[ExI] The Manifesto of Italian Transhumanists

John Grigg possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com
Fri Mar 7 19:32:35 UTC 2008


 Hi Bryan, I enjoyed the exchange of ideas.  I'd be curious to know where
you will be standing on these issues in ten or twenty years, considering you
are currently a very young man.



>
> > The "amazing cultural phenomena" you describe, if it turns against
> > you (stem cell research vrs. the Bush Administration, for instance),
> > results in a definite slowing or stopping of potentially life saving
> > medical technology.
> The only way they can do that is by jailing us in prisons.
>
>>>


Most researchers don't want to go to that extreme to protest things.
Instead, they simply don't do the controversial research or else move to a
nation where it is allowed/encouraged.  And that nation then reaps the
benefits.



>
> > And even though the research and development would continue in other
> > nations, the U.S. would then be at a serious disadvantage to be a
> > leader in the biotech field and reap the financial harvest.  And
> > remember that it's just plain "un-American" to not make tons of money
> > and dominate technological progress! lol
>
> Heh, well, with self-replication there might be a collapse of the
> financial institutions, but not if they play their cards right. So
> that's something that somebody might want to put some thought into.
>
>>>


In the name of national security (and the unspoken desire of corporations to
keep their stranglehold on the economy) we will see the possibility of
nanotech "anything boxes" most likely squelched.  "We can't take the chance
of bad people hacking into them and doing who knows what!"  "Why, just go to
your local Nano Mart store and they will set you right up..."



>
> > you continue:
> > > No matter how much they proclaim to be against a possibility does
> > > not determine that bottom line of feasability. Yes, they can
> > > protest, yes, they can try to stone us, they can try to burn us
> > > alive, but you see, we can diffuse the information over the
> > > internet, and good luck warring against the internet. It will route
> > > around the damage.
> >
> > But warring against research labs and those who fund them in another
> > matter, entirely.  It generally takes serious money and disciplined
> > scientific teams to tease out Mother Nature's secrets.
>
> Nah, it just takes discipline. That's the whole discipline of science.
> It does not take money, but rather the raw resources. The guys that
> build particle accelerators and energy stations? They had the
> discipline to make it happen even when there wasn't necessarily
> a "plutonium economy" or "electricity economy" when they started off.
> >>>
>


The guys who built the particle accelerators and energy stations got big
hunks of money from government and corporate sponsors.  They had the
discipline to gather the grant money that got things accomplished.



>
> > of global competitiveness.  And by the time we try to really turn
> > things around we may have lost some critical advantages that might
> > never be fully regained.
>
> Maybe. Can you own an advantage, even in natural-evolutionary terms?
> >>>
>


What the U.S. and Western world might have are certain given educational and
social foundations that make technological catch up much easier on us as
compared to China or Russia.



>
> > In terms of national security (and economic strength is a foundation
> > of military strength) and a having a powerful and effective armed
> > forces, the U.S. in my view needs to be much more careful in terms of
> > who does scientific research in our labs and who can gain access to
> > our technological trade secrets.  I think we should only let in
> > foreign nationals that are from nations which do not have longterm
> > plans to take our spot as the definitive world superpower.  I cringe
> > to think of all the knowledge & power which is leaked out to
> > potentially hostile foreign competitors because we are so dependent
> > on researchers not from our native country.
>
> What knowledge and power? What does the military have that cannot be
> already duplicated? Airplanes? Easily duplicated (though not
> necessarily the money to make many tests. This is of course a matter of
> resources, not money.) Nuclear weapons? Non-military persons came up
> with nukes. Navy machinery? Easy enough.
> >>>
>


Knowledge IS power.  Academic and corporate research labs are spread across
the U.S. and the backbone of much military and economic r & d.  Yes,
non-military people came up with much of this. lol  By the way, resources
and money go hand in hand. : )

A "standard" and non-high performance jet fighter, tank, missle cruiser,
civilian product for sale, etc. may be relatively easy to create,
but designing and manufacturing a very advanced (superior to potential
enemies/competitors) version is a great challenge.  Rival nations will have
a very challenging time matching our most advanced tech (and as they try to
catch up we would be moving forward to stay ahead) unless the complete
designs and manufacturing methods are stolen.  Espionage/stolen military and
industrial secrets are a huge problem for the U.S. and the rest of the
Western world.



>
> > We are in a race to develop whatever the next generation of
> > technological innovations are that we must have to stay not just
> > competitive, but ahead of the rest of the world.  And yes, we do have
>
> This is FUD.



This is THE REAL WORLD. lol



>
>
> > our top secret military labs that surely have incredible security and
> > well vetted researchers, but the tech that feeds those places comes
> > generally from corporate and academic America.  It will be carefully
> > nurtured and protected technological progress that will maintain our
> > economic strength, and this must be protected every bit as much as
> > some state of the art new weapons system.
>
> Fud, fud, fud.

>>>


If the U.S. does not protect it's technology base by better security,
improving public education, etc., you will see in your lifetime our
steep decline.  It will be a very sad thing.



>
>
> > Nationalism is a two-edged sword.  On the one side it can cause
>
> It is also more fud.
> >>>
>


It can be at times.  But do you really think other powerful nations always
have our best interests at heart? lol  Life is not just cooperation but also
competition.  Nature teaches us that.  And it still holds true for
humanity.



>
> > healthy competition among developed nations to make rapid progress in
> > key technologies that would potentially change our lives for the
> > better.  I am very grateful for this (would you want a powerful world
> > government that had a negative view of biotech research and passed
> > laws in effect *everywhere* to enforce their stance?, lol)  But on
> > the other hand, nationalism can cause extreme over-competitiveness,
> > which leads to wars, both cold and hot.
>


Hey, I agree with this guy!  ; )



>
>
> Btw, I apologize for not getting back to this soon enough. I forgot
> about it. :)
>
> - Bryan
> >>>
>


No problem!


Best wishes,

John : )
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080307/e46b1955/attachment.html>


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list