Helping the poor: a challenge for nanotech
SciDev.net has a piece by Catherine Brahic and David Dickson titled Helping the poor: the real challenge of nanotech: "But there is also the danger that, if such concerns are taken too far, they could block the development of technological innovations that offer a genuine opportunity ó even taking their potential threats and limitations into account ó to substantially increase the health and well-being of those across the developing world. Such is the case with nanotechnology, the manipulation of atoms and molecules to create new materials and processes at the 'nanoscale'." Indeed–CP
February 25th, 2005 at 1:43 PM
You can't help the poor
There is a good reason businessmen don't care about the poor: they have no money. Why would anyone spend years and millions developing a nanotech water filter if all those poor people can't buy it anyway? How is he supposed to recover his costs? Or are you suggesting that he should be a slave to the poor and work for nothing? It really makes me sick that people think this way.
February 25th, 2005 at 2:25 PM
Re:those evil, powerful poor masses…
"slave to the poor"
lol
yeah, the poor people of the world are constantly 'enslaving' us all with their ruthless tyranny… gimme a break…
the top-down system of command, control and commodity is soon coming to an abrupt end; nanotechnology will render monetary systems and class difference utterly meaningless. that is, if we don't destroy everyone and everything first.
February 25th, 2005 at 5:45 PM
Curious, isn't it?
> yeah, the poor people of the world are constantly 'enslaving'
> us all with their ruthless tyranny… gimme a break…
Yeah, those stupid powerless poor, how could they possibly do anything to us? And yet, when a tsunami wrecked their houses in Indonesia, they suddenly got millions of dollars in compensation. Millions of our dollars spent by our dear government from our taxes without even asking if we wanted to use them this way. Ah, those powerless poor…
> the top-down system of command, control and
> commodity is soon coming to an abrupt end
You mean like the coming of software made all hardware free? Just because you can make something easier in a nanofactory, doesn't mean it will be given to you for free. It's not like you can be trusted with a nanofactory anyway. You might hurt yourself. Or make drugs. Or bombs. Or a plague. And no, you won't be able to make one on your own either, for the same reason that you can't make one now.
> nanotechnology will render monetary systems and
> class difference utterly meaningless.
Money can't be made meaningless because it is simply a standard of value. It can only be made meaningless in a society where nothing of value is produced or consumed. A society of dead people, no doubt.
Class differences will always be around, because being able to make stuff cheaply does not give you access to the raw materials or the energy your nanofactory will need, little as it may be. You'd have to purchase them, with money. You might also want to purchase a house to live in (land will never be free, nanites or no nanites), food to eat (can't eat pure sunlight, you know), and water to drink (because water, like land, is a limited commodity, and so will continue to be scarce in many places).
February 26th, 2005 at 12:16 AM
Re:Curious, isn't it?
You mean like the coming of software made all hardware free? Just because you can make something easier in a nanofactory, doesn't mean it will be given to you for free. It's not like you can be trusted with a nanofactory anyway. You might hurt yourself. Or make drugs. Or bombs. Or a plague. And no, you won't be able to make one on your own either, for the same reason that you can't make one now. Who's gonna stop us? The government? The corps? Once nano is out its out, and no law will stop anyone from getting nanomachines, assemblers, and replicators. Money can't be made meaningless because it is simply a standard of value. It can only be made meaningless in a society where nothing of value is produced or consumed. A society of dead people, no doubt. But the cost of material goods drops to dirt dirt dirt cheap with the addition of space materials and the ability to recycle everything down to the atoms. Then comes the control of plasma fusion and the energy cost itself shrinks down. Class differences will always be around, because being able to make stuff cheaply does not give you access to the raw materials or the energy your nanofactory will need, little as it may be. That is because of the wickedness of humans that class differences exist. Nanotech wont change that.
February 26th, 2005 at 7:01 AM
Value and responsibility
> Who's gonna stop us? The government? The corps?
> Once nano is out its out, and no law will stop
> anyone from getting nanomachines
Your brains will stop you. Making a nanomachine is not trivial and will be way beyond the abilities of most people. If you'll be able to make one then, you should have the same abilities now, so why don't you "get nano out"? "Oh, I'll just steal the plans from whoever invents it." Sure you will. Nobody has succeeded in stealing Microsoft's code for Windows yet, and their security is not nearly as tight as what a company will maintain to protect its nano plans.
> But the cost of material goods drops to dirt
> dirt dirt cheap with the addition of space
> materials and the ability to recycle everything
> down to the atoms.
The cost of materials will not be much less than it is already. Have you checked prices for a ton of steel lately? It's around $400, which is pretty darn cheap. The labour costs are minimal as it is, with Chinese workers being paid 30 cents an hour. Nevertheless, the goods you find in your Walmart are still not free, and well above the cost of materials. No nanotech will change the need for profits; if the materials cost goes down (which is doubtful), or the production cost drops to zero, the difference will go to the company profits, not the price of goods.
> Then comes the control of plasma fusion and the energy cost itself shrinks down.
Fusion research has been going on for decades, and the problems they are having have nothing to do with the materials they use. Nanomachines won't help them.
> That is because of the wickedness of humans that class differences exist.
No, they exist because of irresponsibility. Consider the following scenario: Jack and John both get $100000 from the newly passed Egalitarian Act that redistributed all wealth equally. Jack is jubilant at his newfound wealth. He throws a big party to celebrate. "Wow! I'm finally rich! I can eat out every night, drink as much as I want, and not have to go to work unless I feel like it. Hell, who needs a job anyway?" John is happy too. He bought a cheap house and used the rest of the money as the down payment to buy a corner drugstore.
A year later, Jack is still partying hard; the booze still flows, though not as freely as it did before. His credit cards are maxed out again, since he didn't bother to pay them off, "oh, I'll do that later". But life is still pretty good. John is starting to make good profits from his store, and without having to pay rent he has a lot more money left over at the end of the month. After some research, John invests into stocks and precious metals.
Another year passes and Jack's money is pretty much gone. He is starting to worry about money again. Debt collectors are on his trail as the credit card companies finally catch on that he'll never pay them back. His landlord is threatening eviction unless he pays up the six months back rent. Finally, at a rare moment of sobriety, Jack decides it's time to get a job. He applies for a job as a cashier at the corner drugstore. It's a minimum wage job, but it'll pay the bills. Gotta cut down on the partying though.
John's store is thriving. With all the extra business he even had to hire a chap to run another cash register. John now has nearly $130000 worth of investments. His house went up in value because he fixed it up, the stocks he bought went up, although he lost a little money on gold. John is now a successful businessman with a bright future.
In another year Jack loses his job for showing up drunk three times in a row. He is evicted from his apartment for not having paid rent for over a year and moves in to a cardboard box under the bridge. Jack is now homeless and poor, no better off than he was in the beginning.
And here, dear AC, is the root of class differences.
February 26th, 2005 at 2:51 PM
Why not?
As Hernando de Soto points out, the poor in aggregate actually possess quite a large amount of wealth. An investment in bootstrapping them out of their current unfortunate circumstances might well pay off. It is also quite plausible to consider this as a simple act of charity, especially if advanced technology lowers the price tag of doing something effective.
February 26th, 2005 at 4:15 PM
Re:Why not?
> the poor in aggregate actually possess quite a large amount of wealth
Sure, and the ocean actually posesses an extremely large amount of gold. The problem is that extracting it costs more than it's worth.
> An investment in bootstrapping them out of their current
> unfortunate circumstances might well pay off.
You can't bootstrap them out of their unfortunate circumstances. Their circumstances are a direct consequence of their numbers, their lack of intelligence, and of responsibility. Poverty is a bottomless bucket; no matter how much you give them, they'll stay poor anyway. In fact, giving them anything makes things worse because it gives them no incentive to make a living on their own. In the US welfare system, for instance, a poor man will often earn more than if he had a real job.
> It is also quite plausible to consider this as a simple act of charity
Businessmen do not consider "simple acts of charity" unless they can be used to lower taxes. Otherwise it is just giving something away and getting nothing back. Why would anyone want to discard anything of value in this fashion, is beyond me.
February 27th, 2005 at 2:28 AM
Re:Why not?
"Otherwise it is just giving something away and getting nothing back. Why would anyone want to discard anything of value in this fashion, is beyond me."
maybe thats because some people in the world actually value people over money and commodities. what a novel concept.
February 27th, 2005 at 7:26 AM
The question of value
> maybe thats because some people in the world
> actually value people over money and commodities.
If so, then they do not understand the concept of value. Value is not assigned without a reason. To be valuable an object needs to be of some benefit to you; that is the difference between garbage on your street and the food on your table: the former is a nuisance, the latter a necessity for life. Value is what directs the distribution of our resources, for when you acquire what is valuable, your possessions will help you, and when you collect what you consider worthless, your possessions will hinder you.
