Re: Si definition of Friendliess

From: James Higgins (
Date: Thu Apr 05 2001 - 22:46:46 MDT

At 02:46 PM 4/5/2001 -0400, Brian Atkins wrote:
>Well like it or not what most people want is less responsibility, not more.
>Who wants to have to continue worrying about not getting killed, finding
>enough money to be able to eat, etc. etc.? I think worries about this kind of
>thing are overstated. First off, anyone who wants to should be able to stay
>on Earth or wherever in their same old body living the same old life. No
>one is forced to upload, or even accept the protections of the Sysop. The
>old responsibilities can still be yours if you desire them.

Of course, with half or more of the population vanishing in a very short
time, the world economy will crash and it will be hell on earth. Not that
I'm referring to Revelations or anything. ;>

>It is probably a 100% probability that this will lead to billions of Citizens
>leading rather "boring" humdrum lives, but is that a bad thing? It's already
>like that today no matter how much you want to glamorize it. What matters is
>each person has the full ability and freedom to pursue whatever level of
>"interesting life" they want to. It's ultra-libertarianism in a world where
>you are born with riches beyond dream, and the Universe responds to your

Ouch, maybe that is the thorn that keeps pricking me. I thought this stuff
sounded funny, it must be that ultra-liberal slant.

> > elementary psychology to see that the hatred, the impotent rage would
> > get turned toward the Sysop no matter how wonderful it is. This
> > produces an environment that is not exactly all that healthy for human
> > beings. The humans are allowed to be part of themselves but not
>It's unhealthy for those few haters 'cause they don't even have the chance
>to blow anyone else up? Darn. Too bad. Get some backbone Samantha and draw
>a line in the sand. Certain things should not be allowed. I think the vast
>vast majority of Citizens will be 100% happy with the new world.

Yup, especially if their programmed to be.

> > anything that might harm anyone ever. And how far does this go? Is
> > hateful speech also stopped? Is this good? You have beings that do
>Speech is probably even freer than in the USA since you don't have to
>worry about inciting people to riot. I doubt there are any such restrictions
>in the future.

Oh? Actually, I always thought that speed was the most destructive forces
of all. The things people say are some of the most unfriendly actions.

> > not do any harm to one another but not because they have grown beyond
> > the desire and need to do so but because they have been rendered
> > incapable of it by the Sysop.
>Well I'm sure they can still go blow up birds and deer if they want.

How awful.

>This reminds me a crappy movie I saw last night: 6th Day (with Arnie)
>Only it was done with 2-hour cloning (including mind transfer), and the
>people didn't forget anything. Result (according to Hollywood): people
>become bad. The one interesting thing about the movie is that it shows
>what might happen if human cloning is outlawed and goes underground. I
>bet most people don't get that from the movie though... a better movie
>for showing the badness of prohibition laws is Traffic.

No disagreement their. Underground, or horror to even think it,
Government, exploitation of these technologies would be the worst. And
considering the budget & resources of the US government, it is rater likely.

>Anyway I don't think having people run around scared of death (since they
>forget about the backup stuff) is a fun Universe. It may produce more
>serious, responsible people but I think having to be serious and
>responsible should go the way of the pre-Singularity era, to the dustbin
>of history. Not to say you can't walk around being serious and responsible
>all the time if you want, but being /required/ to do it is not the ideal
>situation IMO.

Oh, please, people who forget about the backups? About as likely as people
forgetting that they have parents.

So creating billions of non-serious, irresponsible sentients is your
goal? I think anything that makes people, on average, more serious and
especially responsible is a great thing. Under no circumstances should
these two traits go "to the dustbin of history". Not to say people
shouldn't have fun and enjoy themselves.

>There will still be some risks in the post-Singularity era, they just
>won't be quite as extreme (unless you want them to be). You will still have
>to do some basic management of your resources, or you could lose it all and
>end up with just a very minimal existence. There will likely be some sort
>of economic trade since this will not be a centrally planned economy. If
>people want to build a huge interstellar ship they will have to raise the
>material either from trading/amassing it or getting people to donate it.

There is more than enough matter in the system to create several huge
interstellar ships per person.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:36 MDT