Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Singularity Blues

From: Samantha Atkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 15:50:08 -0700

On Apr 6, 2005, at 9:52 AM, Edmund Schaefer wrote:

> On Apr 6, 2005 12:21 PM, Adrian Tymes <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> --- Edmund Schaefer <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>> Whether
>>> we can "ride the wave" of advanced technology is only important if
>>> we're imagining that lots of people are going to gain access to it at
>>> once, which we can't safely assume.
>>
>> Yet it seems the safest outcome, the one in which the greatest number
>> of people (used loosely: including uploads, new AIs, et al) are likely
>> to survive and prosper.  So, at least from the selfish perspective of
>> someone in the present who would like to create a future in which this
>> self can survive, that seems the option to steer towards.  (Of course
>> we can't safely assume it; if we could, no such steering would be
>> required.)
>
> Giving everyone advanced nanotechnology is about as safe as giving
> everyone nuclear strike capabilities. Less safe, really. Why is equal
> distribution of advanced technology desirable and how do you plan to
> make it safe?

It is no less safe than only the few having nanotech.  The few could 
rule the world in such an eventuality.  It also must be clarified what 
"having nanotech" does and does not mean for different players.  Most 
might have the products of nanotech and a sort of ST replicator box for 
producing material objects from patterns, energy and molecular 
feedstock.  There might be some limits on what a box was allowed to 
produce.  Clearly having such a box does not mean one is able to 
produce nano weapons and such.

_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat