[extropy-chat] Wait a minute. What's our contingency plan?

[Samantha Atkins]

You make very good points and bring up excellent questions.


>
>
> *** What should we do to keep technological progress humming along
> should the world collapse into another dark age? ***

The short and of necessity first answer is that we can in no wise allow 
the world to collapse into another dark age.  The question is how to 
avoid it.

One of the best ways to avoid this but also quite dangerous is to 
advance the technology so far and so rapidly that many more options 
exist to guarantee its continuance and or the ability of the technology 
possessing technophiles to fend off any/all attacks by others.    Of 
course the technology this side of FAI does not care whether the users 
of the technology are wise or suicidal.   The technology can and most 
likely will be wielded  by the foes of human progress as well as by its 
friends.

A better way is to persuade those with power of the necessity of 
continuing technological progress AND to not use some of the technology 
to oppress the population so deeply that progress and human happiness 
is destroyed or too greatly curtailed.    Persuading masses of the 
population of the wisdom of this course would be very good.  But I 
don't have very small hope that this can be done quickly enough even in 
the developed countries.   Doing it in the 2nd and 3rd world especially 
in lands governed by religions that brook no moderation or questioning 
of their tenets is beyond what I believe is possible in time.    Those 
who believe just because they believe and are closed to reason are 
great dangers as the technological acceleration puts more and more 
power in fewer hands for less cost or allows masses of such to vote 
policy to ambitions and foolhardy leaders.

I think that it is necessary if we are serious about a truly extropian 
future that we create the space legally, psychologically, physically, 
economically and ethically to proceed with the work of expanding 
extropy regardless of whatever laws and restrictions the world may 
throw up.    There can be no just law restricting this work.   I do not 
believe it is extropic to simply give up if say the US goes effectively 
theocratic or massively anti-technological progress in important areas 
and persuades or bullies most of the rest of the world into going 
along.   We need safe havens where the necessary work can go on.

Another level of prudent dedication to extropy is to find a way to 
hibernate the technology and knowledge  for the day when it can 
resurface.  If collapse is a possibility then we owe it to ourselves 
and to those who come later to take this step. If we do get to the 
place where such a collapse is actually in progress (it can happen very 
quickly in some scenarios) and we have not prepared then it is likely 
too late for all but very small amounts to be saved.  We lose.   So 
before we get to such a place, besides doing everything we can to avoid 
such a possibility, we must build contingencies to save all of the 
knowledge and "seed technology" that we possibly can.   We must have a 
way to set up some sort of guardians of the knowledge and information 
who protect it, use it and re-introduce it as quickly as is possible.   
Alternately we would need a way to set up a high technology enclave 
that is self-sufficient and able to defend itself if need be against 
anything the rest of the world can throw at it.   Off planet would be 
nice but most likely not doable in the immediate future.    The most 
likely minimalist scenario is a (hate this) sort of secret 
society/priesthood guarding and maintaining the knowledge.


>
> Not the government, not some hypothetical investor, not "the public"
> suddenly getting a clue, but we, us. Not just technically feasible, but
> here and now, with the resources we have at our disposal. Please don't
> bring politics/ideology into this. They'll be cold comfort when you're
> dead. Let's be pragmatic.
>
>

Yes.

- samantha