Value can be placed on anything, things, concepts, or people. It is one of the ways in which we order our world. When placing value upon a person, one usually considers the potential benefit this person can bring. Most would value their family above their friends, their friends above their neighbours, and their neighbours above random strangers. Poor people on the other side of the world have no value at all. In fact, their value may be negative because of the environmental devastation their farming practices cause.
If you honestly think that people have intrinsic value, and that they are worth more than money, try this simple test. Suppose there is a homeless man named Roger, dying of hunger under the Brooklyn bridge. How much money would you be willing to give him to save his life? Surely, you'd spare the price of one meal. How about a lifetime supply of food for $30000? How about a heart transplant for $500000? Or a nice place to live in for $1000000? As soon as you say "no", you have determined his value. My answer is zero unless I plan to be around him for more than a few minutes.
So tell me again why I should value people who do nothing for me.
February 27th, 2005 at 2:00 PM
Re:The question of value
you speak solely of monetary value, when there is more to the concept of value than just material exchange rates.
money is a completely arbitrary measure of 'value', determined by a multitude of solely materialistic factors. your example of the homeless man and the cost to maintain him is a specious argument at best; who is determining his so called value? you? the federal government? his friends? if the entire world were to use this exclusive use of monetary 'value', the world would resemble Nazi Germany – and that is not mere hyperbole.
we would need to let all retarded, disabled, deaf, blind, and disease addled human beings die without any help whatsoever, since we would not be getting any so-called 'value' out of them. and if that disease addled person just happened to be your spouse or your parent, you might have a different perspective on this arbitrary elitist view of 'value'. any person who does not meet some fluctuating threshold of 'value' would need to be exterminated, since they would be a 'drag' on the precious 'system'. concentration camps and slave labor colonies are both highly effective for such purposes.
do you see what happens when materialistic 'value' is applied to dynamic sovereign human beings? do you truly believe that 'some of us are more equal than others'? if money is the sole measure of 'value' then you will need to get to work, because there is a lot of exterminating to do.
February 27th, 2005 at 4:42 PM
Re:The question of value
> money is a completely arbitrary measure of 'value'
Sure, but so are all other measures. The important point is that value can be measured and assigned, in dollars or another unit of your choice.
> who is determining his so called value? you?
Yes, you. Value is not an absolute concept; whenever you ask "what is his value?" you must also ask "for what?" and "to whom?"
> we would need to let all retarded, disabled, deaf,
> blind, and disease addled human beings die without any help
And do you know what the result of this would be? If you keep removing these undesirable traits from the gene pool (and being retarded, disabled, deaf, or blind are all genetic factors), then eventually there will be no more retarded, deisabled, deaf, or blind people. Wouldn't it be wonderful for everyone to be fit and healthy?
> since we would not be getting any so-called
> 'value' out of them. and if that disease addled
> person just happened to be your spouse or your
> parent, you might have a different perspective
> on this arbitrary elitist view of 'value'.
But your spouse and your parent would have value to you. My point is that although they have value to you, they have no value to me, and it is unreasonable to ask me to support them. However, I will not stop you if you want to help them yourself. Remember, value is relative. You are free to preserve what you consider valuable, like your disabled parent, but there is no reason for me to do likewise.
> any person who does not meet some fluctuating threshold
> of 'value' would need to be exterminated, since they
> would be a 'drag' on the precious 'system'. concentration
> camps and slave labor colonies are both highly effective for such purposes.
Well, now aren't you the evil one. I never mentioned extermination or concentration camps of your strawman argument. I simply said that I do not wish to support people I do not value. That does not mean killing them. It just means they won't get any of my money. The negative of "help" is not "kill". It is "ignore".
> do you see what happens when materialistic
> 'value' is applied to dynamic sovereign human beings?
You are the one who doesn't see it. What really happens is that if you do not make yourself valuable to people, you will not receive any help from them. This may sound frightening if you are unable to live independently, and it sounds very much like you aren't, but it is the only real way to develop your character, to learn about the world, to acquire self-confidence and the abilities you need to really become a human being.
> do you truly believe that 'some of us are more equal than others'?
Are you foolish enough to believe that we are all equal in any way? We have physical differences in size and strength. We have mental differences in capacity for intelligence. We have differences in skill. We have different amounts of wealth and affluence. We have different culture and habits. We have different value to different people. Even the law favors those with more expensive lawyers. So where did you get the idea that people could be equal? Equal in what?
> if money is the sole measure of 'value'
That's like saying "if miles are your only measure of distance…" Money is a measure of value. It is not the measure of value.
> then you will need to get to work, because there
> is a lot of exterminating to do.
What is it with you and extermination? Did you grow up in a concentration camp or something?
February 27th, 2005 at 5:19 PM
Re:Value and responsibility
I have to say, Chemisor, you make very good points about this stuff. Let me ask you this: While its not really a nanotech based question: How can ALL of humanity be like the "John" character in your scenario, or is that possible? Next question: Don't you agree that the reason why the costs for goods are so high is because 1 the energy cost to produce them and 2 the fact that the basic factory itself is so large and expensive, and that with nanotech the main cost is in the software design?
February 27th, 2005 at 5:28 PM
Re:The question of value
ultimately, there is absolute value, and it is set by the Absolute Person = God. Isn't it interesting that even in a discussion thread on molecular manufacturing, it always comes back to Him? atoms are atoms, molecules are molecules, matter is matter, energy is energy. God created it all from nothing (not merely the quantum "vacuum", which is something, but literally, from no-thing at all). He owns it all. He owns us by divine right. i strongly believe that one of the saddest tragedies will be this: people who have been blessed with intelligence by God, yet who reject Him, and who will spend eternity seperated from Him, people who wished for their whole life, that they would be able to move matter atom by atom, yet, because of their unbelief, will never get to. meanwhile, people who never even fathomed nanotech, but who had faith/trust in God, (through Jesus Christ, the only Mediator between God and man), will, in His kingdom, not only have access to *full* molecular manufacturing, but, to "quantum" and beyond "assemblers" (ie quark and neutrino and even space-fabric assemblers). now, is that sad, or what? =O(
February 27th, 2005 at 5:31 PM
Re:The question of value
oh by the way, i want to add this: God has opened His arms wide, and any one of you reading this post, if you simply have the desire for Him, then please, by all means, trust in the Lord Jesus Christ now, and be redeemed, and spend eternity with Him. He created natural nanotechnology, so many of you admire and are amazed by ribosome assemblers, why not meet and be one of the beloved children of The One whom created these wonderful devices?
February 27th, 2005 at 7:56 PM
Oh, great. A religious fanatic…
> ultimately, there is absolute value, and it is
> set by the Absolute Person = God.
You are forgetting that I am an atheist and do not recognize the existence of God. For that reason I obviously can not recognize his judgement on setting the value of people. Furthermore, even if there was some Absolute Person, I would have no obligation to accept his opinion of the value of a random human being.
> Isn't it interesting that even in a discussion thread on
> molecular manufacturing, it always comes back to Him?
Not at all. Religious people always resort to the "ultimate authority" when they see no way to win the argument with logic. Too bad that I don't buy it.
> God created it all from nothing
Wonderful! And you can talk to Him too? Why don't you ask him how he did it? Or are you chicken?
> atoms are atoms, molecules are molecules, matter is matter, energy is energy.
This is actually a statement of the law of identity. I am surprized you know of it when you continually contradict it.
> He owns it all. He owns us by divine right.
And how is this "divine right" enforced? "Rights" of any kind must be backed by something, be it money or force. I assume you will give me some argument about "final judgement", so it's going to be force; however, if I don't believe in the final judgement, hell, or any other divine powers, how will you convince me? You have no evidence of God's existence.
> people who have been blessed with intelligence by God, yet
> who reject Him, and who will spend eternity seperated from Him
LOL! Yup. So we shall. And be very happy about it too. Except that we weren't "blessed" with intelligence; we obtained it partly from our parents and partly through our own efforts to improve it.
> people who wished for their whole life, that
> they would be able to move matter atom by atom,
> yet, because of their unbelief, will never get to.
Oh, puh-lease! How is your belief going to help you build an assembler? If anything, it will hinder you in your efforts, since you will likely not believe in your own ability to succeed.
> but who had faith/trust in God, (through Jesus
> Christ, the only Mediator between God and man),
> will, in His kingdom, not only have access to
> *full* molecular manufacturing, but, to
> "quantum" and beyond "assemblers"
WOW! Now that's a leap! Where did you get this insane idea? It isn't even in the Bible, so don't even try that one on me.
> now, is that sad, or what?
