Online discussion of “engaging the Greens” on nanotech, relinquishment
Anonymous Coward writes "Greenpeace, noted peace and ecology NGO, is hosting a debate on arms races and relenquishment – it's unofficial but is pretty detailed. It appears that the organization is debating Bill Joy's arguments and the general strategies of de-escalation and relenquishment."
More on this discussion was posted by jbash, who writes "People around Foresight are always talking about how we (whoever "we" are) need to go and engage the Green types (whoever they are) and talk about the implications of nanotechnology machine intelligence, and whatnot. Well, I was tracing some links from this very site, and, lo! I found one of "them" saying something about engaging "us".
Read more for the lengthy remainder of jbashís remarks.
NOTE: The Greenpeace site is extremely sssslllooooowwwww . . . jbash writes "Well, I was tracing some links from this very site, and, lo! I found one of "them" saying something about engaging "us"
So I engaged 'em. Follow the link to see what's ensued; looks like a lot of additional debate may happen. I've already learned a few things about some of the viewpoints over there, and I suspect that other users of Nanodot could also learn from exposure to them.
I promised to go and try to recruit more people from "my side" for the discussion, and this message is one way of doing that. I'm sure that lots of the people reading this will have things they want to say.
A few notes, which I'm sure most of you don't need. Perhaps there are a few who need reminders.
- There's a certain amount of hostility over there. It would be Most Unfortunate if an influx of equal or greater hostility from over here were to cause the discussion to degenerate beyond all chance of producing something. Most Unfortunate, indeed. Let's all keep our tempers, and try to damp down any nastiness rather than feeding it. One of the more annoying habits I've seen over there is accusing anybody who doesn't share all your values of being amoral. This should in general be ignored, not emulated.
- If you're a regular user of Nanodot or other technology-oriented, basically technophilic forums, you can often assume you have certain things in common with the other users. You can assume a lot less about the Greenpeace forum. Ideas are different, values are often very different, and even terminology has lots of important, yet hard-to-miss differences. Use of technical terms should usually be treated as at least partly metaphorical. If something sounds like complete gibberish, there's more chance that you just don't understand the assumptions behind it than that the person who posted it is an idiot. Likewise, people aren't always going to understand where you're coming from. Let's remember to identify assumptions.
- There are very real, perhaps irreconcilable conflicts of values. That's life. It helps to know where those conflicts lie… and it also helps to realize that the opposing set is not just going to disappear. None of us is going to have things all her own way, so our actions had better not be based on such an assumption. It's often possible to cooperate usefully with somebody even if you don't agree with that person's values. Some, but by no means all, people over there forget that. Let's try to minimize the number of people over here who also forget it.
- I sometimes hear people at Foresight meetings say that we need to go tell others, including environmentalists, about "our" issues, with the assumption that they haven't thought about them. Certainly there are many environmentalists who haven't thought about them, or who have simplistic, 1950s monster movies views of them. Those are not the people we're dealing with here. Some of the people debating over on the Greenpeace site have clearly thought about the implications of the specific technologies we worry about in some depth… and there are some closely related issues where they are clearly the experts compared to most of us. Being patronizing will not be productive.
- They have some flakes over there. Luckily, anybody who's used Nanodot for any length of time should have a lot of experience in dealing with flakes.
BTW, the Greenpeace system is slow as hell. And the "preview" button acts, at least for me, as a "post" button. And no rational quoting scheme works; they strip both <pre> and <blockquote>. Such is life."
February 13th, 2002 at 3:17 PM
great advice, John
Thanks for taking the time to write up these pointers. I hope all of us nanodotters who post at Greenpeace will keep them in mind.
February 13th, 2002 at 5:44 PM
Re:great advice, John
Unfortunately… pointless as well.
I read a large number of the post's over there. Most of it deals with beliefs held as religiously as anything dealing with a deity.
There's no way to hold a rational argument when the other party refuses to rely on rational thinking.
Ethics are a pointless argument for delaying or stopping technology, because my Ethics don't match your, your's don't match his and so on. Yes, I want to see Nanotech developed by people I consider Ethical, in a sane, rational manner, but I don't see much sanity or rationality on Greenpeace. That's a shame. I like most of their professed goals…
I just can't say the same for their tactics.
But to say that any research into Nanotech should be delayed until some "Ethical" criteria can be met is insanity. It's an open invitation to allow unethical researchers to catch up or surpass the researchers that are preferrable.
It comes to this. Would you want a lab run by Foresight, or one run by Bin Laden?
Ethical and moral debate is worthless. One man's evil is another man's good.
February 13th, 2002 at 9:53 PM
Re:great advice, John
I have mixed feelings about this.
On the one hand, I agree that there are many people 'over there' that are dogmatic, and others that are demagogues exploiting the well-meaning but credulous. But not all. There are people that are prepared to listen and respond intelligently. It is vital that every attempt possible be made to try to be as inclusive as possible in debates on this topic. And it's not like MNT true believers aren't capable of being dogmatic or religious either.
