<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 9/9/10 3:20 PM, John Grigg wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTik7qpzdWBKVCTL_M2ff5n4bqdvuXzSZGNiq1OkP@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">Samantha, I'm going to scream at you in my best
adolescent fashion,<br>
<pre wrap="">"you are ruining my life!!!" I will then run to my bedroom and slam
the door as hard as I possibly can!! Next, I will throw myself down
onto my bed and cry my eyes out!!
"Why, oh why, does she try to rip apart my fondest dreams?" "How can
anyone be that mean??!" "Sam, you are a big Blue Meanie!!! ; )
I think you and Spike have brought up some good points, but I still
think Singularity Utopia's (what the hell is this guy's real name for
crying out loud??!) personal vision is a worthy one and very possibly
within reach of humanity, if we work hard for it, and if good triumphs
over the usual victors..., evil, ignorance, apathy, and fear.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Infinite resources within a finite spacetime boundary are not
possible. That said thought there is at least virtually one hell
of a lot that can exist in a pretty tiny volume. The limits of
computation say it is not infinite but it is way way more than what
we can have down here where most matter is "dumb as rocks" because
most of it is a freaking rock (or something even less organized).
So yeah, tremendous room for huge dreams BUT please think twice as
before selling it as what we all should have or will have real soon
now unless some nefarious people don't let us. There is such a
tremendous amount of work between here and such a "there" and likely
at minimum at least 4 - 5 decades. That estimate is based on
current expert estimates for the availability of both full machine
phase MNT and powerful enough AGI. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTik7qpzdWBKVCTL_M2ff5n4bqdvuXzSZGNiq1OkP@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
S.U. is mistaken in thinking we will ever truly have unlimited
resources, as I tried to explain to him in a private email. Energy
and matter, however seemingly infinite they may seem in such a
gigantic universe (or multiverse), still are ultimately finite. I
suspect very powerful lifeforms of various kinds will fill all niches
and eventually eat everything up, unless we set limits. And so even
in a super-advanced post-singularity culture, there will need to be
rules regarding growth.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
There will be working rules how who requires how much resources of
whatever kind (likely in computational units for an upload). But
that is may be largely a matter of economics within a minimal
legal/ethical framework.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTik7qpzdWBKVCTL_M2ff5n4bqdvuXzSZGNiq1OkP@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
But still, it will be an amazing society where the sort of poverty,
lack of medical care, lack of educational support, lack of healthy
food, and lack of housing, will be seen as inconceivable. But
sentients will probably be much more demanding, despite their vastly
higher standard of living. And due to somewhat limited resources and
social hierarchies, there will still be frustrated people/minds.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Well, if we are uploads we don't need food or likely medical care
(well debugging the stray mind virus I guess). :) But yes.
Desires expand to and then beyond whatever the current supply is.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTik7qpzdWBKVCTL_M2ff5n4bqdvuXzSZGNiq1OkP@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
When mature nanotech first arrives, governments and corporations will
do everything they can to firmly control it, and carefully portion out
it's massive benefits based on social status and institutional power.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
If by mature you mean full machine phase then I doubt that will last
long at all. To easy to duplicate all the needed machinery. It is
a separate very good question how you monitor or whether you do and
to what extent against nefarious uses of such tech. But in a world
where effectively everything, even material goods, are information,
computation and a bit of matter and energy it is clear that the old
rules and understandings simply will not do. That rich a new wine
will soon burst such old bottles. Of course there are many
intermediate steps along the way where various controls will be
attempted that are variously justified in reality or not.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTik7qpzdWBKVCTL_M2ff5n4bqdvuXzSZGNiq1OkP@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">They will of course want to contain such a vast potential for
violence, which is only prudent. But the scariest thing from their
perspective will be how this technology might liberate individuals and
small groups from even really needing their government. You will find
that governments are all about gaining and maintaining power, not
giving it up!
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Terrorism, again? Can we think about anything else? But yes, it
is an issue. It would be better if the sort of deep anger,
frustrations that often leads to terrorism was largely ameliorated
through most people seeing in fact their circumstances rapidly
improving. Of course I don't see how that is going to happen. <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTik7qpzdWBKVCTL_M2ff5n4bqdvuXzSZGNiq1OkP@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
But I do believe the upcoming social contract between governments and
common citizens will result in a near-utopia, as compared to how
things are now. But the big question is, will the common citizenry be
granted reasonable freedoms and rights to benefit from the
monumentally society-changing technologies that are coming their way?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
I don't think governments as we know them are a net boon. I think
they are and have been a horrific curse. Even the term "common
citzenry" enshrines government over the people - over you and I.
Why is government, which is after all only a collection of a small
number of human beings like ourselves, empowered to decide what
"reasonable freedoms and rights" are for the majority of beings like
themselves? Sort of odd, isn't it? Yet on the other hand, it is
a common belief among us relatively brainy folks that we do in fact
no better about a great number of things we are sure are very very
important than the vast majority of people know - if they even
care. Out of such homegrown elitism the notion that a relative few
should make decisions for a majority - at least in things that
matter a lot to all - naturally arises. <br>
<br>
I am of two minds. Ground work is that the changes are very rapid
and that increasingly the vast majority of people will not have
economically viable skills much longer. I know many will disagree
with this premise and some on pretty substantial grounds but lets go
with it a moment. Given this without some means of distributing
goods and services to people regardless of whether they have a
marketable skills and a job or not, many many people will be in
relatively dire straights or at least quite unhappy, frustrated,
fearful and likely to be fodder for terrorism and other violence.
