Ninth Foresight Conference on Molecular Nanotechnology
The Ninth Foresight Conference on Molecular Nanotechnology will be held at the Westin Hotel in Santa Clara, California from 9 -11 November 2001. The keynote speaker will be James Murday of the U.S. Naval Research Lab and Director of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office. A special conference session on Venture Capital for Nanotechnology and a Nanotechnology Patent Roundtable will be held.
October 30th, 2001 at 12:13 PM
'Venture Capital'
Was it really necessary to mention that? I was considering actually going to the conference this year, but if the focus point is going to be about 'investing' I won't even bother to attend.
If any of you actually believe there is going to be a money system in 10 years, you better think again. A Paradigm shift in the way people think is definitely going to be necessary, especially before 'the' technological singularity occurs.
October 30th, 2001 at 12:47 PM
Jeepers
Tell you what, Kaddy ol' boy.
Since there won't be a money system in 10 years, any money you have isn't going to be of any value to you then. On the other hand, I assume you can use money now, since, last time I looked, the money system was still in place.
So, I've got a fantastic deal for you. I will lend you $20 today. I will demand no payment for 10 years. In 10 years, you will pay me half your money… that's half of all cash, all bank accounts, all transferable securities, all cash equivalents. In addition, if you then own any assets, rights or resources which could be sold or otherwise exchanged for money, you will have them appraised by an reliable independent expert, and give me half their value in addition to half your cash. The sole exception to this is that you will not be required to include the value of any indenture of your future personal services.
By a "money system", I mean a system which allocates limited resources using a fungible medium of exchange, capable of serving as a store of value, and which is generally accepted as a measure of the value of rights or assets. This medium of exchange may be purely account-based, without a physical embodiment; if I can transfer x dollars, credits, zorkmids, ounces of gold, or whatever to you, whether by handing you an "intrinsically" valuable object, giving you a counter or bearer note, or initiating an accounting transfer, and if you can pass that along to buy other things in any kind of market, then it's money.
You ready to do that?
October 30th, 2001 at 1:19 PM
Re:Jeepers
When I say there is going to be no 'money system', that means EVERYTHING which has any value 'now' such as Gold, Silver, Real Estate, Paper Money etc etc; you name it. These things are simply not going to exist in 10 years…PERIOD.
So, if you were to give me a $20 loan today and I were to 'invest' that money is some sort of 'venture capital' whether it be blue chips or mutual funds, in 10 years I would find $0 in the account simply because the 'account' would simply not exist anymore due to 'scarcity' becoming non-existant.
In 10 years, there won't be limited resources, and without a 'cap' or a 'ceiling' to manage those resources, there can be no economy and without an economy there is no money.
History has shown us that people simply are afraid of change; they are afraid to let the past die and let go of beliefs and traditions that never made sense in the first place. Change is coming, and there is nothing that you, or the people who fear this change, can do about it.
Once people 'break the godspell', they will realize that they are a part of something so big and so vast that it would be impossible to comprehend (at this time). Once the illusion is shattered, all life will be deemed important; everyone will look out for each other; wars will never be fought, and animals will never be slaughtered and will also be treated as equals. This is the future that is coming…and whether anyone here wants to admit or not, Nanotech is the key to it all.
Until that time, however, go ahead and lavish your money, your ego, you inequality, and your 'enslavement' because it's living on a very short lifespan.
October 30th, 2001 at 2:54 PM
Re:Jeepers
I understand perfectly well what you mean. It's silly, but I understand it.
I'm offering you $20, which you can blow now on your present comfort. I'm not suggesting you invest it… investing it would be stupid for you, since you believe that the investment will be worth nothing.I'm suggesting that you use it for your present needs or desires. Buy yourself a pizza tonight. Whatever.
In exchange, I am asking you to give me halfof whatever you own in 10 years. If you're correct, and there is no limitation on resources in 10 years (and therefore it makes no sense to own anything), then that will be worth nothing, so you'll have gotten $20 (useful today) for effectively nothing (payable in 10 years). If, of course, you are wrong, it's going to reduce your allocation of limited resources by half, and give that half to me.
October 30th, 2001 at 3:15 PM
Re:Jeepers
Isn't $20 a bit small to be making such a bet? Besides, money is worthless to me anyway since I horde it, instead of spend it. How about FREE admission to the Foresight Conference (for life), instead? Give me that, and I'll take the wager.
