater, resulting in
                widespread glaciation. In any case, one of the few technologies capable of
                regulating the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is --
                drumroll, applause -- nanotechnology.

                And yeah: get off this rock.

                > nanotechnology can help solve these problems, good. But if
                > nanotechnology is merely going to be used to preserve and enhance the
                > lifestyles of those fortunate enough to be born in certain wealthy
                > countries then I question the reasons for its development.

                More empty phrases. First, the world is not a zero sum game. Quite the
                opposite in fact. So, the wealth created is not taken from poor slob in
                the Sahel zone. But the poor slob in the Sahel zone can profit from a
                technology that does water desalination essentially for free, or makes
                food and water from thin air and sunlight, clothes him, protects him from
                elements, and delivers the knowledge of the world to her fingertips.

                > The rich always promise the poor that they have social consciences and
                > that they will get around to helping when they have developed some new
                > technology - just around the corner. But you know and I know that this

                I don't promise anything. I know people who're in 3rd world help programs,
                and it's tough business. If you listen to people promising you easy
                solutions for free, you'll get what you paid for.

                > is the same old lie they always expect us to swallow. The "trickle
                > down" effect, much talked about in the early '80's, was and always
                > will be a load of old cobblers.

                The funny thing, in 2001 the state of the world as a whole (with the
                possible exception of reemergence of plagues, for what we cannot claim any
                credit) is much improved over the early 1980s. I wonder why.

                > Answer this for me: How does society as a whole and the human race
                > benefit from preserving human beings living today into some
                > unimaginably distant future? (I doubt whether Leonardo da Vinci or

                Unimagininably distant for *you*. I will personally benefit from that by
                -- gosh -- not dying, and I hope the others will have the good sense to do
                just the same. You might find out that the increased temporal depth alone
                will make better people, and cull the idiots by (mutual) self-termination.

                > Johann Sebastian Bach would have anything more to live for if they
                > were still around today - creativity has its limits!) I believe that

                Creativity may have limits, but your knee-jerk ignorance certainly seems
                to have none.

                > we have our time and we should use it sensibly, compassionately,
                > intelligently, benevolently and wisely. The greatest resource the

                Your choice of words stinks. "benevolently and wisely", eh. Such a
                compassionate, intelligent benevolent and wise beings as yourself,
                probably.

                > human race has is itself and the human race needs to work towards
                > making sure that every living person has a healthy and happy life with
                > equal access to education. Is this 'pie in the sky'? Before you answer

                Excellent plan, but how do you propose to go about to implement it? Not by
                redistributing the wealth, with the firehose, I hope?

                > this - think! Is the Singularity 'pie in the sky'?
                >
                > Nanotechnology? - Yes! Immortality? - er.... why do you want it? This

                Which concern of yours is it?

                > kind of gift seems to demand that the recipient should be required to
                > spend many years of his/her future life in community service.

                You're too funny, honestly. Rarely seen such a droll troll.

                > I don't want to die. But I probably will one day. I just hope that I
                > live a happy and healthy life.

                Good for you. Now please live your happy and healthy life, die in peace,
                and leave the rest of us. To live. In peace.

                > Indeed, one could argue that humans live far too long! (I am not

                Excellent, so let's kill them all, starting with you. Because live is such
                a terrible thing, it can't be allowed to be.

                > advocating this) Surely it is the quality of life rather than the
                > quantity of life that is important?

                I would like to have quantity, to have sufficient time to start worrying
                about such luxuries as quality.

                > Steven Langley Guy
                > (I can't imagine what possible use the world of 3001 AD would have for
                > Steven Langley Guy, other than a lab specimen or zoo animal!)

                Why wait so long? You can be a specimen, now.

