"Emlyn" <emlyn@one.net.au> writes:
> > Of course, a hypothetical future wearable and nanoassembler-equipped
> > hunter-gatherer (wanderer-assembler?) might be able to have all the
> > above without being tied to a single location, but it wouldn't change
> > the fact that he or she would likely be part of such a civilisation
> > network.
>
> What a very cool vision! It's kind of plausible, too, if you buy
> into the nano-santa stuff. After all, this talk about levels of tech
> and work required to support person on a certain area of land is
> really about how much tech & work you need to put it, to cope with a
> given level of resources. The tech and work help you make more of
> less. Given a super duper general assembler kit (probably built into
> your body), you don't really need many raw resources to do very well
> indeed! It's questionable how much work you'd need to do; not heaps,
> I'd think. That fits with the hunter-gatherer
> idea. Original-affluence++, excellent.
It sounds nice, yes. Although I wonder how much economic sense it
makes. Robin had a very good criticism of our "dreams of autonomy" in
a paper with the same name a while back.
The issue is what to do with all those Taj Mahal and French castles
littering the countryside...
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/ GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:43 MDT