From: Hal Finney <hal@rain.org>
>One of the big problems in any 21st century SF which incorporates
>nanotech and similar advances is how to avoid the Singularity -
>the acceleration of advancement into a pace so furious that the
>world becomes unrecognizable. It appears that Halperin has no more
>than postponed the Singularity, as it looks unlikely to me that
>humanity will come out of his 22nd century in any kind of
>recognizable form.
True, the "Singularity" as you define it did not appear, but I
think that there is a certain amount of subjectivity to it's
definition. The rate of progress as portrayed in the book would
floor the average American, and completely overwhelm the average
third-worlder. I know I was reeling at some of the possibilities.
>Halperin has a couple of tricks to slow the rate of technology
>advance. One is to put restrictions on AI research. Some early AI
>machines become aggressive and kill people, and after that they
>are not supposed to be programmed with emotions or survival
>instincts. They're just a bunch of Vulcan types. They do become
>much smarter than humans over the course of the 21st century, but
>presumably these restrictions do limit their rate of advance.
I think this was more than a mere trick to avoid the singularity,
The author, seems to be against certain advances:
"We could implant intelligent machines in physical bodies like
ours, or some other higher life-forms. Hell, before you know it,
we'll be advanced enough to create a wholw new species superior to
ourselves. Sure we could do that, but why would we? Then we'd have
created a hyperintelligent competitive species. Such an act would
be insane: would have a wholly unpredictable outcome. It would be
as mad as a full-scale nuclear exchange in the 1980's so I don't
expect it, even in light of todays crisis." (page 303)
>The other magic which Halperin has up his sleeve is his Truth
>Machine. This was the subject of his first novel, which I haven't
>read. The device is a foolproof lie detector, and it allows laws
>to be enforced with a certainty far beyond anything which would be
>reasonable today.
Yes, I've ordered, but not yet received his first book, the truth
machine made for a very interesting story element.
>Once there is a world government armed with the truth machine,
>they can pass laws restricting access to nanotech (and presumably
>any other destabilizing technologies) and be sure they are
>enforced. This prevents various technology runaway scenarios,
>both good and bad.
>Not having read the first novel, I find the potential for abuse
>with a truth machine very troubling. It is presented in almost
>purely beneficial terms, but obviously it could be misused as
>well. The idea reminds me somewhat of David Brin's "transparent
>society", where you have a Big Brother-like monitoring system, but
>it's OK because the people doing the monitoring get monitored,
>too. The danger is that if an evil person somehow got into power,
>he'd be able to use these technologies to maintain his power very
>effectivelly. No revolt or rebellion could be hidden.
>In effect this kind of technology is a power amplifier. Whoever
>has the bulk of power in society can use this to enforce their
>will. If the mass of people ultimately has the power, then in
>many ways the truth machine will be beneficial, as they can
>prevent evil people from seizing power away from them. On the
>other hand, where the masses misuse their power, there won't be
>the limitations on their abilities that we have today. The
>majority of people in the United States believes in conventional
>religious morality, but if it wants to legislate on that basis, in
>practice it can't control people's private lives very well. A
>truth machine would change that.
Good points all, I have serious doubts about the idea of a "world
government". They mostly revolve around "redistribution" (wealth,
poer, etc) scenarios. Control junkies are dangerous.
>> I see it is in development as an upcoming mini-series, if done
>> properly, IMMHO it could change the future of cryonics.
>I'm a little skeptical about this, having seen many efforts fail
>in the past which were going to change the future of cryonics.
>For example, Omni magazine had a reasonably well promoted contest
>where the prize was "immortality" - a cryonic suspension contract
>with Alcor. This was a big jump into the mainstream, especially
>with the idea of cryonics as a prize, a reward, not some kooky
>perversion. However it was not much of a success; there weren't
>many entries, and I think most people were just not ready for it.
Hmmm, I wonder what would happen if WIRED were to try the same
thing today?
>I thought Halperin's novel was most effective in depicting a 21st
>century where we'd like to live, and where technology really does
>advance to the point where it solves many of our most difficult
>problems. I was uncomfortable when it took on a scolding tone,
>shaking its head over how blind people were in the late 20th
>century not to sign up for cryonics. This reminds me too much of
>a temperance tract regaling us with the evils of Demon Alcohol.
I didn't see this as a scolding, it made me a little sad, and more
determined than ever to sign up. In my own case this novel
solidified my reasoning on the issue.
>Science fiction authors often succumb to the temptation to have
>their future characters talk about the mistakes of the 20th
>century - if only they'd taken care of the environment, or if only
>they'd been more socialist, no, if only they'd been more
>capitalist, etc. I never find this realistic (how much time do we
>spend talking about the mistakes of the 1890's?), and even when it
>does fit, I don't necessarily think the future characters are
>right (people today disagree over the morality of the "robber
>barons" of the 19th century, even with 100 years of hindsight).
>Halperin doesn't overdo this, fortunately. If his novel is a
>success then it probably will help to make cryonics more
>acceptable. But I suspect that it will be many years before it
>becomes truly mainstream.
Yes, vision in the "retrospectroscope" is always 20/20, but I
thought he accomplished this quite well. In a world where cryonics
has proven to work, those who didn't see the possibility will be
seen as lacking vision.
I think when this is widebanded as a T.V. miniseries, this could
have a big effect.
Brian
Member, Extropy Institute