Yes, your mind is surely a sad heap of garbage. It may be, however, that you are right and I am wrong. But for me to accept that you will need to furnish some proof. By proof I mean a logical argument starting with direct observations of reality. For me to accept your religion and all its beliefs you will need to do the following:
February 27th, 2005 at 8:02 PM
Yes! Accept the Lord!
> God has opened His arms wide, and any one of you
> reading this post, if you simply have the desire
> for Him, then please, by all means, trust in the
> Lord Jesus Christ now, and be redeemed, and spend
> eternity with Him.
What he really means is: "If you really want to believe in an imaginary benevolent supreme being that will be nice to you no matter how bad you are, then go ahead. He is opening his arms wide and embracing you. He kisses you tenderly on your forehead proclaiming undying love." Nice fantasy, right? Yes, if you prefer living in an imaginary world to living in the real one. I like the real world, thank you very much.
February 28th, 2005 at 4:19 AM
Re:The question of value
You seem to suggest a direct relation between value and conduct. Are there any further clauses to this? In particular, does this relation extend onto the negative spectrum of value? There are issues with this, im curious to see how your system works, or whether youre just looking provoke, its pretty fun
February 28th, 2005 at 7:03 AM
The Money System will be PERMANENTLY Destroyed
Scarcity=Control
Abundance=Freedom
Money is all based on the supply and demand equation..,and since that will be utterly removed, money won't exist anymore either. Of course, there is always a chance of a fascist state (i.e. Unites States & Europe) stepping in and imposing draconian nanolaws to keep the supply and demand equation intact, but the people will rebel, and these governments will suffer the same fate as their money systems.
February 28th, 2005 at 7:19 AM
Re:The question of value
> You seem to suggest a direct relation between value and conduct.
It is only natural to direct your actions to maximize value to yourself. So, of course, value necessarily directs your conduct. It is true whether you consciously place value or not; even when practicing charity a man must consider to whom his money should be donated and to assign relative value to possible choices to arrive at a decision.
> In particular, does this relation extend onto the negative spectrum of value?
Yes, but you must decide what actions are appropriate in that area. Killing people of negative value is not something you do in the modern society. You decision might have been different if you lived in Sparta two thousand years ago. There killing inferior people was a sport, and killing Helots was part of the manhood ritual.
> im curious to see how your system works
Look at your own life then. You might not do it consciously, but you assign value to people every day.
> whether youre just looking provoke
Damn right I am. This Christian philosophy of egalitarianism, charity, socialism, equality, and the hatred of knowledge and ability must be destroyed if our civilization is to survive.
February 28th, 2005 at 7:29 AM
Re:The Money System will be PERMANENTLY Destroyed
> and since that will be utterly removed
Supply and demand equation will not be utterly removed until everyone is dead, because as long as we live, we demand stuff and must be supplied. Scarcity will not go away; it will just be transformed to different commodities. Intelligence will always be scarce and its products will always be valuable.
There is no need for the government to control nanotech. The companies who invent it will do it themselves. Today, companies are eager to restrict what you can do with their product, and with nanotech it will be considerably easier. You shouldn't think that nanopiracy will be as rampant as software piracy. Software can be copied because we have general purpose computers that can be programmed for this task. I doubt that anyone will be selling general purpose assemblers and to build your own would require an investment of brains and capital equal to the one that invented them in the first place. Needless to say, this puts them out of reach for pretty much everyone.
February 28th, 2005 at 7:39 AM
Re:The Money System will be PERMANENTLY Destroyed
All it takes is just one rogue agent within the system to release either the source code for an assembler, or the assembler itself to be reverse-engineered, and that will be the end of money/government/corporations/religion.
I am confused as to whose side you're on…do you wish the world to continue down its destructive path – or would you prefer each individual human being to have the choice to do whatever the hell he/she wants? (with the exception of rape and killing of course)
February 28th, 2005 at 7:55 AM
Cost of nanoproduction
> How can ALL of humanity be like the "John"
> character in your scenario, or is that possible?
I honestly don't know. The problem is that being like John or like Jack is a choice, and a thinking mind must make it one way or the other. You can exert cultural pressure toward the John choice, but there is no way to guarantee it. Consider, however, that today the cultural pressure is toward Jack.
> the reason why the costs for goods are so high
> is because 1 the energy cost to produce them and
> 2 the fact that the basic factory itself is so large
You should also add intellectual property to your list, which comprises the largest portion of most products. However, these factors only set the base price of the product. The markup is purely arbitrary and is based more on how much the consumer would be willing to pay, rather than production costs.
> with nanotech the main cost is in the software design?
Plus the cost of the energy and raw materials. Carbon might grow on trees, but you only have so many trees. Most people don't have any. With unlimited population growth fueled by charity nanofood, almost nobody will own any land at all. Therefore, the materials cost will still be significant, and probably not much lower than it is today. Materials are pretty darn cheap even now.
Second is the price of the nanofactory. I find it extremely unlikely that you will ever have access to a generic nanofactory you can program. Not only will it be economically unfavorable to produce them (because like the Open Source concept, it destroys any chance of continued sales), but it will also likely to be illegal. The government will not want to you to produce drugs, firearms, or explosives. Therefore, what you are going to get, if anything, is a completely locked down nanofactory that will not run anything but government-approved software and will be so chock full of DRM, you'll never be able to use it for anything other than that.
Don't underestimate the cost of software design either. Microsoft Office costs $700 a copy if you actually want to buy one. Microsoft has thousands of employees working on it and they all have pretty darn high paychecks. Intelligence and skill will always be valued highly due to their scarcity, and so software design will always cost a lot.
Finally, about hackers. Everyone seems to assume that once someone develops an assembler the plans would be easy to steal. This is utter nonsense. Even modern software has its source code guarded very closely; imagine what level of security an assembler would warrant. No casual hacker would stand a chance, and even a full military assault will likely fail because the data will be encrypted with keys of unbelievable length.
Hackers won't even be able to freely copy plans of end products due to the amount of DRM any distribution media would have. Even today, you can't easily copy game CDs, even though the protection methods are laughable due to the requirement of backward compatibility. I can guarantee you that anything capable of reading nanofactory instructions will be designed with DRM in mind from the ground up. With nanoscale protection, it can be designed to be physically impossible to circumvent.
So no, nanotech will do little to reduce the cost of goods. Just as today, reduction in production cost will result in expensive products with more features.
February 28th, 2005 at 8:14 AM
You can't hack assemblers.
> All it takes is just one rogue agent within the
> system to release either the source code for an assembler
I doubt there is much chance of that. No "rogue agent" has released a copy of Windows source code yet, have they? Furthermore, if I were running the security of an assembler project, all the developers would live at the office, just like employees at Manhattan project did. Source code access will be so restricted you'll need a pass to see even a single line. So no, Kadamose, no rogue agent will ever leak it. Good security people will make sure of that.
> the assembler itself to be reverse-engineered
Bullshit. It is extremely difficult to reverse-engineer proteins in your cell even with their source code freely available. Imagine how much harder it would be to do it blindly. Even simpler chemicals are impossible to reverse-engineer with today's technology (and any nanotech that can be used for this purpose will never be available to the likes of you and me). Coke's secret formula is still secret, even though it can't be more than a couple of hundred atoms in size.
Then there is the question of where you are going to get an assembler in the first place. Even if you get some in a nanofactory, the compartment containing them will be completely sealed and wired to self-destruct at the first sign of tampering. How will you know what to look for, anyhow? They could put in some molecular junk in just to distract you and make you waste decades on disassembling some useless chunk.
> I am confused as to whose side you're on…
This discussion is not about sides, Kadamose. It is about reality. Just because you want something to happen, doesn't mean it will. But to answer your question: no, I am not on your side. I don't want nanotech to be developed because I know how it will be used. It is unfortunate that our civilization will die in a dark age (which, arguably, is already starting), but I would prefer it to the alternative. At least this way our species will survive instead of perishing in some global nanoplague.
> do you wish the world to continue down its destructive path
This destructive path is not due to lack of nanotechnology, but rather due to the world's screwed up philosophy. It is the same philosophy that prompted the title article. You can call it Christianity, socialism, altruism, charity, egalitarianism, hatred of life, or whatever. It's all the same thing, and until it is destroyed, the world will continue down its destructive path, with nanotech or without.
February 28th, 2005 at 10:20 AM
Re:You can't hack assemblers.
Your fear of how Nanotechnology is going to be used in the coming years is well warranted, and will most likely come to fruition. However, the destruction of more than 80% of humankind is required for this planet to recover, and a nanotech weapon is the only thing capable of doing this amount of devastation without obliterating the planet, itself.
Once most of humanity has been wiped off the face of the earth, the survivors will then use nanotech the way it was meant to be used, and will turn this planet, that is now a prison, into a paradise.