If I do post over there, it will be under a different pseudonym, and with a rather different attitude. My persona here is that of the devil's advocate, precisely becasue if we are to debate this stuff in the wider community we need to learn how to cope with the sort of shit I throw around like a demented monkey. But if I'm on a site like Greenpeace, then I would have to consider myself an ambassador for MNT, and I would behave a lot better.
I'm quite fond of some of Greenpeace's actions, like installing solar panels on the roof of the Prime Minister's residence here in Oz…
February 14th, 2002 at 11:30 AM
I think you misunderstand the intent
Yes, those "beliefs held as religiously as anything dealing with a deity" are, for the most part, called "values"… and everybody has them. Nanodot is thick with them. If you don't believe that one thing is better than another, then you have no guidance at all for your actions. Logic gives you exactly nothing if you have no premises from which to argue.
It's possible to make a useful argument for a course of action to somebody whose values differ from your own. You do it not by trying to talk them out of their values, but by pointing out to them that, even in their own value system, the actions you advocate make sense. It helps, of course, if at least some value are shared.
It's true that you do run into some hard-to-challenge beliefs that aren't really values, and that really do stand at odds with reality. The biggest problem I'm seeing with the Greenpeace people is their tendency to argue strategies under the assumption that those strategies are somehow going to be magically agreed to by everybody, worldwide. They tend to see politics as an ultimately winnable all-or-nothing conflict, in which it is the manifest destiny of their worldview to prevail.
… which sounds exactly like a lot of the people on Nanodot.
Like these guys or not, they are an important bloc of thought leaders, and a reasonably important political force. They're going to be out there acting on the world. Ignoring them won't make them go away; it's much more useful to try to influence them. Keep an open mind, and you might even learn something in the process.
There are things that "they" want that aren't all that different from the things "we" want. Those are areas for cooperation. Even where we're in irreconcilable conflict, it's useful to know exactly what the conflict is… it helps you to guess how the opponent will act, and where to put your resources. The only way to get that information is to engage.
… and I don't agree that ethical argument is completely useless, anyway. People's values do change. Even when they don't change, it's often useful to find sets that are widely shared.
Off to work on my next batch of Greenpeace posts… they'll probably come out on the weekend.
February 14th, 2002 at 1:22 PM
At a loss
After reading some of the arguments on the Greenpeace site, I have to question what you said about our (Nanodot's) worldview.
Nanotechnology, which Nanodot's about, is a young immature technology, yes most of the participants have their own opinion on how Civilization will develop due to this technology, but anything we come up with has to be taken with a grain of salt.
We are basing our opinions on a technology that hasn't even begone to be developed yet. We have no more an idea how human life will be or where nanotechnology will develop into 25 years from now than we new where computers would lead to 25 years ago.
My question is this how can you have an ethical debate about this?
Let's see where it (Nanotech)is going first before we have any judgement on it.
February 14th, 2002 at 3:56 PM
Re:At a loss
Oh but the point is that it is beginning! And now is the time of maximum influence on the course of its development which is why we debate these issues. I also point out that we can have a reasonable idea of where some things could be in 25 years based on scientific limits and likely progress and interest in a field. Of course we will likely be wrong on some things but we will be more correct than if we do not consider the issues at all. The field moves where its workers pursue it and the current debate may influence their interests.
February 15th, 2002 at 5:55 AM
Re:At a loss
I agree with most of what you say, now is the time to lay down the rules. What I am saying tho is, what technologies will pan out and which ones won't? We don't know yet if a real NMT assembler can be made, all indications say we should be able to make one, but until we do make one it will only be an intelligent guess. We may find 10 years from now that a nanomedical robot, like ones this group has discussed, may be to complex and unwiedly to be constructed in bulk, thus eliminating any ethical issues with extended life or who get's NMT medical care, the rich over the poor?
I have alot of high hopes for NMT but I also take a wait and see, at least whith learning our abilities to manipulate molecules and atoms, before getting into an ethical debate on unproven technology.
February 15th, 2002 at 9:25 AM
cache and carry?
The greenpace url you give is 404. Google caches are active, though. Anyone know why the grrenpeace archives are on the fritz?
February 15th, 2002 at 9:29 AM
The Greenpeace Site Seems to be Down…
The Greenpeace site appears to be having technical difficulties and is down. I hope it wasn't because of "us".
Could this be the first ever "nanodotting" of a web site?
February 21st, 2002 at 1:31 PM
Greenpeace site back in action, please follow up.
Personally, I applaud this Green outreach, and compliment those of you who take part in it. One of the most damning valid things said over there was that since 1986 there has been, as Mark Gubrud put it with respect to peace strategies, "fifteen years and zero papers". I sometimes take issue with the ways people quote my own work and opinions, but I'm glad that they pay attention. I would say that the use of technical terms is often advanced of that which I learned in school, that is, Greenpeace people can anticipate implications of combinations of terms, and think in purer process terms than most others.
Since their objectives include altering both professional standards and designations, that's a good thing although it is also often an obviously ideological decision. Sometimes they know they're doing that, and sometimes they don't, just like any of us whose political and technical assumptions are mixed up in one single human mind.
