> My intuitions are exactly the opposite. Your prediction seems to
> presuppose that the first nanopower won't obtain world dominion, an
> assumption I find very dubious.
[From the extropians list of a parallel universe, 26/8/1937:
"Your prediction seems to presuppose that the first nuclear power won't
obtain world dominion, an assumption I find very dubious."
[From the extropians list of a parallel universe, 26/8/1337]
"Your prediction seems to presuppose that the first gunpowder power won't
obtain world dominion, an assumption I find very dubious."
Hopefully you get the point; we've seen this all before, throughout
history. Time and again a technological advance has occured which scared
people because it seemed that the advance would inevitably give the
possessor vast power which they could use to take over the world. Yet for
good reasons, this hasn't happened; provided there are multiple groups who
can develop a new technology, a balance of power soon occurs and
eliminates this possibility. The only difference today is that your
preferred scenario could come to pass and one group could already be
powerful enough to prevent competitive research.
Frankly I think you're caught up in 'singularity-ism'; being able to build
nanothings will not lead to 'gray goo' overnight, and while the bad guys
are working on it the rest of us will be putting together defences. The
first nanotech world war wouldn't be a good place to be, but it won't be
one-sided unless we deliberately make it so. I really don't see any good
reason to believe the 'nanotech followed by human-level AI a few seconds
later followed by the singularity just before lunch' scenario which has
been proposed many times on the list.
Mark
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|Mark Grant M.A., U.L.C. EMAIL: mark@unicorn.com |
|WWW: http://www.unicorn.com/ MAILBOT: bot@unicorn.com |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|