February 28th, 2005 at 10:57 AM
But I don't trust these "self-made Gods"
> Once most of humanity has been wiped off the face
> of the earth, the survivors will then use
> nanotech the way it was meant to be used
And that is exactly what I don't want to see. How can you be sure the survivors' idea of the "proper way" is proper? What if they are religious fanatics who want to build an Islamic theocracy? I wouldn't trust just anybody to make the correct decision in this matter. So I would prefer to let nature take its course and let the population decline in a customary way. Civilizations fall because they exhaust natural resources that sustain them, and ours is no exception. Read this article for a depressing look into how it happens.
February 28th, 2005 at 11:13 AM
Re:The Money System will be PERMANENTLY Destroyed
>Intelligence will always be scarce and its products will always be valuable. This a bit short sighted really, check your assumptions..
February 28th, 2005 at 11:26 AM
Scarcity of intelligence
I don't think that scarcity of intelligence will be remedied any time soon, if at all. My assumptions? Simply that people just don't want to be intelligent. An intelligent man wants to know how the world works instead of hiding his head in the sand. He can not sustain denial of reality that is required to avoid responsibility and to shift it on the shoulders of others. The world is a scary place for most people, which is why they invent religions full of loving gods, why they prefer to live in illusion and false comfort. Is it possible to create some wonder nanomachine that would give everyone courage to face the world, to exist independently, to prize reason, and despise blind faith? Perhaps. But I wouldn't bet any money on it.
February 28th, 2005 at 11:36 AM
Re:Scarcity of intelligence
When i said check your assumptions i meant check your assumptions. Ever considered machine intelligence?
February 28th, 2005 at 11:38 AM
Re:The question of value
whoa, just caught a whiff of ayn rand stench round here! hang on..
February 28th, 2005 at 11:58 AM
Re:You can't hack assemblers.
Just wanted to clear up a few of the misconceptions here.
A subset of the Windows source code HAS been leaked onto the internet, confirmed by Microsoft.
The formula for Coke is not a secret, nor can any simple chemical mixture remain a secret from a good chemist with a mass spectrometer and a gas chromotograph.
And people have even engineered their own brown, sweet, effervescent drink that is pretty much an equivalent.
The weakest link in the chain? People. Given the stakes, if a company produces these technologies, someone will find a way to steal them. It doesn't take Kevin Mitnick. It just takes Joe Schmoe and a fat wad of 100s. If you want these things to work, they can't just stay a chunk of encrypted data in a vault, somewhere they have to be decrypted, which means that you can steal them from there.
Unlike the pair of you, I have hope. Because that's the only way I want it. I want a future for my daughter. I want the suffering of my fellow man to cease. I'm an atheist, but you could call this an act of faith. Why should I feel any different? If, as you say, we are all doomed, being a miserable bastard isn't going to make me any less dead, and the satisfaction of saying "I told you so!" isn't going to put bread on my table. My misery isn't going to contribute.
Be prepared for the worst, by all means, but give in? I shall not go silently into the night. Or even grousing like a spoiled child, for that matter.
It seems that energy naturally finds the most tortuous path to ground, and the end result of this is life. Since all your energy just escapes as hot air, you two may as well be already dead.
February 28th, 2005 at 12:28 PM
Re:You can't hack assemblers.
First, thanks for clearing up the misconceptions. I guess my faith in corporate security was misplaced.
> If you want these things to work, they can't just
> stay a chunk of encrypted data in a vault,
> somewhere they have to be decrypted, which means
> that you can steal them from there.
Unless you really do everything in a vault. You don't need to actually make assemblers all the time. You can make them inside the vault in batches. Then you can restrict access to this vault to only the most trusted people, or even just to yourself. I think it would work, but, of course, I haven't actually tried it.
> I want a future for my daughter.
So do I. I don't want my children to be nanosite-infected slaves in a pseudo-feudal system. The difference between us is that I see far more malevolent applications of nanotechnology than you do, and have far less trust that people will avoid them.
> I want the suffering of my fellow man to cease.
Even at the cost of his dignity and free will?
> If, as you say, we are all doomed, being a miserable
> bastard isn't going to make me any less dead
I never used the word "doomed". I don't think we are about to have an armageddon with everyone dying, World War 3, or something like that. The decline of civilization is not always violent and in our case it is unlikely to be, since our transportation facilities will go first due to lack of oil. We'll just gradually slip back into a more primitive life. Sure, some people will starve and die, but with some initial effort during the transition period you are likely to live to a ripe old age. A primitive society doesn't have to be a bad situation. You can even have most of the amenities you have now, if you know how to make them yourself.
> Be prepared for the worst, by all means, but give in?
What can you personally do about the collapse of civilization? There are some things we can not change, no matter how hard we try.
February 28th, 2005 at 12:34 PM
Re:Scarcity of intelligence
> Ever considered machine intelligence?
Those who say that machine intelligence is in some way superior to human intelligence, don't understand what intelligence is. Intelligence is the ability to recognize and create patterns. You can improve your ability by increasing the complexity of the things you recognize through augmenting memory capacity. You can also think faster by overclocking your brain or by uploading to a faster emulator. All this does is make it faster. It will not make it "better" or "more powerful". There are no concepts that you are currently incapable of grasping, only concepts you haven't thought of yet. All this bullshit about "transcendence", "gestalt consciousness", or "collective intelligence" comes from the very same people who proclaim the impotence of reason and that there is sacred knowledge understandable only by God.
February 28th, 2005 at 2:27 PM
Re:Scarcity of intelligence
Thats got to be the most rigorous and in depth treatment of intelligence ive ever seen, youve got it all nailed down. Shame that all those AI researchers out there "dont understand what intelligence is"..
February 28th, 2005 at 4:30 PM
Re:Scarcity of intelligence
> Shame that all those AI researchers out there
> "dont understand what intelligence is"..
If they did, they'd have made one by now. So save me the sarcasm.
Y
February 28th, 2005 at 6:25 PM
Re:Oh, great. A religious fanatic…
Chemisor says: You are forgetting that I am an atheist and do not recognize the existence of God. For that reason I obviously can not recognize his judgement on setting the value of people. Furthermore, even if there was some Absolute Person, I would have no obligation to accept his opinion of the value of a random human being. " You are forgetting this: Assume God exists, if that is the case, then by logical conclusion, He created you, and, therefore, He owns you and everything about you, as assuredly as a potter owns the piece of clay he has worked. Chemisor said: "> God created it all from nothing Wonderful! And you can talk to Him too? Why don't you ask him how he did it? Or are you chicken? " (In reply to me) I do not audibly hear and speak to God. I read what He revealed to us in His written Word, and from the natural revelation: nature all around us. Chemisor said: "And how is this "divine right" enforced? "Rights" of any kind must be backed by something, be it money or force. I assume you will give me some argument about "final judgement", so it's going to be force; however, if I don't believe in the final judgement, hell, or any other divine powers, how will you convince me? You have no evidence of God's existence. " Yes. I absolutely believe in the truth of the eternal judgement. God backs His words up by actions. Ultimately, if you are right, then as soon as the neural synapses shut down, and our bodies crash, its a "void", blackness, zip. If I am right, which I am, then, if you continue in this state of unbelief, you will face divine eternal judgement. Chemisor said: "Oh, puh-lease! How is your belief going to help you build an assembler? If anything, it will hinder you in your efforts, since you will likely not believe in your own ability to succeed." You are wrong on two points. 1 I never said belief in God will help us build assemblers. 2 Some of the greatest scientists and founders of modern science in the western world were faithful Christians. Michael Faraday. James Clerk Maxwell. Louis Pasteur. Many others. All of the large universities were founded by Christians with a Christian purpose. Harvard. Yale. Princeton. You name it. Chemisor said: "WOW! Now that's a leap! Where did you get this insane idea? It isn't even in the Bible, so don't even try that one on me." I never said that is listed in the Bible (building quantum assemblers). That is indeed speculation, but, it is based on the assumption that God can do anything that does not contradict His nature, and, that we will have incorruptible bodies and tremendous power, as His children, in a state of sinlessness. Chemisor said: Yes, your mind is surely a sad heap of garbage. It may be, however, that you are right and I am wrong. But for me to accept that you will need to furnish some proof. By proof I mean a logical argument starting with direct observations of reality. For me to accept your religion and all its beliefs you will need to do the following: " Okay. Chemisor said: "Define what you mean by "God". Define it precisely. Something like "a powerful lifeform that created the universe" might work. " God is The Infinite Creator Being, Three Divine Persons, One God (Trinity/Triunity). 100 % love. Chemisor said: "Demonstrate that the existence of God may be needed to explain some natural phenomenon. Don't try intelligent design arguments with me. They will not work." Why do you not accept intelligent design arguments? Have you read the works of men such as Michael Behe ("Darwin's Black Box) ? Let's try this for starters: The seemingly-precise natural constants, such as the fact that if the various forces of electromagnetism and the nuclear forces were mere fractions different, life and matter as we know it could not exist and would not be stable. Chemisor said: "Explain how God affects that natural phenomenon. And I mean explain. In greater detail than "he just does it". Here is your chance to demonstrate that God is an intelligence rather than some random combination of natural forces. It's your theory, so it's your job to tell us how this all makes the world simpler." God created the spacetime fabric, the quantum "vacuum" (more correctly called plenum for it is not void but full of activity and energy), and continually upholds creation. We can see from scientific studies that the electrons and atoms are all stable due to this continual activity, this energy being supplied. I could ask you, where did this entire universe come from, and where did all of the information come from which is within it? Chemisor said: "Identify God. You must be able to prove that there is just one God or show how you can tell the difference between Gods. Otherwise you and I could be looking at different Gods that work in different ways. For instance, how do you know that what you believe to be God is not really the Devil pretending to be God? Did you ask for some id? I thought not." Jesus Christ answered that. The Jewish religious establishment (Pharisees) accused Him of working His miracles under the power of Satan, that is, that in casting out demons/fallen spiritual beings (you probably assume such do not exist?), He was doing so by the power of Satan. Jesus replied "If Satan casts out Satan, then his kingdom cannot stand. A kingdom divided cannot stand." Ultimately there had to be either one God or no God, there is no room for any possibilities in between, because, if you try to say "Well these extraterrestrial beings came to earth and seeded our species with their own DNA" then the question is: Who made them? Chemisor said: "Explain to me why I should even care if He exists." If He does indeed exist, then He is your Creator, and again, back to my potter and clay analogy, He being The Potter owns you, the clay, and, you should desire to worship, praise, and love Him, for He determines your eternal destiny, and, He knows all there is to know about you, and, He knows what is best for you and what is worst for you.
