"J. R. Molloy" wrote:
>
> From: "Anders Sandberg" <asa@nada.kth.se>
> > Note that we now are essentially back to
> > square one with the clipper chip
>
> Right, the clipper chip and other forms of individualist rights infringement
> are on the way. Now the important issue is whether ultimate control of these
> socially invasive technologies goes to political entities which are infected
> with religious memes or extropic memes. To phrase it differently, we can't
> stop implementation of these new technologies, so we should consider
> influencing who gets control of them. Do we want Big Brother to be a religious
> fanatic, a megalomaniac, a transhumanist, an extropic scientist, or a
> Superintelligent machine?
>
Not "individualist rights", individual rights. Period. And they
are not on the way unless we fail to speak up and loutly against
them. As thgere is no broad extropic power base there is no way
the government is going to be more extropic any time soon.
I do not agree we cannot stop things like the clipper chip. It
is not "new technology" per se.
What if we don't want any "Big Brother" at all? I think we can
have that as long as the people have enough technology and
rights to counteract Big Brother to a sufficient degree. But
simply grabbing the power of the State for one's own gang
without limiting the power of the State is a hugely
ill-conceived idea.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:46 MDT