Maybe its a good idea for the government to restrict access to this tech
until we have evolved to the place where we as a species are a lot more
trustworthy. I'm afraid that may not happen until after some nano-disaster
makes us realize finally that we either love and live together or we don't
and become extinct together.
Zero, if you keep thinking like that you may wind up the liberal Democratic
contender for the presidency in 2020! Mike Lorrey will grind his teeth when
he hears you discuss 'nano control' for the sake of the public good! You
will be campaigning on the promise to bring to justice the underground group
of plotters known as the 'Yudkowskians' who want to bring on a massive
singularity! lol! :)
The novel 'Aristoi' is a far-future example of this. After the original
Earth was destroyed by nano they moved to carefully control the technology
and even then there were serpents in paradise.
When will we as a race be trustworthy, any time soon? lol I agree with
Anders about the directions to go in making nano a sustainable technology
despite the existance of those who would subvert it for criminal goals.
Making people saner, putting safeguards into place, having an open
debate about issues and applying the technology for protection (such
as active shields for nano) might not be enough, but it buys us time
and maneouvering room.
This will be a much bigger test for humanity then nuclear weapons or
computer hacking. And yet we have largely done well with the power of the
atom and silicon chip which gives me hope for the future. I think that even
though Anders shows us a road that has scary implications(near-anything
boxes in the hands of the common citizen), it is the high road and is the
only place we can go to maximize the benefits for all while realistically
minimizing the dark possibilities.
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:04:47 MDT