Re: [nanotech] Digest Number 177
- Samantha Atkins writes:
> In point of fact nanotech provides most of the raw means to build aYou make it sound as if collectively we had any choice whatsoever in
> heaven on earth. Just add that very difficult to come by commodity that
> nanotech does not provide, wisdom. That and the will to do so.
> Do you imagine that the people involved with nanotech are onlyPeople involved with nano who're going to make the difference will be
> guru-directed drones incapable of grasping the possibilities and
> generating their own implications and passions? Is this a claim that
> people can not or will not think for themselves and are at the mercy of
> charismatic leaders? If so I would suggest you speak for yourself.
the R&D mainstream, both in the industry and academia, soon. It will
be a big crowd, and a highly heterogenous one, both in respect to
creed and personality. Trying to say anything specific about them does
clearly lead nowhere.
> Heh, there is nothing at all wrong with being passionate. Passions giveToo much strong emotion has the unfortunate effect of inhibiting
> us zest and energy for the work at hand. The possibilities for good
ratio. Because of so much is at stake we can't afford not to tread
carefully and wisely here.
> (and for ill) are in fact truly staggering and quite stirringEspecially transcending the narrow limitations of humanity. I don't
> legitimately of passion. That doesn't mean we don't ground the passion
> in reality. After all, the most passionate passions in nanotech are
> about extending what is possible in *reality*, not in some fantasy
> land. But how on earth can one not be passionate about the possibility
> to effectively end material scarcity, clean up the environment totally,
> acheive near immortality, make space and the stars available to humanity
> and so on? It doesn't get more enticing nor provide more room for
know about you, but I'm tired of being stupid, limited in space and in
time, ignorant, vulnerable and powerless.
> changing the world for the good than this. Only the dead could feelDon't forget, we're living in very interesting times. If you only see
> dispassionate in the presence of so much.
an Eden ahead, I recommend a quick connection to the reality. Fantasy kills.
- 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