From: Patrick McCuller (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun May 20 2001 - 19:53:02 MDT
Instead of arguing about what approach is the worst one, let's take another
look at this from a different perspective. I think the real problem here is
Time travel is potentially even MORE dangerous than nanotechnology. Fear -
legitimate, rational fear - is what drove Eliezer to establish, among other
things, this list. Fear is a natural reaction to nanotechnology... and time
Time travel in our universe is a huge unknown. Though theories of physical
time travel in our universe are easy enough to find, to my knowledge no one
has ever come up with a defensible theory of what the effects of actual time
travel would be.
Who knows happens when apparent causality is violated? Many the universe
splits, or unfolds, or tears into tiny, one-plank-second compartments. Maybe
it works without hitches: future people can talk to us. Who knows?
Time travel gives us the willies, and for good reason.
PS You could make a nuclear bomb with just a handful of plutonium atoms and a
time machine. Just loop the atoms until you've got critical mass, add water,
> "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" wrote:
> > Taking your idea to the NSA isn't unethical tech suppression. Asking the
> > NSA to assassinate everyone else who has the idea is unethical tech
> > suppression.
> Giving an advanced and powerful technology over to an
> organization that is fundamentally uncontrollable and is part of
> the government's cloak and dagger side, is utterly unethical in
> my book and much more dangerous a cure than the disease.
> - samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:36 MDT