Eugene describes a global uploading scenario:
> After the exodus is complete but for those recalcitrant curmugeons who
> absolutely, positively don't want to and deal with all negotiators
> using firearms as arguments, all restrictions are lifted, and off we
> go. No one knows what will happen next, but I do definitely do not
> want to be in the shoes of those who are left behind, because through
> the decision to stay they've rendered themselves extremely powerless
> and vulnerable.
I'm confused about why you want to prevent anyone from enhancing themself
in a world where most people aren't uploaded, but you would allow and
encourage (?) it once most people do have the option?
The scenario I am guessing you see is that one or more uploads goes into
a self-enhancing positive feedback loop, one of them wins and becomes
nearly infinitely powerful in a short period of time, and then everyone
else would be at his mercy.
But presumably other uploads (and the computers on which they run)
would be equally at the mercy of the winning Singularitarian upload,
the one who got to the finish line first. There would be no safety in
being an upload.
Is it just that you think the race is fairer if a lot of people get to
start at once? So that even if the winning upload does wipe everyone out,
it is OK if a lot of people had a shot at being the one?
Or do you think that the scenario where everyone starts at once is more
likely to be a safe transition, which protects the ones which don't
advance quite as quickly as others?
It would be helpful if you would spell out the scenario here. Also,
what if, given the option to upload, most people don't do it (or
can't afford to)? That seems like a pretty strong possibility to me.
Most people today are totally repulsed by the idea of becoming uploads.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:15 MDT