February 28th, 2005 at 7:56 PM
Re:Oh, great. A religious fanatic…
Before I say anything else: use some paragraphs, damn it. Reading a three page uninterrupted block of text is very annoying.
> Assume God exists, if that is the case, then by
> logical conclusion, He created you, and,
> therefore, He owns you and everything about you,
> as assuredly as a potter owns the piece of clay he has worked.
First of all, assuming that God exists is a pretty big step. There is no intrinsic need for the concept of God and just as I do not normally "assume" that there are invisible green aliens hovering above my right shoulder, I am not going to create a supreme being just for fun. You'd better come up with some argument why you need to assume God.
This is your first and most important error. You do not just say "there is a God" and proceed to define what he is and what he does. Concepts do not appear from nothing, but are assigned to existing entities. A concept created from nothing has no meaning because it has no relation to reality.
Second, you have not even defined the concept properly. What the hell does "Infinite Creator Being" mean? Until you have a definition, there is no way to say what is God and what is not. You can not prove that God exists until you can tell me what exactly you are trying to prove. A nebulous "creator" idea is just not going to cut it.
I'll skip the irrelevant "he owns you" arguments; if I don't recognize his existence, I certainly will not recognize any ownership rights. Being a slave to a nonexistent entity! What a crazy idea!
> I read what He revealed to us in His written Word
There is no evidence whatsoever that the Bible was written by God. There isn't even any evidence that it is anything more than a work of historical fiction. Like an oral legend written down, the history of the nation of Israel passed down the generations. I wouldn't trust a folk tale to be anything but what it is: a fancy story.
It does, obviously, contain a lot of real events, but so does any book of fiction, like "The Three Musketeers", for instance. It would be impossible to deny that King Louis XIII existed, but it would likewise be foolish to assume that everything else in the book is equally accurate.
With this in mind, it becomes painfully obvious that anything the Bible says should be verified in reality, such as through archeological evidence, before being considered true. There being no archeological evidence for God's existence (and how can there be? He's allegedly immaterial), the Bible's claims of his existence should be considered similar to Greek legends of the Olympus and its Gods: fairy tales for the amusement of children.
> and from the natural revelation: nature all around us.
Nature all around us has no evidence of God. In fact, it is the proof that he is not needed. Every natural process can be explained by physics and chemistry, in simple, deterministic terms. There is absolutely no need for any intelligent being.
> Yes. I absolutely believe in the truth of the eternal
> judgement. God backs His words up by actions.
And what evidence do you have of this? Notice how I keep repeating this. You MUST HAVE EVIDENCE. I am not going to take your word for it. If a man showed up at your house and offered to sell you a car for $10000 without ever showing it to you, you would not buy it. How can you expect me to buy into your ideas and order my life by them without you offering me ANYTHING at all that I can verify about them.
> Ultimately, if you are right, then as soon as
> the neural synapses shut down, and our bodies
> crash, its a "void", blackness, zip. If I am
> right, which I am, then, if you continue in this
> state of unbelief, you will face divine eternal judgement.
Here you go again, saying things without any evidence to back them up. Have you ever met anyone who witnessed this divine eternal judgement? How do you know you believe in the right God? What if God is actually Zeus, and will punish you for your heretic beliefs when you die? Without identification, you will never really know. And I will not "believe" in something that can not be known.
> Some of the greatest scientists and founders of modern
> science in the western world were faithful Christians.
Only because they avoided questioning their beliefs. In fear of persecution, for instance, for heretics were often burned alive in their times. Even if they weren't Christians, they would have had to pretend to be to avoid the "love" of the church. When you deal with physics, you don't need God anywhere in it, and if you don't intentionally question your beliefs, they will stay undisturbed. But as soon as you start asking questions, religion collapses like a house of cards.
> it is based on the assumption that God can do anything
You can't make assumptions like that. If someone comes to your house and fixes a leaky faucet, you can assume they can fix faucets. There are no grounds for assuming any other abilities. You, on the other hand, who have had no direct experience of God, make the most extraordinary leap of faith and assign the ultimate abilities to him.
Of course, it isn't exactly like that. You defined God as an entity that can do anything, without any real evidence for such an entity. You are coming at the problem from the wrong end. It is not enough to define the concept; you must also show an instance of it for the concept to become valid.
There is a reason for this: if your concepts are not grounded in reality, you have no way to differentiate between such concepts. I could, for instance define a Supreme Being the Creator of the Universe that Can Do Anything and declare that He wants you to shave your head and eat nothing but lentils. How will you contradict me? I can also tell you that "eternal punishment" will await you in the afterlife if you fail to follow his wishes. How will you disprove my statements? Sure, I don't have any evidence to back it up, but you have no evidence to back up yours either.
> Why do you not accept intelligent design arguments?
This is not the place to argue about it. Creationism is considered to be bullshit by every biologist; you are invited to read the evolution FAQ where your silly ideas are debunked.
> The seemingly-precise natural constants, such as the fact
> that if the various forces of electromagnetism and the
> nuclear forces were mere fractions different, life and
> matter as we know it could not exist and would not be stable.
Unstable systems tend to fall down to a more stable state. If the constants were variable, the universe could simply settle down into its current state naturally, just like a stone rolling downhill. There have been some arguments that this is possible.
In the more acceptable scenario that the constants are fixed in every universe, you simply wouldn't exist in any other kind of universe and will thus be unable to ask the question there. It is entirely possible that there are billions of other universes where no matter or life exist. We just aren't in them. No intelligence is required to create them, just randomness.
> God created the spacetime fabric, the quantum "vacuum"
Prove it! Damn it! Where is your EVIDENCE? You have none, and you are making these sweeping speculations. Is this by any chance a direct consequence of "he can do anything"? Yeah, right. My God can do anything too and he says your God didn't do it.
> We can see from scientific studies that the
> electrons and atoms are all stable due to this
> continual activity
Nope. Particles are stable if there is no lower energy level they can fall to. No God here. Sorry.
> I could ask you, where did this entire universe come from
And I could ask you where God came from? If you answer "he always existed", I can easily say the same about the universe. Time is the fourth dimension of space. It doesn't make sense to ask what came before the "creation" of the universe because the universe is not an object moving through time, it is a four dimensional object containing its entire existence. Just as you can not ask what came before the height of your building, the same question is likewise without meaning when asked about the universe. It doesn't solve the problem of "so what's outside the universe?", which should be answered with "I don't know" because I don't, and neither do you.
> If Satan casts out Satan, then his kingdom cannot stand.
Bullshit. Just because some stupid demon worships Satan, Satan is not obligated to like him and is perfectly justified in evicting this demon from a body if he feels like it. When a being that "can do anything" is in charge, the result can not be called a kingdom, because Satan can wield power directly, while a king can only exercise power through his vassals and his army. If Satan killed off all his demons, he could just start over by making new ones. Therefore, your argument (or I guess Jesus's argument) is moot.
