Re: Si definition of Friendliess

From: James Higgins (
Date: Fri Apr 06 2001 - 08:53:11 MDT

At 02:56 AM 4/6/2001 -0400, Brian Atkins wrote:
> > >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.
>Are you paying attention? Samantha's whole proposal was that the technology
>would cause the person to forget about the backups.

At least I *thought* I was paying attention. Ouch, well if the technology
forces you to forget about the backups that is bad. If she was saying that
people would just forget about them that is silly. So I guess we're in
agreement on this Brian.

> > 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.
>You clipped off what I said below, that the responsibilities would simply
>be on a different level in the post-Singularity future. Anyway, I don't
>see why being responsible in a post-Singularity future is such a great
>thing that we should strive for. What we should strive for in general is
>removing constraints on the freedom of Citizens. If many of them choose
>to use their newfound freedom from responsibility in a non-serious fashion
>so be it.

Well, if individuals are truly responsible then they don't need a baby
sitter (ie: sysop). Irresponsible people with super-powers is bad. In
such a world you need simply must have a Sysop or the universe becomes a
terrible place to live. Serious/non-serious is not really important. You
can be non-serious and still be very responsible. I think responsibility
is a key point though.

I am a very responsible person. I've never had a baby sitter, and I
certainly don't want one after I transcend. Having to answer to a Sysop is

> > >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.
>Depends on your idea of huge... do you know what a M-brain is (ok, so an
>M-brain is not a ship, but still)?

True. But even a massively huge ship (as we think of scale today) is
nothing. Now if someone wanted to form a Dyson sphere, or even a Ring
World, there is a project that would take at least all of the matter in our
solar system. Actually, this may be a good point to ask a question.

A Dyson Sphere or Ring World would be an excellent use of matter. It is
very efficient, compared to planets. However, this would effect everyone
in the system. So let's say out of 5,000,000 people 4,999,000 agree that
such a construction be created. But to 1,000 people this is unfriendly. I
assume the Sysop now stops the whole thing because it is unfriendly to at
least on person.

The Sysop idea keeps setting off my intuitive design alarms as something
that just can't work. If it has to consider the friendliness of every
action you end up with 2 huge problems:

   1) Considering friendliness for every other individual for every action
is a huge task. Try to turn a rock into a chain and 2 subjective years
later the Sysop says OK.

   2) Most things worth doing will be considered unfriendly by
someone. Heck, what we are doing now would be shut down by the Sysop as
unfriendly, because I bet at least a quarter of the world population would
rather not take this risk. But even smaller matters, such as exploring the
universe. Many may think it is unfriendly to go star hopping for any
number of reasons.

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