With no more than a few years to go before these new technologies may turn into street riots like we see about genetically-altered (I don't say 'engineered' or even 'modified' since I know how they do it!), it's time to get into the fray. Greenpeace is too big to be ignored.
Also there is this at the Global Green Parties: Common global Green position on artificial (non-DNA) life?, comments attached to which mention not only Foresight but also the fact that it's guidelines are already being violated. Hmm.
Another fact not mentioned is that most Greenpeace posts are anonymous. This seems to be a deliberate policy – there are exhaustive debates on the subject there quoting from psych textbooks. If you want to learn something, go to their search page and type in 'etiquette'. Whew. Intense. But worth it.
February 21st, 2002 at 2:06 PM
volunteer to make friends?
Very temporary problem apparently. Only affected the web archives – the core of their net presence seems to be "action alerts, e-cards, petitions and other parts of our cyberactivism system." They're also hiring, so I presume they know they need some more help with this. Maybe helping them is a good way to make friends?
February 21st, 2002 at 2:11 PM
Guess you should go join Greenpeace now
"Ethics are a pointless argument for delaying or stopping technology" "Ethical and moral debate is worthless. One man's evil is another man's good." So might makes right, war is inevitable, and each side should start by killing its best persuaders. Nice work, McGill, you just proved that *you* don't rely on rational thinking or assumptions. Guess you should go join Greenpeace now! Loser.
February 21st, 2002 at 2:25 PM
what is the technology going to *protect*?
An ethical debate influences a lot of things: funding, banning, fear of losing public support in a war, ability to recruit young scientists or encourage their career paths.
Someone reading this "must accelerate technology" propaganda is going to conclude that they must actively try to conquer the world as a moral obligation. Please. If that's to be done, it's not going to be done by some AI built by you guys, it's going to be done by folks over at the GlobalGreens http://globalgreens.org
Why them? Peace, ecology, democracy, feminism, decentralism… pardon me but their values are the ones that you claim are upheld by technology.
The difference is that they are dealing with this weird legacy system of monkey politics. Pink Goo. As if you guys can avoid it by wishing!
I'm totally with JBash on this outreach, but if you are going to approach this as a propaganda exercise, be ready to learn something. The weakness of their strategic and diplomatic (both highly intuitive) thinking is that it's not always technically rigorous. But then, you don't know what's going to work either, so that's only a quantitative difference – you may be more likely than them to be right, but they don't need to be exactly right to apply a Precautionary Principle. Just as you don't to apply for funding!
The other thing they do right is they ask what you are *protecting* not what you're *assuming*.
If your funding is military, that tells them a lot. Remember they're part of the peace movement. Which has disarmanent, diplomatic and values education tracks. Did it work? Did the USSR break up due to Reagan's arms buildup, due to failure to control Chernobyl and Afghanistan, or due to inability to create as free a peaceful society? Be ready to debate history over there.
After all, you're probably going to be making it.
If you don't have the ethical debate *now*, when *will* you have it? When there are ignorant villagers piled up on your doorstep ready to gut you because they believed a rumor about you? It is arrogant beyond belief that the Foresight leadership didn't *join* Greenpeace on *day one*:
Failing to engage them proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Foresight really believed that force would win in the long run, not any chosen outcome. Accordingly, no need to predict anything more than technology! No need for anything beyond Cold War levels of understanding of politics!
Yeah Right! The ethical debate is about *that* failure to outreach, connect, engage and assume that your neighbors matter. That's a mistake Greenpeace has made, but you guys make it *as a matter of policy*. You think what you're doing is so "different" that "old rules don't apply."
That's just arrogant nonsense. What you're doing is exactly what nuclear and genetic scientists did. And look where their "miracle products" are now. Some worked. Most didn't. And the level of public trust in those professions is so low that there are riots when one of them wants to do something new. You should really learn from that.
February 22nd, 2002 at 6:51 AM
It's nanodot's turn to have technical problems.
It's nanodot's turn to have technical problems.
As I write this, the lead article in this thread is simply missing. I can see the comments but not the lead article. If I were paranoid I'd say that the same gremlins that took down Greenpeace's site hours after the article was written have now taken this one down to keep the Greenpeacers from seeing your respectful tone and coming over. But I'm not paranoid, so I won't say that.
In Engines of Creation Drexler implied that multiple power blocs each building up around a value system, and acting without consulting each other, in opposition sometimes in an advocacy system, might be safer than conspiracies of experts. Like peer review or criminal cases it may be necessary to keep discussions 'silo'd' to a degree. If the CIA believes so too, it might be taking out these posts to help us along and give them less work to do in future. Half a
February 28th, 2002 at 11:02 AM
Re:Guess you should go join Greenpeace now
Really?
Hummm. Guess you don't study human nature do you?
Ethical and moral debate have always been worthless where technology is concerned. There are far too many examples of that around for you to think otherwise. Do you really think Biowarfare agents aren't reseached? Or that Chemical warfare research has ever stopped? No, it just sank out of sight into the hands of people who had no scruples about researching it.
Do that to Nanotech, and you have a surefire recipe for horrors you don't want to dream about.