> Ultimately there had to be either one God or no God,
> there is no room for any possibilities in between
Why isn't there room for two Gods? Or three? Or a million? How much room does a God need, anyway?
> then the question is: Who made them?
Who made God? The chicken and egg problem will not go away just because you push it at God. If something created the universe and can be called God, the next obvious question is "who created God?" The obvious answer is "I don't know", which is exactly how you should answer "how was the universe created?"
> He being The Potter owns you, the clay, and, you
> should desire to worship, praise, and love Him
It is not customary for a slave to worship his master. In fact, hatred is far more common. A slave must necessarily wish for freedom and if I were God's slave, I would do everything in my power to destroy him. It is lucky for me that there is no God. Or, I should say, lucky for him.
March 1st, 2005 at 2:13 AM
Common pooling of Nanoscience resources
As nanoscience reviews the science in a new angle; the comprehensive developments on renewing the sciences of world, needs the pooling of all nanoscience-resources with UNU on considering the economic and social disparities of the globe that depends on the uniform scientific developments, globally. To handle and to disseminate the nanoscience-resources, the reformation-maturity stage on global-governance may be having a long road-map ahead and hence the local governments have to start procuring the resources by Public-Private-Partnerships through relevant universities. Subsequently, the local governments along with local universities can establish partnerships with their super-governments along with their super-universities and so on up to UNO & UNU. Then the chances of sustainable development and the reduction of economic & social disparities of the globe may be foreseeable. Simultaneously to keep the available resources viable, as a temporary measure the resource-developers may be provide with relevant employments in UNU, till the local governments and local universities been ready for integration.
March 1st, 2005 at 3:09 AM
Re:Scarcity of intelligence
The whole point of sarcasm there was to show how silly your remarks are through use of humour. You make outrageously simplistic statements about intelligence and even claim that those that disagree simply "dont understand". Really, im beginning to think youre just trying to make us laugh.
March 1st, 2005 at 3:25 AM
Re:The question of value
>It is only natural to direct your actions to maximize value to yourself
Where did you get this? By natural you mean that which occurs in nature? Does this mean that we ought to imitate nature?
> Yes, but you must decide what actions are appropriate in that area. Killing people of negative value is not something you do in the modern society.
Thats thorough, "is not something you do". Guess that settles it then. Ill just reconsider my moral system in terms of "is not something you do" or "is something you do". Pretty axiomatic but there you go..
Heres an example dealing with value that comes to mind. Im in a traffic jam, and hear an ambulance behind me trying to make its way through. Drivers generally make way for it. But when it comes to me i think. Hang on a minute, thats a stranger in the ambulance, hence value 0. So im not getting out of the way, that costs me effort. Ill just stand still since that person is of no value to me.
>Damn right I am. This Christian philosophy of egalitarianism, charity, socialism, equality, and the hatred of knowledge and ability must be destroyed if our civilization is to survive.
Very sophisticated, lumping all those things together.
March 1st, 2005 at 7:28 AM
Re:The question of value
>> It is only natural to direct your actions to maximize value to yourself
>Where did you get this?
From the fact that a man who maximizes value is more likely to survive than a man who does not. If you give away your possessions and live in a cardboard box under the bridge, you certainly will have no value for yourself, and spend your life in misery. It's the real choice, gain value and spend your life in comfort, or lose it and be miserable. Christians prefer to be miserable, since they believe in a cushy afterlife that will be their reward for this. And yes, I consider it right to seek comfort and wealth, and an insanity to do otherwise without a good reason.
> Ill just reconsider my moral system in terms of "is not something you do"
Well, morals are statements like "something you do" and "something you don't" by definition. When you say that something is moral, you are implying that it should be done.
> Ill just stand still since that person is of no value to me.
Does a traffic ticket have value to you? The drivers move because they would be fined if they don't and may eventually lose their license. Moving out of the way is a small price to pay for the privilege of driving on public roads.
> Very sophisticated, lumping all those things together.
If you review their basic principles, you will find that they are the same. That fully justifies lumping them together.
March 1st, 2005 at 7:31 AM
Re:Scarcity of intelligence
And I am trying to tell you just how simple the concept of intelligence really is. People just try to make it seem complicated to justify not having any. It's the "soul" argument. People just can't get through their thick skulls that intelligence and self-awareness are not magic, but are relatively simple processes that can be understood and eventually duplicated.
March 1st, 2005 at 7:50 AM
Re:The question of value
>Does a traffic ticket have value to you? The drivers move because they would be fined if they don't and may eventually lose their license. Moving out of the way is a small price to pay for the privilege of driving on public roads.
You didnt follow the example properly, so Ill give you a better one.
A woman is being raped outside your house. Youre watching youre favourite tv show. The woman is a random stranger, so you'd rather remain on the couch and watch tv than call the police to save a woman of 0 value. Good job.
March 1st, 2005 at 8:12 AM
Re:The question of value
> The woman is a random stranger, so you'd rather
> remain on the couch and watch tv than call the
> police to save a woman of 0 value.
Even if you don't care what happens to her, you should still care about thugs hanging out outside your house. Getting them thrown in jail would be well worth the trouble of calling the police. It's too bad rape doesn't cause the death penalty.
Also, this woman would not have zero value. If you save her from unfortunate circumstances, she will probably be grateful. It is up to you to decide whether you would want that. I'd go for it.
Then there is the personal satisfaction of bringing baseball bat justice to a rapist scumbag defiling my neighborhood.
March 1st, 2005 at 8:21 AM
God was created by man…not the other way around
The concept of God was created to enslave the minds of the masses – this, and this alone, was the sole reason for its creation.
People who claim that 'God' created the universe, and everything in it are, basically, the same types of people who once thought the earth was flat and thought that the sun orbited around the Earth. These people, in my opinion, need to be 'nano-plagued', simply because they are a liability to MY future.
March 1st, 2005 at 11:01 AM
Re:The question of value
Undergoing contortions there
You can conveniently add as many ad hoc clauses as you like, but given the bare circumstances i described a system like the one you describe would let the woman be raped in favour of watching tv. Or let the man in the ambulance die because you'd prefer not to steer aside to let him pass. Or favour killing somebody who mildly annoyed you if there were no negative consequences for you (ie get away with it). etc etc.. You can evade the results with added information or you can accept the consequences that system produces outright.
March 1st, 2005 at 1:15 PM
Re:The question of value
I am not "evading" anything. I am simply telling you that nearly all of those "good deeds" you mention are done for a personal benefit of some sort, rather than any concern for random people.
Second, there is nothing wrong with a society that lets worthless people die. In fact, I would consider that a laudable feature, since it maximizes the contributions citizens make to it. The death of an individual is unimportant to anyone except himself or people who know and value him. Let those people save him if they wish to, but don't make me do it, because I couldn't care less if he exists or not.
Third, the situations you are describing are extremely rare. People in the ambulance will not die if they are delayed by a few minutes except in very infrequent circumstances. I have never seen anyone raped or attacked in any way, even in poor neighbourhoods. Most people will not bother killing someone they dislike, even if they could get away with it; ostracism and exile are more common. Life is not full of emergencies. Most communities will be quite peaceful without any law enforcement at all. And nobody should require any help from anybody at all to survive.
Also, remember that it is in our current society, where you claim to value human life so highly, that people really do die on the doorstep of strangers who would not lift a hand to even call the police. In my sort of society, the undesirable thugs would be killed on first offence with no questions asked, weeding them out effectively. Currently they just post bail and go beat up somebody else. That's what your "worship of every life" comes to.
March 2nd, 2005 at 7:17 AM
Re:The question of value
>I am not "evading" anything. You offer contrived clauses/explanations to avoid reaching results that may be undesirable to link with your proposed system. Call it X.
>Second, there is nothing wrong with a society that lets worthless people die.
Means nothing in so far as you cant establish what worthless is. And if you do, its probably some arbitrary criterion tantamount to postulation. Bottom line, that position is meaningless or unjustified/undefendable. >I am simply telling you that nearly all of those "good deeds" you mention are done for a personal benefit of some sort, rather than any concern for random people.
That may be what _you_ propose, but dont pretend to include everybody else in that manner of conduct.
>Third, the situations you are describing are extremely rare..
Totally irrelevant, its a matter of principle. >Also, remember that it is in our current society, where you claim to value human life so highly, .. I dont claim anything about current society. I merely point out certain consequences of your system.
The fact that you contest those consequences rather than accept them outright seems to imply that you yourself do not believe in the system you propose. (It wouldnt surprise me, objectivism is a crude/weak "philosophy" that isnt even taken seriously by academics.)
Also i may add that if you do insist on those beliefs you have automatically to accept that _you_ yourself could be deemed worthless (once intrinsic value in life goes out the window, everyone can be worthless) and be left to die.
