Yep. The choice seems to lie with the first scientist (or, more
likely, group of scientists) who develops the single major
breakthrough (e.g. MNT?). If there are a series of equally
important advances, many of us are likely to be not too far
behind the most wealthy or powerful, so the only danger is
if one single advance is most important. I think that this is
the case, but that the people who develop it are no more
likely to be evil than any other random group of scientists.
Given an assembler, able to replicate in (say) an hour, for
the first generation, why would the researchers who
developed it be inclined to turn it over to the military, the
government, or even their bosses, since money and
most military power is suddenly pointless?
Wolfkin.
rrandall6@juno.com | ICQ: 3043097
On a visible but distant shore a new image of man,
The shape of his own future, now in his own hands.
| Johnny Clegg
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]