I to have separated myself from society; i did so around junior high; i have come to see it as the control variables in a scientific experiment where you keep one variable constant and let the other go through the motions. I am also a little disturbed by some similaritied between my understanding of humanity and Kadamose's. To me, a lot of people cannot be saved; they will cry wolf and claim we're converting them and converting is not allowed(this is the christian double standard where the christians get to convert but we can't point out anything wrong with them and their bible). Besides the christians in modern day industrial civilization, there's the hunter gatherors still around. What are you going to do about them? Nothing! Same thing with the majority of the industrialists which is once again why I suggest an Asimovian "Foundation" project for the senior associates. Kadamose is intent on purposely taking them out; my solution is to step out of the way of the inevitable clash; let them destroy themselves which is what they are going to do.

It's not a desire for power, it's more or less a desire to take back what's rightfully mine – the control of my own life. For example, if I want to learn how to create a nuclear warhead, then I should be able to have access to that information – no questions asked. It's about living without the influence of oppression; it has nothing to do with power.

Besides, no one should have to follow rules made by someone else, especially by another human being. Ask yourself, who makes the rules today? It's not gods, and it surely isn't people speaking in the place of some divine creator – instead, it's people like you and I who are making the rules, so they can have some sort of illusionary foothold to control the people like cattle. I simply will not tolerate it any longer – if these people do not pull their heads out of their fat asses soon, then they will pay a price in blood, which, ironically, will be by their own hands. Good riddance, I say.

most people are inferior, undeveloped Neanderthals who don't know how to control their animalistic urges

Perhaps they have a philosophy a bit like

I want to truly be free and to be able to do ANYTHING I desire

And explain to me how that isn't a desire for power. It may not be a desire for power over other people, but it's still a desire for power, and just as capable of distorting your rationality.

What I found most interesting was Bill's comments on designing our future. More thought is needed on this subject by the media. Assuming we could design our future, how could this be done? How could folks come to better agreement on what to design without giving the nefarious ideas to complicate the situation? Are these examples of "punctuated evolution"? Are we now finally seeing how we are all process driven like a "biological entity" and "living system" that the nefarious could be looked upon as a rougue virus we must keep at bay? If we see a new "virus" developing in some technologies how could we stop it from evolving to "attack" the organism as a whole? Maybe we as humans have finally crossed a critical threshold in the way we all look at ourselves and what we want in our future?

Is the assembler really going to be so distributed that anyone with the ability to do a little CAD work is going to be able to design their own atomically correct widgets?

Who can tell? But with work in this area ramping up vigorously across the world even in these early days, it would seem reasonable that there won't be just one approach adopted and available, so talking about the design of "the assembler" in the singular is probably incorrect.

Ultimately, such fabrication technology is likely to be able to manufacture anything that can be properly described to it, within the constraints of the mechanochemistry involved. This more or less implies that any further constraints would be systemic or designed into the interface rather than inherent. In other words, the system may not allow you to create more, but it can, intrinsically. This suggests that any built-in restrictions would be only temporary.

Transistors in contrast are not a good analogy, as their introduction did not threaten the control held by industrial and political power barons over the means of production

This is a good question. Is the assembler really going to be so distributed that anyone with the ability to do a little CAD work is going to be able to design their own atomically correct widgets?

I'm uncertain as to whether MNT will be truly Promethian.

But has Joy really shifted positions?

There is that one sentence, which seems analogous to the Einstein/Szilard letter (Nuclear energy can make weapons. The Axis is working on this. We must beat them to it.) or a vague acknowledgement of recent concerns about terrorism. But from my reading of the rest of interview, he seemed as worried as he's always been. He mentioned that he was thinking about a book to more clearly outline specific plans to control these technologies, but I got the impression that nothing has gelled up for him. While it's becoming obvious to him that we can't stop the coming of nanotechnology, it still seems clear that, given our current laxity with biotech and computer security, the future doesn't like bright.

Has Joy commented on the Foresight Guidelines?

I'm just glad to see that Bill Joy has become positive again, at least in that article. The only people who benefit from the spreading of fear are those who use it to raise their own profile or to reinforce their own position of power.

Good engineering is about coming up with relevant design requirements and addressing them with good design solutions, and fear mongering contributes nothing to the process. Maybe Bill Joy has realized that now, as his "wakeup call" did nothing to improve the engineering and everything to empower those who will seek to stamp it out once its implications become more obvious. He seems to be more focussed on getting things done and on more positive statements now.

The advent of combustion didn't destroy the world and depopulate it, nor did transistors.

Fire might indeed have been a relevant analogy, if one can imagine a world where flame could be started only in the temples of high priests and distributed only under their strict control, and then suddenly a means was found to allow anyone to create fire at any time, at will, and for no significant cost. That would have been very revolutionary, and the high priests would no doubt have found that this was not progress but terrorism and anarchy. That's where we currently are with P2P networks and the music industry, and that's where we will be with nanotech in due course — it's pretty inevitable that existing power centers will react badly.

Transistors in contrast are not a good analogy, as their introduction did not threaten the control held by industrial and political power barons over the means of production.

he also doesn't understand that humans are lifeforms also, and that lifeforms are about evolving; and therefore, humans are about evolving towards a technologization to be able to take in the flood of information and to be able to learn all that there is