Zero Powers wrote:
>
> >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?
Yes it is. Otherwise, I'd have built my own nuclear propulsion sytem and
been off this brick.
Your contention that nanotech would be more dangerous than nukes is pure
speculation, and your assumptions that the human race, after another
century of development after nuclear power was first developed, had not
become more mature (or that the lowest common denominator that could
afford such technology would be worse than, say, Kruschev, Stalin,
Brezhnev, Eisenhower, or Ronald Reagan). Your continual capacity to
think the absolute worst of your fellow human beings continually amazes
me, then again, considering how hypocritical you are, in that you only
think that everyone else needs to be transparent, not you. Still won't
identify yourself, eh? What do you have to hide? If you think so poorly
of your fellow man, it must be because you are such a rough specimin
yourself that you cannot show your own face to the light of day, but you
cannot imagine that anyone else on this poor planet could be any better
than you. What are you hiding?????
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:06:51 MDT