Regards
March 2nd, 2005 at 10:44 AM
Re:The question of value
> You offer contrived clauses/explanations to avoid
> reaching results that may be undesirable to link
> with your proposed system.
Yes, but I was not talking about the same results. I was only concerned to assure you that an objectivist society does not jeopardize personal safety. Just because people do not value you, they will not necessarily kill you. Nor would they necessarily avoid aiding you in an emergency situation. You, on the other hand, are concerned with the fate of other people, whom you consider to have an intrinsic value.
Remember, in an objectivist society, life of any kind has no intrinsic value. If you wish to be considered valueable, you must earn that status. Because such a society's primary goal is to maximize value, the efforts it will expend to preserve you are directly proportional to your value. It doesn't mean they'll kill you. It just means that you are on your own. I consider this a very good thing.
Now, about value. A society that strives for wealth and comfort, values anything that lets it reach those goals. Those goals are reached through better understanding of the world in order to make better use of it. This is achieved through science and engineering, so to maximize value the society must create conditions optimal for the pursuit of those goals.
The pursuit of science and engineering requires intelligence (ability), education (skill), leasure (time), and wealth (resources). Therefore, the society's primary goal is to maximize the number of individuals possessing all those things. Because it is in the interest of citizens to preserve their way of life, their value judgements will be largely determined by those criteria.
So what about stupid, uneducated, and poor people? It is obviously not to their advantage to live in such a society. They can remedy the problem through self-improvement, or they can just emigrate somewhere else. If you happen to be one of them, it is entirely understandable that you would be hostile toward objectivism.
A large population will not be advantageous to such a society because it reduces wealth and increases overcrowding, so it would necessarily adopt methods of population control to keep it as low as possible without hindering progress. You disagree with this because believe that human life is valuable for itself, for some unknown reason, and believe the purpose of society to be to support the largest number of people.
An objectivist's society's concern is with quality, not quantity. It would maximize benefits for those who are intelligent and eliminate benefits to those who are not to increase the intellectual capacity of the future generations. This does not mean killing all the stupid people. It just means not helping them live. There is a big difference here. It's a matter of principle. You let those who deserve and desire to live live, and leave those who don't to fend for themseleves. I call this justice.
And finally, what if society considered me worthless? That would not be a problem. I do not require assistance in order to survive. If all the people in the world were to vanish tomorrow, I would survive and live a good life. I could rebuild civilization; agriculture, architecture, automobiles, airplanes, spaceships, nuclear power plants, margarine, paper, plastics, and everything else, because I know how they all work. Can you do the same? From your comments, I doubt it. You seem to think that nobody can survive without society's help. I wonder why that is?
March 3rd, 2005 at 3:05 AM
Re:The question of value
"I do not require assistance in order to survive. If all the people in the world were to vanish tomorrow, I would survive and live a good life. I could rebuild civilization; agriculture, architecture, automobiles, airplanes, spaceships, nuclear power plants, margarine, paper, plastics, and everything else, because I know how they all work. Can you do the same?"
this is quite an absurd statement, and top heavy with hyperbole. first of all, you will not rebuild civilization without a woman to reproduce with – so much for the solitary individual triumphing over nature. second, it would take you the rest of your life to build one automobile, much less an airplane or spaceship or nuclear power plant. the whole reason society has benefitted from technological progress is a result of accrual of labor. how many buildings would be built if it were up to the architect to construct what he had designed? how many pharmaceutical drugs would be produced if only chemists were in charge of production. try to physically acquire all the component materials that go into plastics, autos, spaceships, etc etc. this ridiculous view of the world as an island that does not require other humans for survival is ridiculous. if you truly were the last person on earth, and you contracted the plague – good luck.
" It would maximize benefits for those who are intelligent and eliminate benefits to those who are not to increase the intellectual capacity of the future generations"
and who is the ultimate barometer of 'intelligence'? you? scientists? artists? politicians? whoever has the biggest gun? this foolishness only substitues one form of hierarchal oppression for another.
"If you wish to be considered valueable, you must earn that status. "
to posit that a person must "earn" their place of value is to imply that there is someone handing out the reward for this lemming-like effort to conform to some abstract illusory notion of 'value' or 'status'…I wonder who exactly is in charge of this hierarchy, and by what right they derive their power to assign value? this would never occur in a democracy, nor a republic of any worth. sounds like a pretty good totalitarian state, where those who participate and play by the arbitrary rules get a pat on the back and some toys to play with. doesn't really have anything to do with actual freewill or freedom though. and if approval is required as a condition of worth, then society will be no better off than under medieval monarchy rule.
"You let those who deserve and desire to live live, and leave those who don't to fend for themseleves. I call this justice"
how generous. objectivists can never really say who decides what is meritorious and who is not, and by what authority, and by what standards? under such a rigid, controlled framework, finding one's own way would be impossible, since there would be no 'rewards' for anyone but those who conform to the hierarchy's contrived notions of 'success' and 'failure'. if all one is concerned with is gaining approval, rewards, and contributing to some illusory simulation of a 'society' toward technocratic ends, then the pseudo-philosophy of shallow artifice quickly dissolves into fascism of the most abhorrent, controlling kind. under the guise of libertarianism, the materialistic facade of personal freedom quickly erodes into a mere echo of self-determination. substituting materialism for spiritualism, the same game plays out over and over again – becoming exactly that which one is rebelling against.
March 3rd, 2005 at 8:49 AM
Re:The question of value
> first of all, you will not rebuild civilization without a woman to reproduce with
I might not save the species, but I can be civilized. If a woman survives, I can do both.
> so much for the solitary individual triumphing over nature
We don't "triumph" over nature. We use nature and its resources for personal benefit. A better way to say it might be "cooperating with nature".
> it would take you the rest of your life to build one automobile
Bullshit. A few years tops. I wouldn't be building a Ford pickup; I would build a means of transportation. I'd start with a horse carriage (which I can build in a few weeks), move on to the steam engine (which might take a year depending on the quality of ore available), and perhaps to an internal combustion engine later (which is not likely due to a disproportionate amount of effort needed).
When you are rebuilding civilization, you are not required to duplicate it exactly. You would build the tools and machines to fit your situation. And yes, it might take me a lifetime to build a spaceship. It does not make it impossible. It is simply a question of time. Alone, I might not get to 1945 in technological level, but I will certainly reach 1906, and I'll be pretty damn comfortable. In fact, I'll live like a king compared to the way you live now, since all my work goes toward my personal satisfaction.
I'd like to repeat here: the level of technology that can be achieved by a single man is limited only by time and his ability. The value of having other people around is not their mere existence, but the time one can purchase from them. The more time a person can produce, the higher his value. A homeless man under the bridge produces nothing and is capable of nothing. A trillion of them will still be homeless, poor, miserable, and utterly worthless.
Only those who produce, through the application of their intelligence and skill, have value. Only they can build civilization. It takes only one to start, although it may take several generations to finish. One such man, if made immortal, would have no limit to his achievements. So take your stupid "man is helpless alone" arguments elsewhere.
> this ridiculous view of the world as an island
> that does not require other humans for survival is ridiculous.
If we are talking about simple survival, then there is absolutely no question that a man alone can survive. An intelligent man can reach the peak of stone age culture in a few weeks, and spend the rest of his life in relative comfort, almost without regard to where he starts (if you dump him in the middle of the Sahara desert, then of course he'll die. So will a million people together in like circumstances, once they finish eating each other.) A stupid man would die in the richest of environments, and if there were a million stupid men, they would die likewise.
> if you truly were the last person on earth, and you contracted the plague
If you had a million "homeless men under the bridge" with you, you'd contact the plague sooner and die just the same. It's not like any of them would have the knowledge or the ability to cure you. The plague can be almost entirely prevented by proper hygiene, which can be practiced even in the most primitive conditions. Even if you live in a cave, you can still stay clean and healthy. Especially if there are no other people around to infect you.
> who is the ultimate barometer of 'intelligence'?
Your accomplishments are the barometer of your intelligence. Drop a man in the middle of a forest a million miles from anything. Then visit him the next year. A stupid man would be dead. An intelligent man will be living comfortably in a small cabin, well fed and warm. The same test can be conducted in a modern society. The intelligent have decent jobs as university professors, successful businessmen, insurance agents, or whatever. The stupid ones are on welfare, or living under the bridge. It is, of course, a continuous scale, and many possibilities in between exist.
> to posit that a person must "earn" their place
> of value is to imply that there is someone
> handing out the reward for this lemming-like
> effort to conform to some abstract illusory
> notion of 'value' or 'status'
There is a reward. It is the ability to obtain the effort of others in exchange for your own. By doing this you buy time, so you can drive a Ford in your lifetime while concentrating on producing something else. And I mean it; producing something of value, not sitting around doing nothing.
