From: Cliff Stabbert (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Sep 19 2002 - 17:36:42 MDT
Thursday, September 19, 2002, 3:31:35 PM, Samantha Atkins wrote:
SA> Cliff Stabbert wrote:
>> But as I've mentioned before, I don't think the main risks to the
>> achieving the singularity are from the public at large, but rather
>> from those people and organizations currently in a position of
>> privilege, because they have (perceived) motive and they have (some)
>> means to foul up progress.
SA> As I see it, the basic problem is the same for people highly
SA> privileged relative to others is to show clearly that their real
SA> quality of life will rise further in a world of true abundance
SA> than in the world based around scarcity in which their
SA> differential status was gained.
To clarify, by "people and organizations in a position of privilege"
I don't mean the (say) approx. 10% of the world population in a
relative position of privilege. I mean the, what, <1% who "have
power" over the rest, and who I fear are close-to-chronically addicted
to such power (and its corresponding belief that one is not doing well
unless others are doing worse, or any other number of metaphors for
higher/lower status). My concern rests both on that entrenched if
incorrect belief and the real-world power such entities have (to e.g.,
shut down research or mobilize public opinion against it).
I agree with you that showing abundance as a win-win in general is
important and in many cases possible.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:41 MDT