[extropy-chat] RE: Singularitarian verses singularity

[Samantha Atkins]

On Dec 21, 2005, at 5:15 PM, The Avantguardian wrote:

>
>
> --- mike99 <mike99 at lascruces.com> wrote:
>
>> 1) If merely human intelligence, and any current or
>> past forms of human
>> organization, were sufficient to create the sort of
>> world we desire to live
>> in, then such a world would have already been
>> created. [. . .] Greater
>> than human intelligence is
>> required.
>
> No, I agree with Robert on this point. The current and
> historical limitations to this sort of thing are not
> based on intelligence but are instead primarily
> political.

Which is largely based on .. the characteristics and limitations of  
human intelligence and psychology.   There is no politics that does  
grow out of this context.  It therefore cannot be used to explain  
away the problems the limits of human intelligence pose.

> The ruling class believes (and always has)
> that they live in the best of all possible worlds for
> no better reason than that they are in charge.

Irrelevant claim.

> This is
> the essense of conservativism. As a rule, those in
> charge, make it their priority is to allocate their
> resources to preserve the status quo and thereby
> maintain, consolidate, and if possible increase their
> power. An SAI is not going to be able to come up with
> a clever solution to this problem because it is,
> logically speaking, a very simple problem to solve.
> You merely redistribute the wealth of the ruling class
> to globally relevant causes.

I believe you are more than intelligent enough to do the back of  
envelope calculations sufficient to show that this is a complete  
fantasy.  You also might meditate upon the singular nature of  
inventive creators and the need for accumulation of wealth to fuel  
progress in pre-abundance world economy.

- samantha