> I wonder who exactly is in charge of this hierarchy,
Every person who produces something of value. It is indeed, the most democratic of arrangements.
> by what right they derive their power to assign value?
By the right of owning what they produce, and by the privilege of doing business with whoever they please. By selling you their goods, they assign value to you. Remember, value is relative; you may have value to one person, and none to another.
Now I'll turn the question back to you: by what right do altruists derive the power to assign unlimited value to every human being regardless of what those human beings are or what they do? Who is in charge here, to force this valuation upon everyone? It used to be the church, who could do so by decree. In religion, you never question; you just accept, so this was easy. Now, though, with the proliferation of atheists like me, your task is getting harder. I'd say "good luck to you", but I would be lying.
> this would never occur in a democracy, nor a republic of any worth.
I would agree. Because most people in the world would find themselves worthless and forced to actually *gasp* produce something valueable to earn their lives.
> sounds like a pretty good totalitarian state,
> where those who participate and play by the
> arbitrary rules get a pat on the back
You mean like the present society where you get a pat on the back (and nothing else) for practicing charity. The rules are completely arbitrary too. It's not like anyone ever gives a reason why people should have intrinsic value. Aside from appealing to "God", that is, in an ultimate "proof by intimidation".
> if approval is required as a condition of worth
Approval is not a condition of worth. Production is the condition of worth. Go reread the beginning, where I explain why a man doesn't need anybody to be comfortable. He does not require trade, but he benefits from it. Again, I must emphasize that he benefits from trade only with other producers. He benefits not from their existence, but from their production, which is made possible by their intelligence and skill.
> objectivists can never really say who decides what is meritorious and who is not
Every person who produces something decides who is meritorious and who is not by deciding to trade with them.
> by what authority
By the authority of ownership, which is the only authority in an objectivist society.
> and by what standards?
By the standards of the man who is applying them. Value is relative, and so is the standard of value, but to objectivists, the standard of value is usually production (which is made possible by intelligence, so intelligence is thus also a standard of value).
> under such a rigid, controlled framework,
> finding one's own way would be impossible, since
> there would be no 'rewards' for anyone but those
> who conform to the hierarchy's contrived notions
> of 'success' and 'failure'.
To "conform" you would simply need discard your irrational desire for unearned "rewards". If you want something, you are free to trade for it with something you produced yourself, or with money you received for being employed by someone to produce for him. It is, indeed, a "rigid" system, for you will never get something without paying for it. In other words, you won't be able to steal. Such pity for you.
> if all one is concerned with is gaining approval
You really need to get rid of these assumptions of yours. It is the altruists who are concerned with "approval" because under their system you can only survive if other people like you and are willing to give you stuff (for nothing, of course). Objectivists are instead concerned with maximizing the value of what they produce in order to be able to trade their best effort for the best effort of others.
To give an example: an altruist businessman is producing cooking pots. His product is not very good; the pots are made of cheap iron and rust through within a few months. However, he has plenty of business because he is well liked and his customers buy his pots because "he needs the money", or because of "loyalty", or because they just happen to like him. To maintain his business, this man would have to spend his time trying to suck up to his big clients so they don't dump him.
An objectivist businessman produces the best pots he can make. Made of stainless steel and with a teflon nonstick coating, they are the best thing on the market. He isn't concerned about making his customers like him or his company. In fact, he doesn't give a damn what other people think. He is only concerned about making the best pot; best by his own standard, not anyone else's. His customers buy his pots because these pots will last centuries. Can you guess which one of them has the incentive to produce better pots?
> materialistic facade of personal freedom quickly
> erodes into a mere echo of self-determination
> the same game plays out over and over again -
> becoming exactly that which one is rebelling against.
Translation, please?
> substituting materialism for spiritualism
That's right. Because "spiritualism" must die! It is what most hinders the progress of technology. It is what poisons people's minds with ideas like "man is worthless", "you can't really know anything", "have faith in God and you'll be saved, even if you do nothing else". I say: good riddance!
March 3rd, 2005 at 1:08 PM
Re:The question of value
LOL!!
sorry, but the delusions of grandeur that you are suffering from are quite hilarious. if you really believe half of what you typed above, and are not just pulling everyone's proverbial leg with this, then all I can say is "yikes".
and you explicitly said you would "rebuild civilization" without anyone's help. well what if one woman survived but she lived on the other side of the planet? what if she didn't want to reproduce with you? would you force her? or would your god-like intellect and ability to construct locomotives all by yourself in a single year impress her into submission? please.
to say that intelligence is linked to accomplishment…hahahahahahahaha!! what is it like to dwell completely in the exterior world of shallow superficiality and artifice? I presume you are not a mathematician…in the exterior world, what do mathematicians "accomplish"? all of their wrk is in the abstract, relying on others (engineers, laborers) to put their thought into action. yet mathematicians are some of the most 'intelligent' people on earth. yet in material terms, they accomplish so little.
it is absurdly arrogant to declare that you alone can rebuild civilization without anyone's help. that is about as believeable as telling us that Jesus picked you to save us from ourselves. in fact, the only difference between the two statements is that you substitute yourself for Jesus.
objectivists and Christian fundamentalists have alot more in common that you realize.
March 3rd, 2005 at 2:28 PM
Re:The question of value
without the electric-power grid being online, I would like to see anyone build a car. unless of course, you plan on monitoring and conducting maintenance on the grid. who will mine and collect the resources needed for this? gonna buy the parts at pep boys? or perhaps use existing parts from a junkyard (thereby using the efforts of others through no effort of your own?)
regardless, this silly talk of determining the worth of people via some arbitrary measure of accomplishment is anything but objective: it is completely subjective. intelligence, accomplishment, right, wrong, value, good, bad and all other judgmental epistemological arguments are 100% subjective, depending on the power structure declaring what is of value and what is not. if all one has to live for is bits of paper that one can trade for material junk, and some belief (and that is all that intellectual progress is, is a belief in human reason) then why bother with any rules. objectivists are too cowardly to be anarchists – they would rather control the values of a society according to their beliefs and their hierarchy, completely subjugating all other forms of belief and value, as though they knew what was best for everyone. there is no room for freedom, freewill, or non-conformity when all value is measured in discrete amounts that can be translated into material commodification. and this form of belief certainly cannot withstand violent revolution, replacing one materialist paradigm for another, in a vicious cycle of perpetual destruction – all for the arrogant belief of what is quantified value and what is not. what a "great" species we have become.
March 3rd, 2005 at 2:40 PM
Re:The question of value
"production is the measure of worth"
says who? the producers? the consumers? the hierarchy? the government? the market? when you are born into this life, does anyone own you? is a human life a commodity to be bartered and traded at some fluctuating degree of value? production is entirely worthless, in real terms. production in and of itself is a meaningless activity that any mindless programmed robot is capable of. in fact, "productivity" as measured in economics has greatly improved since the automation of production in the past century. by such nonsensical logic, that would make the machines that assemble cars and widgits the most valuable, revered parts of society. if production is the measure of intelligence, robots and machines are gods compared to humans.
so much for self-determinism, since we can never equal the value and freedom that must be granted to artifical life forms.
furthermore, production is a dead-end. here today gone tomorrow is the old cliche at work here. if all one lives for is to be a producer/consumer drone/ant in a little colony in the remote vastness of the universe, then go for it. don't be so shocked when others place more importance in their lives on intangibles, abstractions, and beliefs that they are free to choose from. if one is here only to conform to the marketplace, then human evolution will be at a standstill, as we become so self-satisfied in our materialist environment, we will overshoot our carrying capacity and consume every last resource in our never-ending desire to produce goods for consumption. this is the path of suicide, and we are already well on the way – using up fossil fuels, clean air, and polluting our surroundings to get more "productive capacity" out of what we do not truly own. no one owns anything. the moment you die, your rental period is over and no one cares about your possessions. materialism itself is more transient than even human life, as people are remembered more than how many research papers they wrote and how many bolts they screwed into metal beams.
March 3rd, 2005 at 5:41 PM
Sheesh, what a… Whatever. We're done.
I am glad to see I have finally reduced you to thrashing around in fear. Yup, my way of life is totally incompatible with yours. Yup, there are more of you, so you'll win. It's too bad you still have delusions of grandeur thinking that you are somehow morally superior because of that. I'll never be able to get through your thick skull, since you just ignore everything I say anyway to cling to your worldview regardless of reason, so there is absolutely no point in continuing this discussion. Go to hell. Don't bother replying. We are done.
March 4th, 2005 at 3:06 AM
Re:Sheesh, what a… Whatever. We're done.
From the moment you made those ridiculous claims about intelligence it was clear you were not up to this dicussion.
It's good you have finally decided to withdraw, not without spouting the predictable dosage of ad hominem, of course.