                -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204/">leitl</a>

              • Steven Guy
                ... Yes, but would I be me? Psychologically I am a child of my culture and time (Melbourne, Australia in the 1980 s, I suppose). I tend to think that the human
                Message 7 of 11 , Aug 1, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                   

                  Ooo0001@... wrote:

                   
                  << Steven Langley Guy
                  (I can't imagine what possible use the world of 3001 AD would have for
                  Steven Langley Guy, other than a lab specimen or zoo animal!) >>

                  Sure, if you were frozen in time, you might be nothing more than an
                  antiquated curiosity. So why not grow and advance with the technology? In
                  3001 you might be as advanced and productive as any contemporaries, with the
                  additional benefit of a millennium of memories and (hopefully) wisdom behind
                  you.

                  Yes, but would I be me?
                  Psychologically I am a child of my culture and time (Melbourne, Australia in the 1980's, I suppose).
                  I tend to think that the human psyche may need to be redesigned to adapt to a longer life. Older people tend to be reactionary and conservative (Yes, I know that if one could stay young this might not happen).

                  Half of me believes that the desire for immortality is like the desires of an anorexic to be thin - based on self loathing and low self esteem. The other half of me thinks that immortality is intriguing and tempting.

                  Sure, as I said, I don't want to die. BUT, I know that I have no right to live forever. (I am not sure what "forever" means? Until the Protons decay? Until the whole galaxy winds up made of black holes and neutron stars?)

                   

                  Derek

                  Thanks for your thoughtful comments.
                  I'll shut up.
                  Sorry for disturbing the well meaning people on this list.
                  I will leave.

                  Steven
                   

                • Andrew
                  ... I m not seeing that as being particularly likely. When someone dies, their wealth would appear to normally get dispersed in some way. It would be easy
                  Message 8 of 11 , Aug 1, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > -----Original Message-----
                    > From: Jeffrey Paul Soreff [mailto:soreff@...]
                    > Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 12:06 PM
                    > To: nanotech@yahoogroups.com
                    > Subject: [nanotech] Re: Digest Number 510
                    >
                    >
                    > - To the extent that the 1st and 3rd world compete for, for instance,
                    > copper, in the marketplace, I could see someone in the 3rd world
                    > being pissed at a rise in _population_ of the 1st world. It makes
                    > _no_ sense, however, for the 3rd worlders to care about what the
                    > life expectancy is in the 1st world, with population held constant.
                    > A single 1st worlder, living a thousand years, and a stream of
                    > 1st worlders, each replacing the last at 80 year intervals, would
                    > compete for the supply of copper in about the same way.

                    I'm not seeing that as being particularly likely. When someone dies, their
                    wealth would appear to normally get dispersed in some way.

                    It would be easy enough for a virtual immortal, or even life expectancy at
                    1000 years, to put aside $100 in a bank for let's say 5% interest. If they
                    then ignore it, and come back in 473 Years they should have slightly over a
                    Trillion dollars..

                    Or if you wait 898 Years, you'd find you have just gone over One Trillion
                    Trillion dollars. ( ~ $1,015,780,000,000,000,000,000 with interest
                    compounded annually, not even monthly or daily )

                    You never know what someone with a Trillion Trillion dollars would do.. he
                    or she may want a lot of copper. :)


                    Of course I personally think that none of that is relevant as I think by
                    then the human race will be fundamentally and vastly different from the
                    society we know today.

                    Cheers

                    Andrew
                  • Eugene Leitl
                    ... I m glad I could have been of assistance. ... I doubt it. I was born too soon to make it (cryonics is an iffy business), I don t believe in exponential
                    Message 9 of 11 , Aug 2, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Steven Guy wrote:

                      > Thanks for your reply, Mr Leitl. I hope the that the world is full of

                      I'm glad I could have been of assistance.

                      > 'Eugene Leitl's' several million years from now. I won't be there but

                      I doubt it. I was born too soon to make it (cryonics is an iffy business),
                      I don't believe in exponential autoamplification, and associating
                      self-derived systems several megayears dowstream with current self appears
                      rather pointless. Then why not a bandersnatch.

