Clearly, intelligence is valuable to both evil or good people(depending on what your definition of good and evil are); so, I don’t see how giving higher intelligence to stupid and evil people is going to help the world!

Just seems to me that intelligence(and evil and goodness for that matter) are vague concepts; these are phlygistic concepts; untill you have a deductive proof of all those concepts plus ‘intuition’ ‘feelings’ and so on, your talking like the earth is flat.

The bottom line for the nanofuture is to live with nanotech and I suppose at least supped up computers(even Kurzweil’s reverse engineering of the brain is not understanding of how the human mind works) and quantum computers. The bottom line is to keep life and really intelligence going. I would think that’s the bottom line; but, if you don’t like the idea of human intelligence becoming superintelligent, I guess you could call the world to stop development! Honestly, the rest of this train of thought is going to make this post so much longer; and really, I’ve already posted solutions to all this at crntalk.

This actually raises an aspect of the nanotechnology/”Singularity” technologies debate that I have found lacking:

Which groups are out there, being part of the political process, trying to convey the issues (both positive and negative) to the politicians that these technologies might bring, and attempt to get funding from the public? Which kinds of activities are they doing? Is it working? And if not, why not, and what might be done to correct this?

I am sure that Foresight is doing its part, but I cannot seem to recall a any post here, that has covered any such activities, as opposed to, well-founded, speculation and reporting on technology advancement.

The overall impression I am left with is that there is not a lot of outreach, with would seem rather strange.