Thanks!:)
>As an aside, to do these things, which I feel may be necessary, we (>H)
>should cultivate contacts/partnerships with the existing hacker community.
>Nanotech, as an example, can't be contained, but good control software
>(maybe) can be.
I think we should just keep a) expanding the movement (get more
people onboard the transhuman express:) and b) doing the hard
work of advancing the ideas -- in terms of planning or developing
them. For the latter, one thing we can do which is low cost and
not as hard to do, is try to find porfitable uses for any new
technology that arises.
Thus, when arguing for cloning, we should not confine ourselves
to saying there's nothing morally repugnant with it or pointing to
flaws in the logic of the horror stories, but also point out the
benefits and opportunities.
To digress, an interesting recent argument against cloning I ran
into was that clones would be treated differently. Perhaps they
will, but my counter was that so are lots of different kinds of
people. Pick a minority in a given area, such as, in most of
America, Blacks, short people, gays, and atheists. Surely,
these people are treated differently and often for the wrong
reasons, BUT would one argue that they should be carted
off and not allowed to mix because of this? At the same time,
the solution to such prejudice might be just to make more
clones. The mainstream will then come to see it as different
but tolerable.
>Good to have a distribution network already in place, no?
I agree, though we should evaluate the efficiency of various
networks -- real or imagined. We already have the internet,
and it seems to be good at allowing us to chat, find information
and spread the latest news.
And some of the hacker community is no doubt in our ranks
already.:)
Daniel Ust