                      > I am sure that the world will be a much better place when people like
                      > me who choose to question and 'play the devil's' advocate are long
                      > gone! Certainty is a wonderful thing, Mr Leitl! I'm glad you've got

                      You would be surprised to learn that I'm usually considered the local
                      nattering nabob of negativity in transhumance/postbovine circles.

                      > it. You are a scientist and I am merely Baroque musician, househusband
                      > and father of two wonderful little boys.

                      Nothing wrong with that. I'm sure you're a nice person, and a competent
                      captain of your life. Just realize that some of your views are not shared
                      here. Don't tell us what to do with our lives, and all is peachy-keen.

                      > Regards,
                      > Steven
                      >
                      > PS: I look forward to the benefits of nanotechnology, even yet, but I
                      > despair of the way we treat each other. (I am as guilty as anyone of
                      > occasional overreaction and foolishness)

                      I'm not sure you understand the purpose of flaming as arisen on USENET.
                    • Jeffrey Paul Soreff
                      ... instance, ... makes ... constant. ... would ... Thanks for the response. ... dies, their ... expectancy at ... If they ... over a ... In practise,
                      Message 10 of 11 , Aug 2, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In nanotech@y..., "Andrew" <derry@s...> wrote:
                        >
                        >
                        > > -----Original Message-----
                        > > From: Jeffrey Paul Soreff [mailto:soreff@a...]
                        > > Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 12:06 PM
                        > > To: nanotech@y...
                        > > Subject: [nanotech] Re: Digest Number 510
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > - To the extent that the 1st and 3rd world compete for, for
                        instance,
                        > > copper, in the marketplace, I could see someone in the 3rd world
                        > > being pissed at a rise in _population_ of the 1st world. It
                        makes
                        > > _no_ sense, however, for the 3rd worlders to care about what the
                        > > life expectancy is in the 1st world, with population held
                        constant.
                        > > A single 1st worlder, living a thousand years, and a stream of
                        > > 1st worlders, each replacing the last at 80 year intervals,
                        would
                        > > compete for the supply of copper in about the same way.

                        Thanks for the response.

                        > I'm not seeing that as being particularly likely. When someone
                        dies, their
                        > wealth would appear to normally get dispersed in some way.
                        >
                        > It would be easy enough for a virtual immortal, or even life
                        expectancy at
                        > 1000 years, to put aside $100 in a bank for let's say 5% interest.
                        If they
                        > then ignore it, and come back in 473 Years they should have slightly
                        over a
                        > Trillion dollars..

                        In practise, institutions (e.g. the RCC) that have been around
                        for more than 1000 years haven't benefited so spectacularly
                        from exponential growth. I suspect that, by the time one factors
                        in the effects of inflation, government seizures of various sorts,
                        currency devaluations, failures of financial institutions, etc.
                        the real risk-free interest rate may be close to zero (anybody
                        have hard data?).

                        There are a couple of other ways that a stream of individuals
                        and a single long-lived individual can act similarly from an
                        exterior perspective. You note that an individual's wealth
                        generally gets scattered on their death - but it is rare for it
                        to get scattered outside their nation. If one considers the
                        1st world as an aggregate, transfers of wealth _within_ it have
                        no 1st order effect on the rest of the globe. As I've mentioned,
                        there are also persistent institutions that function in ways
                        somewhat analogous to long-lived individuals. In addition,
                        even just inheritance within close-knit families can operate
                        to stabilize concentrations of wealth.

                        > Of course I personally think that none of that is relevant as I
                        think by
                        > then the human race will be fundamentally and vastly different from
                        the
                        > society we know today.

                        Agreed. Admittedly I am just considering just the one change,
                        in 1st world life expectancy, in isolation. Sometimes that is
                        the best way to look at a situation, simply because the number
                        of alternate possibilities explodes so fast when one tries to
                        look at plausible concurrent changes. If several changes are
                        _causally_ linked, then looking at them together is important.

                        Best wishes,
                        -Jeff
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.