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

RE: [ufodiscussion] Singularities And Nightmares

Expand Messages
  • Jahnets
    There is something I don t think that I ve heard anyone else mention. For this western society where many are some form of Christian to not think of this, I
    Message 1 of 2 , Mar 31, 2006
      There is something I don't think that I've heard anyone else mention. For
      this western society where many are some form of Christian to not think of
      this, I find amazing. According to the Bible, God created the universe and
      there was law and structure out of chaos. Now what do you think is going to
      happen when humanity becomes even more chaotic than they are now? Earth will
      roll and humanity or what's left of it will go back to the stone age. Try,
      try again...Humanity needs to learn to think ahead and be responsible for
      what it creates and how it affects others. That others means the planets as
      well as the other living creatures under humanities wing. Just like humanity
      will act to stop a creation that gets out of control or should, so will the
      gods act if humanity allows itself to loose control.

      The center of the universe sends out new planets like a pin ball machine
      spits out new balls, only it sends them out onto the arms of the universe.
      That right there should point out to humans that the rocks the Mother throws
      are as big as asteroids and planets. So it really doesn't matter how much
      Nasa is looking for near earth orbiting asteroids if she can do this... Now
      that article about Sophia, which I figure has deep connections with the
      church, said as much. They seemed to feel that the Sun, Earth, and Moon were
      living beings. Do they not believe the rest of the Mothers army, that when
      there are no chemtrails we witness in the sky each night watching us, are
      not living beings? Because they are learning different lessons and their
      body doesn't look like yours?

      Isn't it ironic that the gods have literally come down to earth and
      incarnated into human bodies to help humanity evolve and still humanity does
      not comprehend that the ensouled-spirit can take any form, any body it
      wants. If I choose to change bodies from a womans body to a planets body,
      does that make me a different being? No, the answer is I would have done the
      same as purchasing a new car. I would still be me. It keeps coming down to
      this one item. No matter which direction I come from it always comes down to
      humanity realizing they are not their body...


      -----Original Message-----
      From: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
      [mailto:ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Light Eye
      Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 10:06 AM
      To: global_rumblings@yahoogroups.com; Global_Rumblings@...;
      SpeakIt@...; ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com;
      changingplanetchat@yahoogroups.com; astrosciences@yahoogroups.com;
      GS5555@...; giuliano.marinkovic@...;
      wayfarer9@...; parascience@...
      Subject: [ufodiscussion] Singularities And Nightmares


      Dear Friends,

      This is long so I'm only posting an excerpt. Click the link to read the
      whole article.

      http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=memelist.html?m=1%23656

      Love and Light.

      David

      Singularities and Nightmares
      by David Brin

      Options for a coming singularity include self-destruction of
      civilization, a positive singularity, a negative singularity (machines take
      over), and retreat into tradition. Our urgent goal: find (and avoid) failure
      modes, using anticipation (thought experiments) and resiliency --
      establishing robust systems that can deal with almost any problem as it
      arises.

      Originally published in Nanotechnology Perceptions: A Review of
      Ultraprecision Engineering and Nanotechnology, Volume 2, No. 1, March 27
      2006.1 Reprinted with permission on KurzweilAI.net March 28, 2006.

      In order to give you pleasant dreams tonight, let me offer a few
      possibilities about the days that lie ahead—changes that may occur within
      the next twenty or so years, roughly a single human generation.
      Possibilities that are taken seriously by some of today's best minds.
      Potential transformations of human life on Earth and, perhaps, even what it
      means to be human.


      For example, what if biologists and organic chemists manage to do to
      their laboratories the same thing that cyberneticists did to computers?
      Shrinking their vast biochemical labs from building-sized behemoths down to
      units that are utterly compact, making them smaller, cheaper, and more
      powerful than anyone imagined. Isn't that what happened to those gigantic
      computers of yesteryear? Until, today, your pocket cell phone contains as
      much processing power and sophistication as NASA owned during the moon
      shots. People who foresaw this change were able to ride this technological
      wave. Some of them made a lot of money.


      Biologists have come a long way already toward achieving a similar
      transformation. Take, for example, the Human Genome Project, which sped up
      the sequencing of DNA by so many orders of magnitude that much of it is now
      automated and miniaturized. Speed has skyrocketed, while prices plummet,
      promising that each of us may soon be able to have our own genetic mappings
      done, while-U-wait, for the same price as a simple EKG. Imagine extending
      this trend, by simple extrapolation, compressing a complete biochemical
      laboratory the size of a house down to something that fits cheaply on your
      desktop. A MolecuMac, if you will. The possibilities are both marvelous and
      frightening.

