Re: "Cyberpower" and futurism in Forbes magazine

Chris Hind (
Tue, 26 Nov 1996 23:00:02 -0800

>Let's not, shall we? It is true that nanotech - or my own vehicle, the
>Singularity - would be able to completely fulfill almost any ethical
>wish imaginable. BUT. If we go around preaching nano-paradise, we will
>be rightly regarded as loons.

I was merely saying we should tell people what they 'want' to hear and work
our memes in that way. People won't listen to someone not agreeing with
them so make it sound as if you are agreeing with a bit of a twist. So far
this is all on the drawing board so don't get the impression I'm going to
instantly start walking around talking like an evangelist.

>In the words of Drexler:
> "I would emphasize that I have been invited to give talks
> at places like the physical sciences colloquium series at
> IBM's main research center, at Xerox PARC, and so forth,
> so these ideas are being taken seriously by serious
> technical people, but it is a mixed reaction. You want that
> reaction to be as positive as possible, so I plead with
> BULLSHIT DOWN, and even to be rather restrained in
> talking about wild consequences, which are in fact true
> and technically defensible, because they don't sound that
> way. People need to have their thinking grow into
> longer-term consequences gradually; you don't begin
> there." [Emphasis mine.]

Perhaps cultishness and bullshit is a natural part of any technology being
implemented such as the complete bullshit the media says is virtual reality.

>There's no better way to turn
>into a bunch of parlor pinks, sipping coffee and planning the Revolution
>without actually doing anything.

I'm absolutely sure that the technology will continue with or without them.
They can bullshit all they want but that isn't going to stop the technology
just as the horrible examples the media calls virtual reality won't taint
the image of good virtual reality when it debuts in a decent form for home use.