<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; "><BR><DIV><DIV>On Dec 21, 2005, at 2:02 PM, Robert Bradbury wrote:</DIV><BR class="Apple-interchange-newline"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><BR><BR><DIV><SPAN class="gmail_quote">On 12/21/05, <B class="gmail_sendername">Samantha Atkins</B> <<A href="mailto:sjatkins@mac.com">sjatkins@mac.com</A>> wrote:</SPAN><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> <DIV><SPAN class="q"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV style="margin: 0px;">If we, being as human as</DIV><DIV style="margin: 0px;">we are, can be so apathetic about the survival of our</DIV><DIV style="margin: 0px;">own species, why would anyone believe that some mighty </DIV><DIV style="margin: 0px;">non-human intelligence would give a rat's ass about</DIV><DIV style="margin: 0px;">us? <BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR></DIV></SPAN><DIV>Good question. But not relevant as to whether we must build such intelligence if we are to have much of a chance of continuing at all. </DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR>Actually Samantha, I view there as being few, if any, barriers to current instantiation humans ensuring the "survival of our own species". We do *not* need to become more intelligent. We need to use the intelligence we have at our disposal more effectively or creatively. For example -- the full nanotech vision can be realized using current human intelligence. It is essentially nothing more than a re-execution of the development of the semiconductor industry over the last 20-30 years. We already have various means with regard to detecting and reducing most short term hazards (NEOs, etc.). We have several billion years how to figure out what to do in the longer term ( i.e. when the sun exhausts its fuel supply).<BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV>I am surprised that you take this position. Of all people I suspect that you are very aware of the limits of human intelligence and decision making both individually and in groups. You say we need to use or intelligence more effectively and creatively. Of course I can't argue with that. But exactly how will we overcome the barriers to such greater effectiveness and how big a difference can we reasonably expect it to make? While nanotech can be achieved with current human intelligence it seems very doubtful to me that current levels of human intelligence are capable of dealing with the consequences. </DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>We have no really effective means of fully detecting all NEOs much less of dealing with them for what it's worth. </DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>We do not have "several billion years" and I am amazed to see you make such a statement. The world is becoming much smaller and its management becoming much more complex. The information load and decision complexity is exploding. The speed at which problems develop and play out is increasing. We face some quite critical challenges in energy, environment, human freedom, economics and massive rewiring of most institutions in the face of accelerating and continuous change. Humans show signs of being more inclined to get some "ole time religion" rather than to become more rational and efficient in applying their intelligence. I see no reason to be sanguine about the prospects of currently existing human beings and human intelligence being adequate to the challenges we face and that are predictable much less the ones we cannot predict. </DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV><DIV><BR>And so one must ask if one is going to rely on a "super-intelligence" to "save" us -- how does one guarantee that a super-intelligence is (or will remain) so altruistic that our "optimal" survival will be the end result? <BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Again I never suggested any such thing. Perhaps his is yet another example of the limits of human intelligence. :-)</DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV><DIV> Indeed one could make the case that any entity which is not acting primarily with its own survival as its primary goal isn't really "intelligent". (The male spiders which sacrifice themselves to contribute protein to female spiders so as to increase numbers of offspring come to mind...)<BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Ah yes. And how deep do the patterns of human EP go in largely determining out behavior and limiting our adaptability?</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>- samantha</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>