BTW… read my full posts and don't skim to those phrases you object to. You might actually learn something…
Then again… considering the quality of most of your other posts… I'm not sure why I'm even bothering to reply. I normally refuse to match wits with unarmed opponents.
February 28th, 2002 at 11:45 AM
Re:I think you misunderstand the intent
If the intent calls for a halt to research by qualified scientists until some "ethical" or "moral" standard is lived up to… no, I don't think I did.
Don't misunderstand me. I want ethical scientists researching MNT. The more ethical the better. I'd love it if the only people researching MNT were bound more tightly than Asimovs Laws of Robotics to never harm or through inaction harm anyone and to only work for the greatest good of everyone.
But it's a pipedream. MNT will be developed regardless, and if you ban research until an ethical standard is met, you ensure the ethical scientists will stop researching, and allow the unethical scientist to proceed.
I'm not a religious person, but I do have my personal ethics and morals, and they match fairly well with your typical americans. I want someone with my ethics working on MNT. Someone who wants to help people, to cure hunger, disease, and aging. To make a world where everyone's dreams can come true, provided they don't harm anyone elses.
But there are people out there who's dreams are a world filled with the corpses of their defeated enemies, where hatred and killing are considered a Moral imperitive to be carried out by all ethical people. A ban on MNT for "my" Ethical standards would be laughable to them…
Call me what you will, but open your eyes. Ethics and Morality are relative.
The development of MNT isn't. It's a cold hard reality we have to face, and all the wishful thinking in the world won't put the genie back in the bottle.
February 28th, 2002 at 11:59 AM
Re:At a loss
It's a valid argument, but again, it overlooks human nature.
Never forget the lesson of Adam. If it's forbidden, it's desireable.
February 28th, 2002 at 4:27 PM
you are arguing for human extinction here
If you define "human nature" as genocidal and suicidal, of course you can prove any other nonsense and justify any genocide or suicide of your own, individual and collective. But that is not all that humans are about, as evidenced by the strong empathic behavior of the Great Apes.
If you think humans are so different from these cousins as to be beyond saving, then that's an argument for human extinction, not an argument for more technology.
If there is no capacity to resist what is desired then the only control on human behavior is death. And with modern weapons that has quite predictable consequences.
February 28th, 2002 at 4:33 PM
illegitimate sources can't replace government R&am
Your concept of research funding is absurd – if all legitimate funding is denied then there are not enough illegitimate sources in the world to do basic R&D. No new weapon ever came from even a small government. Your attitude is an argument against government, which by definition assumes a negative view of "human nature" and ties resources up to insane levels propagating that view. Why does Costa Rica have no army if the world is such a nasty place?
Whatever else I might be able to learn from you, I have nothing to learn from you about the economics of science. You also prove your lack of historical context with this absurd generalization:
"Ethical and moral debate have always been worthless where technology is concerned."
Really? Why is every conflict on Earth not already swimming in bio- and chemo-weapons then? Why did Japanese warlords forgo the gun for centuries until the U.S. forced their borders open? Why is every junkie not armed with an HIV+ needle? Mutually assured destruction itself requires an ethical debate with one's enemies.
Watch Palestine and Israel. Really watch them. You might learn something.
February 28th, 2002 at 4:45 PM
refer to Allah's standard: stewardship.
"Ethics and Morality are relative."
Ethics is. Morality isn't.
Morality has always been relative to biology and survival questions (ecological, sexual, social), which are radically autonomous from the point of view of the Ethicist.
This belief in moral relativism, as opposed to the necessary ethical relativism imposed by a globalized trade and debt system, is dangerous.
For examples, you need only visit the climate change debate, where the net value of a human life is being decided relative to the atmosphere – drastically varying from developed to developing world. IPCC numbers set a relative price on a developing-world life 1/15th of that of a developed-world life, reflecting a military hegemony. But what is that developing-world life worth in the first place? Certainly not more than the ecology that must sustain it with air, water, arable soil, plant genes and erosion protection. Protecting these is a moral prerogative.
Likewise, given what is known about our nearest human cousins the Great Apes, preventing their genocide is a moral absolute: permitting them to be extincted amounts to a de facto declaration that the human species has no respect for helpless language-using empathically-similar creatures. That it is ruled solely by force.
Some of you already believe that. But there is still time to make another choice. When the Great Apes are extinct, of course, there won't be.
The game will be over. Any scientist working on any destructive weapon need only point to such an extinction to argue that humans are inherently genocidal, even if they aren't threatened at all by a given group of persons, hairiness notwithstanding. All the stops come out at that point.
But they haven't come out yet. That's what's wrong with your argument. Put 1/1000th of the energy being applied to nanotech or AI into the prevention of Great Ape genocide, and the moral example does more than 10 assembler breakthroughs, to ensure that the goals you want pursued, are pursued.
This decade is a critical turning point for the human species. It can prove itself worthy of Heaven or Hell, if you want to get into Biblical terms (as you introduced by mentioning Adam). The genocide, or not, of our nearest cousins in the Garden, is pretty much the only test of which humans deserve. Saving whales is harder, saving human kids too easy to justify as self-interest.
