From: Woody Long (ironanchorpress@earthlink.net)
Date: Tue Feb 07 2006 - 13:31:55 MST
Is it possible that the technological singularity will be solely and
exclusively a _science and engineering super-expert_? This would extinguish
the political nature of the TS. Such a SE technological singularirity would
command and control the electric grids, nuclear power plants, weather
control systems, etc., etc. thus creating a technological paradise on
earth, but always defer political questions and policies to the appropriate
experts. This super human intelligent singularity, which I call the SE
Singularity Lifeform, and am actively advancing, can be built and discussed
nonpolitically.
Ken Woody Long
http://www.artificial-lifeforms-lab.blogspot.com/
> [Original Message]
> From: Richard Loosemore <rpwl@lightlink.com>
> To: <sl4@sl4.org>
> Date: 2/7/2006 2:56:32 PM
> Subject: About discussing Social Impact etc. [WAS Re: KILL-subTHREAD:
JoshuaFox]
>
>
> Eliezer,
>
> Your thread-kill accepted, of course.
>
> But, have you or the others considered before the practicalities of HOW
> to have some discussion about the likely pre-Singularity impact of the
> Singularity *idea*, and the likely threats from the way the world is
> going, without the discussion turning political?
>
> I say this because I am very interested in the way that things will play
> out, and with ways to approach the threats the world faces between now
> and then, but in the past I have watched these discussions go by without
> volunteering any thoughts, for the simple reason that they do seem to go
> straight from sanity to politically charged insanity?
>
> For example, one issue of great importance is the way that the
> Nanotechnology idea started out with similar transformative vision, but
> has since become co-opted by corporate interests in such a way as to
> neuter some of the real nanotech goals? Here we have something very
> important, but it is by its nature very political.
>
> Would it be a matter of allowing debate, but requiring all to take pains
> to avoid any inflammatory remarks (in other words, temporarily suspend
> Crocker's Rules)?
>
> Or is it simply impossible to talk about this at all?
>
> I suspect the latter.
>
> Richard Loosemore.
>
>
>
> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
> > Russell Wallace wrote:
> >> On 2/7/06, *Richard Loosemore* <rpwl@lightlink.com
> >> <mailto:rpwl@lightlink.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Who said the snipers would ONLY object to neoconservative
> >> politics? I
> >> was pointing out that they will not allow *any* partisan
> >> discussion of
> >> politics, and what you produced resembled a right-wing rant.
> >>
> >> And what I'm pointing out is that I mentioned no political party, nor
> >> any present-day political organization other than the European Union,
> >> nor did I otherwise engage in any form of partisan politics. (As it
> >> happens I'm a libertarian, but this isn't about promoting the
> >> libertarian agenda.)
> >
> > The original post might have slipped by the List Snipers, if no one had
> > taken the bait. This exchange, though, is political conversation
> > indeed, and is generating lots of messages that don't move the actual
> > SL4 discussion forward.
> >
> > Kill-subthread.
> >
> > We now return you to hard takeoff.
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:55 MDT