From: Randall Randall (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Sep 27 2004 - 22:15:42 MDT
On Sep 27, 2004, at 9:36 PM, Keith Henson wrote:
> At 07:27 PM 27/09/04 -0400, [Randall Randall] wrote:
>> Sure, everything's *going* to be different, but
>> I don't think that group conflict is going to cease as long as
>> there are groups with comparable power and no higher power to stop
> I don't even think conflict requires comparable power. In fact, I
> can't think of a shooting conflicts in my adult life (post WWII) where
> the parties had comparable power. Of course, trying to act half way
> around the world saps the effective power of even the US.
Well, by "comparable", I mean that no single group can afford
to completely ignore the efforts of all the others against them.
On this scale, all nuclear powers (and some others) in today's
world are comparable.
>> This isn't precisely an argument for a "Sysop", but rather, an
>> argument that diversification is important. I'm still hold
>> that nanotech is more benign than SAI, since nanotech implies
>> the ability to escape the bad effects of itself, while SAI does
> Good points, but I think it makes the case for distance even more.
This is also my view. It's just that without nanotech, there's
no real hope of being able to go far enough to be unavailable to
those desirous of conflict. Basically, my whole problem with
SAI building is that it seems to be, by the admission of those
involved, a winner-take-all proposition right now. Even if
molecular manufacturing was certain to decimate 99% of the human
race, it would be better than an SAI with a 99% chance of being
benign. However, if FTL is possible, we may have to face that
Anyway, all this is SL3 or worse, I'm sure, so I'll shut up now. :)
-- Randall Randall <email@example.com> Property law should use #'EQ , not #'EQUAL .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:49 MDT