"A ban on MNT for "my" Ethical standards would be laughable to them…"
Then refer to Allah's standard: stewardship.
February 28th, 2002 at 5:38 PM
Re:you are arguing for human extinction here
Humm.
You're so quick to think I'm arguing for extinction, I have to wonder why you're so fixated on it.
I'm not, no matter how many words you put in my mouth, but I am very cynical of the Human Race in general. Individuals can be great, and individuals, each one contributing what they can, will be what saves us if we can be saved.
But taken as a whole, Mass Humanity is insane. By some quirk of evolution, Mass Psychology tends to the unstable, violent, greedy, howling mob. The creature who will set his own home on fire and destroy himself in his madness.
Appeal to individuals, appeal to the good, the moral, the ethics of individuals, but forget about it when you deal with anything that has to do with the masses. The Mass knows only it wants, and lashes out if they are not met.
And much as I admire some of their goals, what I saw of the discussions over there tended to appeal to the masses, and in ways *I* see as negatively. It's my opinion, backed up by history.
"Humanity" is insane, but individual humans are not.
My dream is for a future where no-one has to worry about death, or war, or famine, one where everyone can be free to grow and develop to their best potential.
And I want to acheive that without the loss of a single life.
I've never advocated genocide, I advocate a stop to the insanity of allowing Dogma to rule, and hate to dictate. I advocate clear rational discussion, not intentionally insulting retoric. I advocate freedom of thought and free will, and I oppose anyone who restricts free thought, free speech, or in this case, free research, on any grounds. Be it government, scientific establishment, or religious establishement, censorship is now, has been, and always will be wrong… and there are no grounds acceptable for it. It does not solve problems, it sweeps them under the rug, it does not eliminate ill feelings, it makes them fester all the more.
And any way you rationalize it, any way you moralize it, *ANY* ban is nothing more than censorship.
And that, my friend, *IS* calling for genocide. You can insult and belittle me all you like, but it doesn't make you right, and me wrong, anymore than it makes me right and you wrong. I have my veiws, you have yours.
"One mans evil is another mans good." It's not a call for war, or genocide or hatred, it's a plea for understanding, tolerence and an end to blind hatred. That you see it as anything else is sad. "Ethical and Moral debate is pointless" is a simple acknowledgement of fact, and unfortunately, a sad commentary on the human condition, not a call for technology at all costs.
But when you take it out of context, and add invective to your commentary, you do a good job of trying to paint me as a lunatic. "So much for rational thought."
March 1st, 2002 at 1:46 PM
Re:refer to Allah's standard: stewardship.
Laudible goals, and worthy of respect, but I will still say morality is relative. It is a dictate of a belief system, and as such, changes from person to person. I don't belive it's moral to commit suicide, but to a samurai who had been dishonored, it was the only moral choice. My morals are my business, and I don't expect everyone to live up to my moral code. Just as I don't expect anyone to force me to do something against my morals just because it's something their moral code says is okay.
I agree the Great apes should be saved, and that humanity should cease it's rampant destruction of nature and find ways of living in harmony with it, but I don't *expect* it, nor do I think a crusade to try and change the masses will amount to anything. It's going to take the work of dedicated *Individuals* to effect those changes, because *Humanity* doesn't give a damn.
I want MNT developed because it can be used to restore what has been destroyed. You can revive extinct species from DNA, and by understanding DNA and MNT, you can ensure enough variation to ensure a healthy population even if there's only one single specimen of DNA to work from. It's also the only way off this planet and out into the universe that doesn't promise to turn every place we go into a wasteland.
Try reading everything I write, or just ask me to clarify something before you start the invective Hubley, you might be surprised what you'll find out. I stand by what I've said, but you've interpreted it far differently than I did.
Just goes to prove we're *INDIVIDUALS*…
I'm glad you have Morals, and I'm glad they seem to be ones I share, but I still believe it is a foolish and dangerous hope to expect *everyone* to share them. Solutions aren't going to come from an imposed moral code, or hysterical rhetoric, it's going to come from intelligent research unfettered by religious dogma, from people who are free to research what needs to be done to create MNT in a manner that ensures we can survive it's creation, unshackled by someone standing over their shoulder saying "God/Allah/Buddha/Shiva/whatever doesn't want you to do that because it's playing with their power," or "You have to prove you follow every tenet of *MY* religion before I'll believe you're *moral* enough to research that."
Morality always stems from religious dogma, and as such, it varies depending on the intensity of individual belief. Ethics are semanticly similar, but corresponds more to societal mechanics. Neither one directly impacts technological development, and attempts to make them cannot ever universally succeed.
March 1st, 2002 at 2:01 PM
Re:illegitimate sources can't replace government R
*sigh* You keep missing the point. The weapons are still being researched, behind closed doors, were you can't seem them.
And they aren't used because if any one government did, the other governments would be free to use theirs, and just like nukes, no-one wants to take the first step to extinction.