October 30th, 2001 at 4:30 PM
OK, you've caught me out…
My basic problem is that I'd be unlikely to try to collect, even if you were still alive, locatable, in possession of significant net worth, and willing to pay. I'd end up wanting to write it off, and if I'd paid a significant amount for it, that would cause me pain. I picked $20 as a throwaway amount.
However, given the degree of certainty you project, you ought to be willing to do it for 20 cents, let alone 20 dollars.
October 30th, 2001 at 5:01 PM
Re:OK, you've caught me out…
My word is good.
The problem is, I'm one of those "I told you so" type of people – if I'm to make a bet that cuts my assets in half in 10 years, I would expect an equal bet; one where consequences are on both sides. The bet you originally proposed would have been a win/win situation for you because even if you were wrong, you would have lost nothing.
You're right though, I should accept the bet..even if it's for a measily 20 cents, otherwise it would be hypocritical. However, the consequences should be equal for the both of us.
An example:
If you win I lose half my assets if my 'vision' is wrong no later than Dec 21st, 2012.
If I win, you'll have to let me download all the information from your brain (though it probably wouldn't be much use, since I'm obviously smarter than you. hehe)
A bet should be something to that effect.
October 31st, 2001 at 9:46 AM
Re:OK, you've caught me out…
I have no reason to doubt your word. What I
doubt is my actual willingness to collect
half of somebody's assets over a ten year
old rhetorical bet. If you were obscenely
rich, or if I'd fallen on very hard times,
I might take the money, but otherwise I'd
probably just "give" you your money back.
The problem with the brain download suggestion
is that I'm not sure I'd see it as a cost…
and, of course, I still wouldn't be prepared
to actually collect on my half if I won.
How about $20 today versus say $1000 in 10
years? Obviously, you're off the hook if
there's no such thing as a dollar by then.
I'm not as absolutely confident that
dollars will be meaningful and a thousand of
them will be valuable as I am that there'll
be a monetary system… but I'm still about
99.99 percent sure.
Better yet, how about this: if there's a
monetary system in 10 years, you pay me
$1000. If there's no monetary system in
10 years, and if it's technically feasible
at that time, you get to upload
one silly joke delusion or cognitive
error into my brain. It
can't be anything that seriously impairs
my functioning, but it can be something
that makes me look silly. Make me think
everybody is wearing polka-dot hats, something
like that. I reserve the right to remove
it at some future date if I figure out what
it is.
October 31st, 2001 at 12:11 PM
Re:OK, you've caught me out…
Sure – I'm game. Though I don't know what I could actually upload that would be funny, other than tricking your brain into having a bowel movement every 5 minutes. I wouldn't be that cruel though; besides, it would be too easy for you to figure out what exactly I did to you; I'd need to come up with something that you would never figure out.
Anyway, if you would like to proceed with the bet, explain how you would like to keep track of things (such as personal info etc etc) and what you would like to use as a binding contract.
November 1st, 2001 at 1:18 PM
Re:OK, you've caught me out…
My e-mail address is jbash at velvet.com. We've already attached maybe a bit too much off-topic blather to this thread… not that I think very many people's time is actually being wasted.
I'm not sure that's a "delusion or cognitive error", although I guess I'd accept it if pressed. Pretty dull stuff, though. I'm sure you can do better if you try. Go read old hypnotism jokes if nothing else.
I'm not sure what you mean by a "binding contract". If you have some formal text you want me to agree to, I'm likely to agree to it. None of this can be made legally binding… I don't think any legal system, and certainly not any Anglo-Saxon legal system, would enforce this kind of bet. We shall simply have to trust one another.
November 7th, 2001 at 11:31 AM
Re:Jeepers
I am utterly baffled as to how you think that money will be gone within a decade. I have been following the nanotechnology field closely and I have never heard anybody seriously argue that a nanotech revolution will occur within 10 years. Even Drexler himself argues more like 20, and he is definitely considered an optimist on the issue. In order to have money be worthless within 10 years, there would already have to be working assemblers, since there is inevitably a lag time between construction of the first assembler and societal impact. How extensive is your knowledge of chemistry, physics, biology, engineering, economics? I would recommend that you peruse the site: http://www.geniebusters.org. I have disagreements with Mr. Burkhead but it might possibly alter the way you look at things.