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

RE: Nano's-futuristic impact?

Expand Messages
  • Andrew Derry
    ... I think it s a little more complicated than simply fair distribution... however.. ... Why not? When nano comes, one might easily think that almost
    Message 1 of 11 , Dec 13, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      At 09:28 AM 12/13/99 -0800, Alan Heaberlin wrote:
      >From: "Alan Heaberlin" <amh@...>
      >What kind of government can we predict
      >of a nano-future? Almost certainly a world-wide
      >central government. We would have that kind of
      >government now but for the complications of fair
      >distribution.

      I think it's a little more complicated than simply fair distribution...
      however..

      >In order for the concept of a one-world government
      >to work, there can be no non-productive members of
      >the society (or overpopulation!).

      Why not? When nano comes, one might easily think that almost everyone
      could become a non-productive member of society.. heck, let the nanites do
      the work, once we get to the point they're capable.. of course they can't
      do all the work, but on the other hand, not everybody will want to not
      work.. should balance out, at least, IMHO.

      >The emergence of any technology isn't enough to
      >counteract 50,000 years of the evolution of a
      >warlike tribe of nomadic hunter-gatherers, who are
      >more motivated by greed and envy than by any
      >desire for peaceful utopian society.

      Why not?

      >I argue that there will always be someone jealous
      >of power and prepared to exert it at the expense
      >of someone else.

      Perhaps.. perhaps the sole role of "government" will be to prevent that
      type of person from doing just that.

      > Preventing the emergence of
      >Nano-Masters will be the greatest challenge...Or
      >preserving your position as Nano-Master.

      Quite possibly there will be power struggles at the beginning, yes.. and
      who knows, maybe into the future.. but there's nothing to say this is an
      inherent trait.. more like something that evolved as a means of
      survival. If consciousness can be enhanced and/or transformed, we could
      simply remove that like a wart.

      >Cynical?

      Perhaps if you think this a more likely guess than some of the other
      happier predictions. ;)

      > Yes, but I can see no historical example
      >of any technology changing basic human nature.

      You also see no historical example that could change the basic rules of
      play so fundamentally that's even _remotely_ close to what nano could
      potentially do. You might as well ask a blind person to tell you what the
      color green is like.

      >Arguably, our technology has only encouraged us to
      >become more greedy and less utopian than we were
      >before the "Industrial Revolution" and
      >"Information Age."

      I won't disagree there, but again comparing "our technology" to the
      potential of nano seems pointless.. you would have an easier time getting a
      caveman to imagine trading in his club for a computer and guess at what it
      might be used for. Much easier, I would think.

      >One of our intrepid listers has espoused the
      >notion that no technology has ever been driven by
      >ethical consideration. Maybe that's the missing
      >component in the futuristic considerations of
      >Nanotechnology.

      I think there's a lot more than that missing.. considering that it's
      possible that our very mind, bodies, and brains could be changed by this
      coming technology. Imagine being able to increase your consciousness a
      thousand fold, or more.. make your memory permanent and instantly
      recallable.. be able to do any calculations you wish a billion times faster
      than all the supercomputers in the world today.. or more.. I think that
      technology will come. Don't want to hook your brain into it? Don't
      worry.. _someone_ else will be happy to.. and what will that person think?



      >(Adjusting my flame-resistant Nomex underwear
      >now.)

      Oops.. (*searching his pockets for his lighter*) sorry, I don't seem to
      have a light for my rusty flamethrower. ;)



      Cheers

      Andrew
    • steve wishnevsky
      ... Money hasn t had intrinsic value since the gold standard.... money is just a counting medium. ... intelligence ... does not follow.... the trend now is to
      Message 2 of 11 , Dec 13, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        Alan Heaberlin wrote:

        > From: "Alan Heaberlin" <amh@...>
        >
        > > -----Original Message-----
        > > From: RCETMORGAN@...
        > > [mailto:RCETMORGAN@...]
        > > Sent: Saturday, December 11, 1999 10:00 AM
        > > To: nanotech@onelist.com
        > > Subject: [nanotech] Nano's-futuristic impact?
        > >
        > >
        > > From: RCETMORGAN@...
        > >
        > > Money is merely symbolic. It is only in its
        > acceptance that there is any value.

        Money hasn't had intrinsic value since the gold standard.... money is
        just a counting medium.

        > When our world
        > has been revolutionized by nanotechnology what
        > will have intrinsic value? Energy? Time?
        > Longevity?

        intelligence

        > Today we rely on the symbolic value of money
        > because that's the way it works best for
        > government. What kind of government can we predict
        > of a nano-future? Almost certainly a world-wide
        > central government.

        does not follow.... the trend now is to decentralization, and the
        dismantling of empires. For example, america just relinquished the panama
        canal, and the soviet union dissolved.

        > We would have that kind of
        > government now but for the complications of fair
        > distribution.
        > In order for the concept of a one-world government
        > to work, there can be no non-productive members of
        > the society (or overpopulation!). This is why
        > emerging countries allow their populations of
        > non-technical, uneducated, unproductive people to
        > die from famine and disease. We have plenty of
        > examples of this being encouraged by their
        > governments (Ethiopia, Somalia, etc.)
        > Alternatively, some governments develop classes of
        > slaves and serfs (China, Russia). Marginally
        > better than killing them but serving the function
        > of isolating them and getting some return on their
        > subsistence expenses.

        again i don't see this... the examples you quote are the most inefficient
        governments on earth... somalia has barely achieved tribalism, much less any
        form of planned economy. Russia is almost anarchistic as it is forced to
        capitalize. It reminds me of america a century and a half ago, when there
        was no real line between the legal and illegal economies

        > The emergence of any technology isn't enough to
        > counteract 50,000 years of the evolution of a
        > warlike tribe of nomadic hunter-gatherers, who are
        > more motivated by greed and envy than by any
        > desire for peaceful utopian society.
        > I argue that there will always be someone jealous
        > of power and prepared to exert it at the expense
        > of someone else. Preventing the emergence of
        > Nano-Masters will be the greatest challenge...Or
        > preserving your position as Nano-Master.
        > Cynical? Yes, but I can see no historical example
        > of any technology changing basic human nature.
        >

        the only progress ever is technological.. or do you get your food by rapine
        and pillage?... most of us take advantage of the marvelous cooperative
        enterprise called the super market, that brings us foods from all over the
        world at the lowest prices in history.

        > Arguably, our technology has only encouraged us to
        > become more greedy and less utopian than we were
        > before the "Industrial Revolution" and
        > "Information Age."
        > One of our intrepid listers has espoused the
        > notion that no technology has ever been driven by
        > ethical consideration. Maybe that's the missing
        > component in the futuristic considerations of
        >

        that was me, and you missed my point. true that no technology has ever
        been successfully repressed, but equally, only technologically advanced
        societies have the economic surpluses necessary for the luxury of ethics....
        how many hunter gatherers do you suppose would support PETA? As Liza
        Dolittle's father said, " Morals, Gov'nor...Can't afford them."... steve w.

        > Nanotechnology.
        > (Adjusting my flame-resistant Nomex underwear
        > now.)
        >
        > Alan Heaberlin
        >
        > > The Nanotechnology Industries mailing list.
        > "Nanotechnology: solutions for the future."
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.