[ExI] elections again
painlord2k at yahoo.it
Sat Dec 29 19:28:44 UTC 2007
Harvey Newstrom ha scritto:
> On Friday 28 December 2007 08:25, Eugen Leitl wrote:
>> Yes, people suck.
> Sad but true.
>> Unfortunately, secession of minorites to escape poor solutions of
>> majorities are not in our cards, at least not yet.
> Is escape the only answer? Will futurists create these escapes?
> We have to be careful to create technologies that do not impose our will on
> others, or they will rebel.
>From a libertarian point-of-view, I find this notion confuse and blurry.
My freedom stop where someone else freedom begin in equal terms, it
doesn't stop where the feeling of someone else start.
Because it could not be technologies but lifestyle or religious believes
> For example:
> How can someone create a super-AI without threatening the people who don't
> want the possibility of an AI dictator?
Doing it in secret?
> How can someone carry guns without
> threatening people who don't want the possibility of being shot?
> How can
> someone get an abortion without threatening people who think all abortion is
This is the most confusing.
How is that they feel threatened when they are not in danger or menaced?
> How can someone build robot workers without threatening people who
> don't want to lose their jobs?
They are not interested in the job, but in the income derived by the
job. But do they have any entitlement to it?
> 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.
You missed a few question:
1) How can someone leave Islam, when so many Muslims feel threatened by
this simply act?
This simply act threaten the Ummah itself that have not the same belief
system like other kaffir (impure) groups
2) How can someone be atheist....?
3) How can someone be homosexual...?
The problem is not with freedom technologies, but with freedom itself.
Any free act will, in a way or another, conflict with the direct or
indirect, immediate or delayed interests of someone else.
Do you prefer suppress freedom or suppress conflicts?
[Intangible capital is] the preponderant form of wealth.
When we look at the shares of intangible capital across income classes,
you see it goes from about 60 percent in low-income countries to 80
percent in high-income countries.
That accords very much with the notion that what really makes countries
wealthy is not the bits and pieces, it's the brainpower, and the
institutions that harness that brainpower.
It's the skills more than the rocks and minerals.
Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale!
More information about the extropy-chat