RE: [nanotech] Digest Number 177
- Clements, Robert writes:
>I don't know what progress is. The word is by now quite meaningless.
> What i'm saying as NT's visions of progress are not inherently universal; &
> if vague dreams of wonders will probably not attract broad financial supportBut nanotech gives you incremental profits. It's just that the more
> (& even if it does, the whole thing might blow up in everyone's faces, as
> was the case with both Iridium & Monsanto). As a result, it's a bit silly to
> argue to argue that your vision of NT progress is somehow inevitable...
> which is where this argument originally begin.
you invest, the more starts coming back. Don't you think the
semiconductor people won't take autoassembly of 2d mosaics by
self-organization of Si-surface absorbed highly designed organic muck
when they run into structure size and yield troubles? They'll have to,
or get out of business. The protein people are working like crazy on
PFP. Because molecular medicine is really really major big bucks, and
it's already happening via the combinatorial chemistry route. Proximal
probe is necessary for both research and quality control, especially
in semiconductor fabbing, and manipulative proximal probe could be
useful for mask patterning, and prototyping, and what not. There are
many paths, most of them profitable, and they all converge.
There are so many ways to skin a weasel.
Even if a few people would be aware that technoholocaust is at hand,
it wouldn't matter. Economic realities would still make it happen, and
the herd wouldn't realize what was going on, until the doors of the
slaughterhouse have been rammed shut behind them.
I do not know whether this advocatus diaboli, or not. It doesn't
matter much which, anyway.
- Samantha Atkins writes:
> Fine. But the point of bringing the book up was as an example of howAbout the same as South American marsupials were tolerated by mammals,
> transhuman and human species (and several things in-between) might all
> exist and tolerate each other. Infinite increasing space is not
I guess. Or as prebiotic ursoup was tolerated by the first
autoreplicators, and their successors.
> necessary to that point. Nor is it inevitable that exponential growthStochastic variation over a population. Self-selection for most
> is the norm although many of your posts seem to assume that it is and
> this will lead to an inevitable conflict that will wipe out humanity as
> we know it.
autoreplicative systems. It ain't pretty, but this is how the world
works. You might reject it, but you will have to eventually deal with
it, so putting on blinders is not a constructive strategy. YMMV.
> Infinite enlightenment is not required for peaceful coexistence. Just aTolerance requires sentience. Water hyacinth is not sentient, nor are
> bit of tolerance. Much, much easier to come by. Especially if the
Oz rabbits sentient.
> interests of the different groups involved diverge enough and/or thePolice and nuke microorganisms out of existance, in an attempt to keep
> supply of what they commonly want is more than sufficient for all
> I expect they will have their bad-asses and that they will be in some
> sense policed and dealt with much as our own are.
a few patches of agar sustainably uncolonized. Would seem an excersise
in futility, wouldn't it? Moreover, why would you do it? Is agar so
dear to your heart to go through all the hassle?
> Perhaps it is because you are not harping on evolutionary biology basicsDoes intelligence give you complete control over yourself and the rest
> but own an interpretation of evolution and the application of that
> interpretation to future species whose characteristics we can only
> vaguely guess. The introduction of intelligence throws a bit of a kink
> in too simplistic evolutionary models.
of the biosphere? Do you understand the impact of Godel and
undecidedability on information ecologies?
> Why exactly will they have little to fear from each other? Where is theFor the same reason you don't expect to be eaten alive when walking
out of your house door. Unless you happen to be a piece of
comestibles, you're more or less safe, especially if you're at the top
of the food chain. But the food is far from being safe.
> natural competition with flesh beings for all too limited mutual desired