[extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical

[Harvey Newstrom]

Brian Lee wrote,
> >You redefined my goal from "best PC" to "affordable PC".

> Ahh, but isn't the "best" PC one that is only $500?

Maybe for most people, but not necessarily for everyone.

> How would you propose creating the "best PC"? What is "best" anyway?

You cannot define "best" without specifying "best for this specific
purpose."  You choose price as your goal, and the market provides this.
Other people may choose different goals, and the market may not provide
this.

Spike's best prime number crunching machine might be a giant array of
arithmetic chips.  Natasha's best artwork machine may be a wall-sized
graphical display with laserpointer cursors.  Anders' brain best
neurosimulation machine might be a neural net with evolving nodes.
Eliezer's best friendly AI machine might have Flare firmware in flash proms
for self-editing hardware.  Nanogirl's best nanotech machine might be a
holographic display with a 3-D object printer.  Steve Mann's best computer
might be clothes made of flexible circuitry with wearable/detachable
peripherals.  My best machine might be an integrated control structured
database with security levels, tempest dampening, continuous biometric
authentication and DNA encryption.  A blind person's computer might not even
have a visible screen.

There is no single "best" PC for everybody.  Whatever the market converges
toward will be the best market-price machine.  But it might not be best for
any of our individual needs.  It is just too simplistic to assume that
whatever the market chooses is the best answer for everybody.

> If someone really wants to pay to extend their lifespan then the 
> market is better to provide these services than govt/hmo/healthcare 
> companies. Look at the prices/services created by medical procedures 
> that aren't covered by healthcare: cosmetic surgery, massage. These 
> fields have increased services while maintaining, lowering price.

I disagree.  Markets may work better than focused efforts by companies or
governments, but I don't see this as automatically true.  Cosmetic surgery
and massage are optimized in the market because many people want to pay for
them.  Orphan drugs and life-extension drugs are not as popular, and are not
as optimized by the market.  The market is a popularity contest where the
majority rules.  I don't see how currently unpopular goals such as
life-extension or self-modification will be supported as efficiently as the
popular choices.

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS GIAC Certified GSEC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com>