Eugene Leitl wrote:
>
> Samantha Atkins writes:
>
> > Until we are in an abundance mode and have all mostly adapted
>
> Abundance mode? For how long? There aren't that many atoms in the
> solar system, and the concentrations of solar systems in a given space
> volume is mostly constant. There is yet no evidence that we can create
> designer basement universes, so this clearly sounds like local
> scarcity to me, even if the expansion front will never peter out (it
> eventually will, if the universe will accelerate its expansion).
>
I am not sure what your objection is exactly. With nanotech on the
horizon we will most likely be in abundance mode on earth for most
physical goods within the next 4-5 decades. All things are relative.
Did you think I was talking about some free-floating absolute or
something?
> > non-interference with one another and actually believe that are own
>
> Non-interference? Jeez, a yet another believer in the tooth
> fairy. Have you ever seen an ecology go into non-interference mode?
>
Not in the least what I am talking about. Please attempt to read a bit
more carefully and please keep gratuitous insults to yourself. I am
talking about human beings and their proclivities to attempt to run each
other's lifes not about ecology in general or any other broader context.
> > fullest growth is dependent on the fullest growth of all, there is
> > plenty of good reason to keep what secrets you can. There are people
>
> There are always good reasons to keep secrets.
>
The questions are of what kinds, how much and for what reasons.
Knowledge and information tends to grow faster when the information is
shared or at least relatively open. At least in areas where information
is built upon like in software, sciences, technological process and so
on. There is an argument possible there that the speed of our growth is
proportional to the degree the information flows relatively freely and
to the degree of freedom the recipients have to utilize it.
> > out there who will not only object to your opinions but who will happily
> > initiate force to stop and even destroy you. We are not in paradise
> > yet. Perhaps paradise will never be until we are vastly different
> > creatures than we are today.
>
> Paradise will never be, period.
Exactly why do you say that? I will certainly not simply take your word
for it. Relative paradise certainly will be. There is a question of
degree. Do you think we are in endless competition mode regardless of
what technologies and changes in ourselves and our environment we make?
If so, then what gives you your certainty?
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:37:55 MDT