Brent Allsop wrote
> In this day where almost every citizen has a large and
> rapidly growing stock portfolio, and the ability to purchase huge
> amounts of computing power...
Do you really think that is true, even in America (let alone the developing
world)? The _minority_ of citizens have a stock portfolio, and the minority
have the ability to purchase huge amounts of computing power. No doubt the
demographic on this list is different, but don't extrapolate it to 'every
citizen', without first calling in at your local benefits agency, charitable
hospital, shelter for the homeless, etc. and asking the people there whether
they prefer PC or Macs, or how their bonds are performing.
> ...every individual is going to have the
> ability to do and get almost anything they want, completely ignoring
> any central government elite or whatever.
As above: no, they're not.
<snip>
> But there is no logical reason why any advanced, able to
> become anything he wanted being would even want to do such absurd and
> irrational kinds of "bad" things...
Since people of this type do not necessarily act on 'logical reason' when
they carry out atrocities today, the lack of a 'logical reason' in the
future will not stop them continuing to carry them out.
> Now that we've finally achieved the ability
> to grow intentionally and intelligently, rather than via unintelligent
> survival of the fittest random mutations, there is no reason to be
> selfish, domineering, or whatever.
Yes, there is. Technology is not cost-free, and resources are not (yet)
unlimited. Nor are intention and intelligence guarantees of agreement. I'm
not sure what the reaction to GM foods in the US has been like, but in the
UK it serves to illustrate that technological advancement is far from
controversy-free, and thus necessitates a degree of selfishness and
domination on behalf of both its 'pros' and its 'antis'.
> Once we (machines included) can really feel whatever we want
> to feel, and not what our creator hard wired us to want to feel, we'll
> all really want to wire these feelings to do only good things.
(A personified creator?)
Why will we want to wire feelings to do only good things? Or, perhaps, why
will we _all_ want to do that? If someone has a rabid desire for power,
domination and territory, and sees technology as a way to achieve those
aims, why would that individual choose to remove those feelings, rather than
carpe his diem? And who will decide which things are 'good' and which are
'bad'?
> Pure
> cold hard logic will dictate that all of our ancestors that died
> before making it to this future glorious immortal heaven are our real
> creators and the ones that gave us this glorious gift for free. They
> are the ones that really deserve it... <snip>... The only way to really do
this,
> according to cold hard logic, is to find some way to resurrect every
> last one of our ancestors, to completely achieve a perfect history...
And so welcome back to Stalin, Hitler, Jack the Ripper, Vlad the Impaler...
whom cold, hard logic dictate to be a few of our glorious creators.
> If
> I make it to that future time, I will always feel lonely without, and
> indebted to all of my ancestors which are my real creators. To think
> that a more intelligent being than myself will have less of such
> desires, especially logical machines, seems to me to be completely
> absurd, illogical, and irrational.
Oh, I don't know. Perhaps 'guilt' and 'loneliness' will be considered
negative, 'bad', emotions, and someone will have decided to wire them out,
as you suggested.
> We are about to overcome the evil of all future death and
> suffering. That's the easy part. But, there will still be people
> that are still dead, the only real "evil" that will remain.
We are not about to overcome all future suffering, and the removal of
death, and resurrection of the dead, will not end all evil.
So, in summary. At some point in the future, the dead will be resurrected,
and will join the living. A judgement will be passed to decide what is good
and bad, and the bad things will be removed. Then everyone will live in
heaven where everyone is happy and there is no suffering. I can't help but
find this has a familiar ring to it.
> But things that are good have an obvious
> advantage over all that is bad, namely, that which is "Good", is by
> definition, that which everything and everyone one wants.
There are very few things indeed which "everything and everyone wants".
Therefore, almost nothing is good. As an example, in talking to people, I
find that many are happy to die, and consider it unnatural and undesirable
to live forever. The problem in your definition is made evident, as you
continue:
> And that
> which is "bad" is, by definition, what everyone and everything wants
> to overcome.
You are dichotomizing good and bad. What of all those things which, by your
definition, are neither good nor bad: those things which some people want,
and others do not. "Good" and "bad" are subjective concepts, and any
assessment of good/bad for a population of greater than one can take place,
at best, on a majority basis. Your argument started by claiming that
individuals would become self-governing. If that is the case (which I would
dispute), then there will be disagreements, not perfect, tranquil,
happiness.
Sarah
------- ------------------------------------------------------
w w w. | supra Lunam sunt aeterna omnia (Cic., 'De Republica')
seraph | http://www.seraph.org
.o r g | sarah.marr@dial.pipex.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:05:29 MDT