Also, the fact of being one of the ones that does have a job/income
during this period is only in part a matter of individual character,
hard work, ambition and so on and partly is an accident of ones
genetic inheritance, birth, upbringing and so on. So if we may
descend to applying "fairness" to raw nature (always questionable)
then no, it isn't fair. And in part we want to get to a place where
everyone can have similar amounts of luck or where such original
distribution of luck problems are correctable, e.g., being able to
raise one's IQ to genius levels regardless of what it was
originally. <br>
<br>
So one view is that:<br>
<ul>
<li>to avoid violence, terrorism and a lot of oppression to quel
it as well as a lot of human misery;</li>
<li>to maximize human happiness and well-being;</li>
<li>to go beyond fear inherent in progress over one's continuing
viability</li>
</ul>
that we must have some kind of system of redistribution beyond what
we do today on a piecemeal basis. <br>
<br>
On the other hand:<br>
<ul>
<li>a species, even a few members originally, making it to
transcendence of nature to this extend is rare and hard;</li>
<li>the effort to subsidize everyone costs a fortune and limits
speed of innovation and achievement - perhaps catastrophically;</li>
<li>the re-distribution entails taking from the relatively more
productive to give to the less productive and thus has major
immediate moral issues;</li>
<li>it is not necessarily so that a very large majority of
humanity wants any such future as we dream of;</li>
<li>tremendous loss of freedom is likely to enforce such global
redistribution.</li>
</ul>
Note in the second case that without such redistribution any "have"
individual or group of such is perfectly free to aid as many "have
nots" as ve wishes and can. But no collection of individuals is
allowed to practice charity effectively by legalized robbery.
There are not inconsiderable arguments on both sides. It may be
perfectly natural that a tech singularity results in a great culling
by its very nature - regardless of what our wishes may be. Perhaps
those who say that evolution, a sort of survival of the fittest and
most useful, goes on regardless of technological abilities have a
point. But I still hope for better or less anxiety producing
outcomes.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTik7qpzdWBKVCTL_M2ff5n4bqdvuXzSZGNiq1OkP@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
On 9/6/10 Gregory Jones <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:spike66@att.net"><spike66@att.net></a> wrote:
"I can imagine plenty of reasons why some parts of humanity would
intentionally create scarcity, such as reasoning that if the
proletariat have plenty of everything, they will fail to pray to
Mecca."
Dear Spike (Gregory Jones) you make a good point. There are people who
may object to post-scarcity, which is one of the reasons why I am
attempting to inspire people into believing in the possibilities the
future holds. If enough people believe in utopia, it will happen.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
At the very least it is a huge leap individually and across all our
institutions to really down deep get and embrace post-scarcity. It
is far far deeper than I think most people realize. And we need
this change, if post-scarcity is possible or to the degree it is,
when a mere decade or five! That is a change of consciousness much
broader and faster than any humanity has ever managed. This is
another reason why I think it doubtful most people will go there,
want to go there, or thing there is any "there" at all there.
Half of them likely will believe it is against what is demanded by
karma/Jehovah/God/Cyclic Nature/Goddess/Kali/Allah/whatever.
Although I think a lot of religious belief would fall off pretty
quickly if you could show much in the way of the sweet by and by
stuff the religions promise after death could be had without the
dying part and without guesswork/faith.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTik7qpzdWBKVCTL_M2ff5n4bqdvuXzSZGNiq1OkP@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
To conclude: I think the concept of self-fulfilling prophecy has not
been completely absorbed by some of the responders to this
Post-Scarcity thread. The collective desires of the human race can
create a dystopia or utopia. I hope you can understand this network
effect. I hope you can change your views to a positive outlook because
negative views can harm the entire world. You have the power to begin
spreading hope. You can create utopia.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
It may be our greatest mistake to think in such simple dichotomies
as dystopia vs utopia. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTik7qpzdWBKVCTL_M2ff5n4bqdvuXzSZGNiq1OkP@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I must admit that I really like this guy! : ) And I think he actualy
does an excellent job defending his worldview. If people go around
with a "realistic" and defeatist perspective that the major
powers/institutions that run this world cannot be successfully worked
with, then in many ways they have already won. I think it has
unfortunately become fashionable for otherwise very intelligent
transhumanists to wear the robes of the cynic. But as S.U. states,
"positive thinking is the precursor to clear effective action." And
this is so very true...
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
I hope you don't think I am a cynic. I am actually one of the
wild-eyed visionaries attempting to be just a tad more real. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTik7qpzdWBKVCTL_M2ff5n4bqdvuXzSZGNiq1OkP@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
A fullblown Singularity may not occur within our lifetimes (though I
doubt this), or governments just might be able to fully curb & control
the world-changing shockwaves of such an event, but only time will
tell. I feel we all owe it to not just ourselves, but the children of
today and tomorrow, to stay *tough mindedly* positive and fight for
the wonderful world we envision. A place that truly nurtures it's
citizens, instead of neglecting them, or engulfing the majority into a
tyranny.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
If our governments can do that, can stop the world changing that a
singularity brings, then they are a very dangerous and unfortunate
institution indeed. That would say they are capable of continuing
stasis indefinitely at best.<br>
<br>
I very much agree that we need to vision big and work to achieve our
vision. But what exactly that vision is an is not and the best way
to move towards getting there is not so clear. Not among any
significant number of us and, unless I am unusual, not that fully
clear within our own mind. <br>
<br>
- samantha<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>