[ExI] elections again; was [Time Magazine: Person of the Year: Putin(!), my vote instead:Anna Politkovskaja]
eugen at leitl.org
Sat Dec 29 11:18:50 UTC 2007
On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 11:51:50PM -0500, Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> Is escape the only answer? Will futurists create these escapes?
It seems that way. Old cultures stratify into rigidity, with
most of progress happening on yet unregulated frontiers. However,
we'll run out of physical frontiers within out biological lifetimes.
Virtual environments provide to sustainable escape hatch, since regulation
is moving to there on a massive scale. Free flow of information at
the grassroot scale will not be tolerated long-term, being a threat
to the established order. Being an outlaw is not for everybody.
> We have to be careful to create technologies that do not impose our will on
> others, or they will rebel.
Some technologies allow you to get away from others. For all practical
reasons, early colonist ships were the equivalent of modern spacecraft.
It took resources of largest and richest nations to equip such exploration
fleets. Things got cheaper, after a while.
There's no plunder to be had in space, but perhaps freedom could become
a suitable carrot. Short-term, there is lateral segregation of some
services already, even though mobility (as in physical relocation)
is still expensive.
> For example:
> How can someone create a super-AI without threatening the people who don't
I'm not sure all existential threats are preventable. There is no survival
guarantee to anybody, long-term.
> want the possibility of an AI dictator? How can someone carry guns without
> threatening people who don't want the possibility of being shot? How can
We do have spatial segregation in enclaves in some places already. On a larger
scale, we've got national-state compartments, with slightly varying policies.
> someone get an abortion without threatening people who think all abortion is
By going elsewhere, where abortions are normal.
> murder? How can someone build robot workers without threatening people who
> don't want to lose their jobs?
That's a complicated one.
> All of these so-called freedom technologies threaten other groups that do not
> have the same belief systems. These technologies will always be
> controversial until they can somehow be limited to the people who want them
> without disrupting the rest of the people who don't.
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
More information about the extropy-chat