      When designer drugs and therapies are swiftly modifiable by skilled
      medical workers, we all should benefit.


      But then, won't there also be the biochemical equivalent of "hackers"?
      What are we going to do when kids all over the world can analyze and
      synthesize any organic compound, at will? In that event, we had better hope
      for accompanying advances in artificial intelligence and robotics... at
      least to serve our fast food burgers. I'm not about to eat at any restaurant
      that hires resentful human adolescents, who swap fancy recipes for their
      home molecular synthesizers over the Internet. Would you?


      Now don't get me wrong. If we ever do have MolecuMacs on our desktops,
      I'll wager that 99 percent of the products will be neutral or profoundly
      positive, just like most of the software creativity flowing from young
      innovators today. But if we're already worried about a malicious one percent
      in the world of bits and bytes—hackers and cyber-saboteurs—then what happens
      when this kind of 'creativity' moves to the very stuff of life itself? Nor
      have we mentioned the possibility of intentional abuse by larger
      entities—terror cabals, scheming dictatorships, or rogue corporations.


      These fears start to get even more worrisome when we ponder the next
      stage, beyond biotech. Deep concerns are already circulating about what will
      happen when nanotechnology—ultra-small machines building products
      atom-by-atom to precise specifications—finally hits its stride. Molecular
      manufacturing could result in super-efficient factories that create wealth
      at staggering rates of efficiency. Nano-maintenance systems may enter your
      bloodstream to cure disease or fine-tune bodily functions. Visionaries
      foresee this technology helping to save the planet from earlier human
      errors, for instance by catalyzing the recycling of obstinate pollutants.
      Those desktop units eventually may become universal fabricators that turn
      almost any raw material into almost any product you might desire...


      ... or else (some worry), nanomachines might break loose to become the
      ultimate pollution. A self-replicating disease, gobbling everything in
      sight, conceivably turning the world's surface into gray goo.2


      Others have raised this issue before, some of them in very colorful
      ways. Take the sensationalist novel Prey, by Michael Crichton, which
      portrays a secretive agency hubristically pushing an arrogant new
      technology, heedless of possible drawbacks or consequences. Crichton's
      typical worried scenario about nanotechnology follows a pattern nearly
      identical to his earlier thrillers about unleashed dinosaurs, robots, and
      dozens of other techie perils, all of them viewed with reflexive suspicious
      loathing. (Of course, in every situation, the perilous excess happens to
      result from secrecy, a topic that we will return to, later.) A much earlier
      and better novel, Blood Music, by Greg Bear, presented the up and downside
      possibilities of nanotech with profound vividness.

      Especially the possibility that most worries even optimists within the
      nanotechnology community—that the pace of innovation may outstrip our
      ability to cope.


      Now, at one level, this is an ancient fear. If you want to pick a single
      cliché that is nearly universally held, across all our surface boundaries of
      ideology and belief—e.g. left-versus-right, or even religious-vs-secular—the
      most common of all would probably be:


      "Isn't it a shame that our wisdom has not kept pace with technology?"


      While this cliché is clearly true at the level of solitary human beings,
      and even mass-entities like corporations, agencies or political parties, I
      could argue that things aren't anywhere near as clear at the higher level of
      human civilization.

      Elsewhere I have suggested that "wisdom" needs to be defined according
      to outcomes and processes, not the perception or sagacity of any particular
      individual guru or sage. Take the outcome of the Cold War… the first known
      example of humanity acquiring a means of massive violence, and then mostly
      turning away from that precipice. Yes, that means of self-destruction is
      still with us. But two generations of unprecedented restraint suggest that
      we have made a little progress in at least one kind of "wisdom." That is,
      when the means of destruction are controlled by a few narrowly selected
      elite officials on both sides of a simple divide.


      But are we ready for a new era, when the dilemmas are nowhere near as
      simple? In times to come, the worst dangers to civilization may not come
      from clearly identifiable and accountable adversaries—who want to win an
      explicit, set-piece competition—as much as from a general democratization of
      the means to do harm. New technologies, distributed by the Internet and
      effectuated by cheaply affordable tools, will offer increasing numbers of
      angry people access to modalities of destructive power--means that will be
      used because of justified grievance, avarice, indignant anger, or simply
      because they are there.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --
      YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

      a.. Visit your group "ufodiscussion" on the web.

      b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      ufodiscussion-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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


      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.