>From: "Billy Brown" <bbrown@transcient.com>
>
>Zero Powers wrote:
> > How about this scenario. Nanoassemblers are developed and the decision
>is
> > made to let the public benefit from them. But in order to be issued a
> > nanobox of your very own, you must first agree to have your every
> > interaction with any other human, computer or nanodevice recorded and
> > publicly stored.
> >
> > So you have your choice, to be surveilled or not. Curious: Which would
> > *you* choose?
>
>This is another scenario that is only possible if you already have an
>authoritarian government - and in this case it has to control the whole
>world, not just one part of it.
>
>In a free society there is no entity that has the power to compel me to
>sign
>any particular agreement in order to gain access to nanotech. I can buy
>from Zyvex, or Nanotech Industries, or the Japanese, or anyone else who has
>technology to sell. The odds of there being a monopoly (or even a small
>pool of vendors) for very long are just about nil.
Odds are, since nanotech will be even *more* dangerous than nuclear weapons,
access to it will be guarded just as tightly as nuclear weapon access is
now. Have you tried to buy a nuclear weapon lately? Is the reason that you
cannot because you live under the thumb of an authoritarian government?
-Zero
"I like dreams of the future better than the history of the past"
--Thomas Jefferson
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:06:51 MDT