We can't allow MNT to dissappear behind closed doors, because if it does, we're doomed. A weeks edge in development can lead to a gap that never be bridged in a weapons race. I don't want to see MNT become a weapons race, but this kind of thinking will make it one.
Face it Hubley… we aren't going to agree on this one, and all the insults in the world aren't going to change my opinon.
March 2nd, 2002 at 8:36 PM
lunatic: I want eternal life without any politics
""Humanity" is insane, but individual humans are not."
You might consider where on the ladder from one to six billion humans things become "insane". I recommend you consider 'groupthink' as an influence and alternatives, such as Consensus Process which seem to reduce it.
"My dream is for a future where no-one has to worry about death, or war, or famine, one where everyone can be free to grow and develop to their best potential."
No one has to worry about death now, if they accept it as part of life. If you seek to escape it altogether, you seek to become a vampire or to end reproduction. Some would call both goals mad.
"And I want to achieve that without the loss of a single life."
But yet, you dodge the requirement to negotiate. You poor silly thing. Do you imagine that you will be allowed to live your eternal life without any negotiation? Better brush up on politics…
March 2nd, 2002 at 8:46 PM
I don't need to change your opinion.
New weapons research "behind closed doors" is not likely to be effective. It never has before – of all such projects only The Manhattan Project has ever generated a true surprise attack weapon.
If we are concerned about "a weeks edge in development" then the goal is obviously wrong. The answer in this case is simply to surrender.
"Face it Hubley… we aren't going to agree on this one, and all the insults in the world aren't going to change my opinon." If so, the loss is yours, since I or someone like me will have to come and kill you in your sleep, if you are involved in weapons work. Your excuses do not matter. It is the work itself which matters.
There is evidently no "we" at all – you wish to claim an extremely negative view of human nature *during development* which suddenly becomes all rosy and non-suicidal as soon as you get your immortality. That is insane. It is only a question of how many you take with you, mister.
I don't need to change your opinion. Only your chance of success.
March 2nd, 2002 at 8:50 PM
there is no such thing as a "moral code"
"My morals are my business, and I don't expect everyone to live up to my moral code. Just as I don't expect anyone to force me to do something against my morals just because it's something their moral code says is okay."
Moral codes don't "say" anything – it's actually absurd to talk about them as if they can somehow be shared or described. Ethical codes can be shared but morality – just a mass of inhibitions. Morality can't be proven, only observed.
"Morality always stems from religious dogma," to the soul-less I suppose. Some of us feel it directly. As to "intelligent research unfettered by religious dogma", that was also Dr. Mengele's excuse. You will not get the blank check that you seem to insist on. Six point one billion people will not leave you free to build your fantasy. The Singularity Cult is quite doomed.
March 2nd, 2002 at 8:53 PM
ignore this debate here, go direct to Greenpeace
Unlike this bizarre and ungrounded undebate with LSMcGill here, the Greenpeace discussions have been generally civil and free of the worst of the dishonest shifting of frames McGill engages in. Biosecurity Protocol elements will be of the most interest to the nanodot crowd, as it focuses in on extensions to the existing Biosafety Protocol and makes mention of some of Drexler's measures.
March 3rd, 2002 at 3:10 PM
Re:there is no such thing as a "moral code"
Ok… so now you're comparing me to a Nazi because I don't share your world view.
I'm done trying to talk sense to you Hubley. You've threatened to kill me, you've done your best to try and paint me as a lunatic, and all you've done is prove to me that you're insane.
You're exactly the kind of person I don't want developing MNT because you'd use it to wipe out everyone who doesn't agree with you. Congratulations. While I'm sure it means nothing to you, since you're so secure in your own self righteousness, but you've just aligned yourself with the people behind the Holocaust and the Spainish Inquisistion. If it comes to a choice between your world, and the Grey Goo… I'll take the Goo.
BTW. Replying to almost every post put up on Nanodot doesn't make you a concerned citizen, it makes you desperate for attention, and it makes you look like a five year old.
And this will be the last time I deign to reply to you.
March 3rd, 2002 at 4:28 PM
Re:I don't need to change your opinion.
No, you're certainly right – except that if the Allies hadn't bombed Peenemunde during WWII, the Nazis would have developed the bomb. What do you think they would have done with it?
What do you think a current psycho with money/charisma/power would do with nanotech if they had the resources (perhaps from his sizeable and largely untraced investments of his former family fortune) to try? Do you think fundie governments that have no regard for the "commonly accepted" morals and values, the type of people who would send 19 of their own people to die in order to smash up a few buildings, do you really believe they'd say "Sure, we'll stop putting all of our oil money and the money we extort from our populaces into scientific research till we decide who's got the morals to handle it?" In a perfect utopia, perhaps, but that isn't what we are.
ANd before you condemn weapons development, think about all the things that have come from nuclear physicis that have SAVED lives, not destroyed them. Thanks to radiology and nuclear medicine, injuries can be more easily detected, even repaired. People whose sight was formerly almost nothing can now see without glasses because of laser research that stemmed from that old Nazi research we literally stole.
