Getting through it in style (was Re: Extropian country)

Michael M. Butler (butler@comp*
Sat, 21 Feb 1998 08:53:05 -0800

At 04:54 PM 2/20/98 +0300, you wrote:
>future doomsday bio/GG can be considered a pretty
>effective deterrence. And of course nobody needs to know you have'em prior
>to an imminent invasion. (For the spooks: I am being strictly theoretical

Problem is, depends on who's doing the considering. Saddam's supposed
capability is not being viewed as a deterrent; it's being viewed as a
ticking time bomb that requires him being taken out. I absolutely agree
that deterrence is a good thing. But where WOMD, especially infectious
agents, are suspected, the hysteria that big states ("You can't trust
Blaupunktstein, but you can trust US") can whip up is pretty daunting.

And for a deterrent to be effective, it has to be known far enough in
advance that adversaries are given pause. To quote from _Dr. Strangelove_
(re: the SU Doomsday weapon), "...Vy DIDN'T you TELL ze VORLD, HUNH?!?"

So my conclusion is that it's not subject to a clean analysis in the
present Weltpolitik milieu.

>> IMHO, "ye can't get there from he-ah".
>> Being beyond effective force projection will require either space
>> habitation and/or advanced bulk nano defense-in-depth, IMHO.
>Imho, the large corps are going to get into the space first, and make sure
>the next wave will encounter maximal difficulties. Maybe the next monopoly
>is in the making...

Unless they look-down/shoot-down, all they can do is make it difficult.

>In the
>retrospective, what is your assessment whether going public (trivial
>publications) first was a smart move?

Too soon to tell. Hard to compare it to an alternate universe. :)

>Btw nano defense-in-depth: if you can have that, flesh has obviously
>become obsolete.

I was referring to _bulk_ nano, not smart/sophisticated nano. Bulk nano, as
I use the term, does not render flesh obsolete, any more than balsawood,
Kevlar or synthetic sapphire do.

>Defense-in-depth would be part of you, and you the new
>player on the scene. Expected evolutionary dynamics considered, I do not
>think one need to think about securety too much, then.

You, sir, are an optimist. :)

>> Beyond not making waves: Don't concentrate in one place. Don't dig in.
>> Don't get press. Doing so makes one a target.
>I think I am stating the trivial, if I say that extropians rarely need to
>interact physically. Net-crosslinked (realtime, crypted channels),
>distributed networks of friends, augmented by voluntary identity
>certification mechanisms (to prove you have dealt fairly in past
>interactions) would seem a useful future model for us to consider.

My comment was WRT the recurrent "let's start an island nation" theme--vide
the title of this thread. Your points mirror mine. You are obviously a
great thinker. :) Plus, I hear you and I share some opinions about deeply
embedded systems and threaded interpretive languages. (big :)

The chiefest trick in getting through the cusp, I suspect, will be not
scaring the horses overmuch.
The next most difficult is fostering/following the (Biblical; so sue me!
:)) precept of not binding the mouths of the kine that tread the grain. My
personal emphasis is on figuring out how to inoculate the 2 billion plus
souls (_pace_ atheists (:)) who have never even seen a TV with the cultural
ideals of self-government. But there are still a lot of oppressed people
out there (and even around here), with old old grudges.

"The highest love [is] uniquely human,
the product of compassion and liberty;
not one at the expense of the other."
-- L. A. Chu and M. M. Butler

(RU a bot? If not, be advised *s are flagged as 'net address ERRORS;
MY address is thus munged. Kindly hyphenate. "Go team, beat SP*M.")