[extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard
samantha at objectent.com
Thu Apr 15 18:10:55 UTC 2004
On Apr 15, 2004, at 6:25 AM, Dan Clemmensen wrote:
> Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
>> Begs a very good question as to when they start yanking projects
>> it looks like nanotech is really going to be feasible and the lifetime
>> of the project using standard tech is past the transition point so it
>> will just make no sense to try and do it before when it will be so
>> much easier after.
> If you really believe that nanotech will be available at time X, then
> you should
> not start a project that has a payoff time later than X.
> Note that many people seem to think that X is 2020 or before. Most
> has a longer payoff time than 15.5 years.
> The problem with this is that you immediately get accused of abandoning
> progress when you apply this line of reasoning.
In projects that expect to accomplish something waiting for a
theoretically possible but thus far nonexistent and untested technology
leads to stagnation. At the least it is prudent to do everything to
prepare for use of X in parallel with everything to accomplish the goal
even if X does not arrive in time. Projects are done in terms of
what exists and can be used within time/budget constraints.
> Logically, we should redirect all R&D into nanotech and computing. One
> these two will get to the SI, and the SI will achieve any other
> research goal
> sooner than we can achieve it without the SI. We do need to define
> and computing fairly broadly. On the other hand, we cannot really use
> all that money
> effectively, so it may be just as well to let most of society pretend
> that other
> research is relevant :-)
Why should we do any such mass redirection? There are countless
pressing needs that we can address more than "good enough" without
nanotech. A very large percentage are not even clearly helped much by
MNT. Why wait for this magic bullet? Ah, the smiley. So what do
you really think? :-)
More information about the extropy-chat