"If so, the loss is yours, since I or someone like me will have to come and kill you in your sleep, if you are involved in weapons work"
You, who spouts about morals, threatening murder? So, it's right when you do it, but wrong when womeone else does it? WHat exactly IS your moral code that permits this?
March 4th, 2002 at 5:59 PM
there are *many* more of me than of you
There is book called "Galileo's Mistake" you should read. As to Mengele, he was only one Nazi, and not even all Nazis shared his attitudes. You are proposing exactly the same ethical standard as he did, however, that being "since someone is going to do this, let's do it first".
Your version of psychiatry has no impact whatever on my self-image, nor does your concept of threat mean much other than amount to an admission that you intend to build (or support the building of) nanotech weapons (that being the only group that I said I was personally prepared to do harm to).
But all that should be of no interest to you. What should concern you is that there are *many* more of me than of you, and you will be hiding from people like me the rest of your life if you don't change your view of the value of debating ethics before beginning an experiment or making a design physically real. I don't wish that on you, as childish as you may be with your fantasy of politics-free immortality, you deserve more out of your life than that. I hope you get it.
Be at peace. Stay out of those weapons labs, and don't vote for people who insist on building them. That's really all "people like me" ask.
March 4th, 2002 at 6:12 PM
A "moral code" always leads to evil
"What exactly IS your moral code that permits this?"
As I said, there are no such things as good moral codes. I follow an ethical code of deliberately de-escalating conflict at some risk to myself – including admitting the limits of my tolerance. That is what I am doing here, with you, now. To me ethics *is* de-escalation, but your mileage may vary. You may for instance see the world as nearly-completely hostile and me making it nearly-infinite. But I am not so powerful as you think.
Self-defense is a matter of personal inhibitions and aesthetics, I suggest you read the Aikido or Bushido Zen Buddhist writings on this. It is not communicable in words. Likely I would have been ready to drop the bombs on Peenemunde, but also on the Manhattan Project. I would have been attacking the *technology* and *knowledge* not the Nazis or the Americans. But that's aesthetic.
As to "fundie governments", I detect more of that in Bush and Rumsfeld and their plans for robots raining death from the skies ("SkyNet" anyone?) than in the Saudi or even Taliban governments who simply don't have the capacity to invent weaponry.
While you may not comprehend it as such, there is an ethical code of jihad, and some elements of it (such as not attacking unarmed people in their homes) seem to be followed even by extreme sects.
By contrast, the civilian death toll due to U.S. bombing in Afghanistan, refugees also driven out of the homes by that bombing, exceeded the total deaths of 9/11. The Afghans were more innocent in my opinion, having been subjected to Cold War brutalities, U.S. and U.S.S.R. interference in their governing bodies continuously since 1973, drought, and not even being guilty of much global warming or profiting off the wealth of the Earth. Many more also were children. But that too is an aesthetic judgement.
Personally, I consider you an emissary of evil and your Bush League government not much better. But that has more to do with your attitudes towards technology as a universal good, your moral laziness, and your inability to see that it is not "bad people" that constitute the problem… rather it's bad organizing techniques.
Evil is usually quite banal. People drop bombs or blow up buildings because they can't think of anything more creative to do. Good consists of unexpected creativity, and choosing rather than predicting. A "moral code" always leads to evil by definition, it being predicated on imitation…
For these reasons a robot will be more evil than a human, simply for being more imitative by def'n.
If we trusted them completely, it might be quite different, but we don't, and we won't, and if the robots are weapons of war, we certainly *can't*…
March 5th, 2002 at 5:46 PM
Re:A "moral code" always leads to evil
"I would have been attacking the *technology* and *knowledge* not the Nazis or the Americans. But that's aesthetic." Will you please look at that comment and explain to me how that would do any good? You may have gotten Peenemunde and the Manhattan Project, but what are you going to do about China, India, or the MIddle East, all of whom developed their own nuclear weapons, with the ME as the only thieves in the bunch? Or the USSR, who deveoped the technology shortly after we did, and the only reason they did not actively manufacture was because of the war and its economic effects?!!? It doesn't matter what steps you try to take to destroy any kind of technology; it will keep cpming back until it's either obsolete or better-designed. And you can not pick and choose your technologies either. If we could, I think I would trade away television before nuclear technology or nanotech. Television these days allows the brain to become lazy, and thus sterile; this is a far greater threat to mankind than a bunch of bombs everyone's too scared to actually use. You invoke the millions who are dying in Afghanistan; yet we could be nuking them right now instead of dropping Cruise missiles, but we are not – because unlike dictators and tyrants such as the Taliban or bin Laden, we are not willing to make a sacrifice so great… however, when we are hit, we will hit back. I do not disagree that many of the Afghanis are innocent, nor do I dispute that they've gotten the shortest end of the stick known to all mankind in their pieces of world history. I mean, even worse than the Nazis, the SINGLE WORST case of genocide ever recorded was the British occupation of Afghanistan in the 19th century. The USSR didn't help. Neither did any of the civilizations that preceeded them; historically, it's the Land of People Dumped On. Unfortunately, it will continue until they can find a way to stabilize themselves to fit in with the world community. Rather than constantly conquering them, someone needs to help them, and hopefully we'll be the first to step up, since we are the latest wave. But I can not in good mind say that the Taliban was a very just government, and I can say with all my heart that for all its faults, America is generally the most just. bin Laden, Al-Qiada, and groups like them, however, are more sophisticated than you are giving them credit for. First off, the death toll was not counted in the people who died on 9/11, but the lowering of morale all over the world – the popular kid in school was hit by a car and is now in a coma would be a more common comparison. That morale can never be recovered until we find those responsible for its fall. But beyond that, bin Laden is one of the richest men in the world. Yes, we have frozen his traceable assets, but this guy isn't dumb. He's got money stashed where even HE can't find it.Since he has constiuents, it is clear there are others who share his moral ambiguity. And you're trying to say that with a pile of money and a lack on conscience, these guys couldn't unleash a nano-virus that could take out anyone not of Arab descent? Or build a nuke and blow it up in LA at rush hour? Or something equally heinous? I mean, c'mon, authors all over the world were penning novels and TV shows about planes crashing into buildings before 9/11 ever happened. And if it were to happen, our only defense would be the most important tenet of the martial arts (my answer to your invokation of Aikido, etc): Know your enemy. How do you think we fight diseases now? How do you think we protect ourselves against nuclear accidents? It's because we know how they work and can disarm it, should it ever become a weapon. As for my predelections toward good and evil, I don't know if you noticed, but we're working toward the same goal here. Our methods of going about it perhaps are different, but your goal and mine appear to be exactly the same: eventual world peace. I don't know who you think my "Bush League" government is (and if you mean George W, I didn't vote for him, but I can't complain about him, either) or that you know anything more about me than what I said in my last post, but your presumptions are offensive. I am no robot; I am a human being with values and ideas; they do not include dropping bombs or crashing planes, thank you. Bad organizing isn't the half of it, either. As a whole, we seek the easiest way out, the "magic bullet." WE're lazy creatures. It's the ones who are organized that we should revere or fear, because they take the time to be, and then it all comes down to how far they're willing to go to prove their point. No one said anything about putting them to war, though, except as an eventuality in allowing the black market to puzzlle it out as opposed to the public. And I do agree with that – the black market sells heroine and cocaine as street drugs, yet their public cohorts use these same drugs for medicinal purposes. Prediction must be a part of it, because planning is essential. But I see a contradiction in your words: "A "moral code" always leads to evil by definition, it being predicated on imitation… For these reasons a robot will be more evil than a human, simply for being more imitative by def'n." And yet, your argument is that robots have no morals? I do believe this to be true, and this is why they will do as they're told without argument. They also lack the key ingredient from which all humankind bases its morals, and most other societal norms – emorional attachment. They're perfectly content to be bored, doing a dull or repetitive job. Like a gun, or a knife, or even a bathtub, it depends on the intentions of the user.
March 6th, 2002 at 9:07 PM
Re:A "moral code" always leads to evil
"your argument is that robots have no morals? I do believe this to be true, and this is why they will do as they're told without argument."
I don't know any entity without morals that will "do as they're told". Rather, an entity without morals (such as a tree or a predatory animal) seems to simply pursue more energy and space for itself, with no concept of accepting command input from anything or anyone.
"They also lack the key ingredient from which all humankind bases its morals, and most other societal norms – emotional attachment. They're perfectly content to be bored, doing a dull or repetitive job."
How do you know that? A tree seems content to do so, so does a Buddhist or Catholic monk. But the cheetah or falcon is not – nor does a virus or a bacterium (which also lack "emotional attachment") – such things are quite aggressive at pursuing growth. In this sense they are like economic entities, e.g. corporations.
"Like a gun, or a knife, or even a bathtub, it depends on the intentions of the user."
Nonsense. If I have a gun, a knife, and a bathtub in the house, and I remove one of them, statistically I will save far more human lives by removing the gun or the knife than by removing the bathtub. And in a world where there will be one billion Internet users soon, and where DNA sequencers and secure radio transmitters are cheap, I can't call these technologies neutral.
Intentions are less relevant the wider the number of users get ahold of something – across the whole body of users, you can expect all intentions to be expressed. And unfortunately the actions of a vast majority of gun users for self-defense do not make up for the actions of the minority who use guns to expand their energy and space access by forcing others to withdraw from what are socially considered "fair" borders or boundaries.
There is a basic dishonesty in your argument: you are willing to accept statistical arguments to advance technology, but deny the impact of the same statistics when applied to probable uses of those technologies. Suddenly there "we" is a big happy unified species, whereas up to the very moment of discovery of the world-killer, "we" are supposedly so at each other's throats that "we" must build weapons as fast as possible.
You employ the metaphor of fighting disease, but the closest-to-absolute fact we know about this is that applying more effective antibiotics is exactly what accelerates evolution of bacteria beyond the point where we can possibly respond. It is simple escalation, with predictable outcomes.
"World peace", if that is indeed our shared goal, will come from GlobalGreens, Transcend.org and other elements of the traditional peace movement.
It will not come from wasting time on technology and its promotion, but from comprehending some basic facts about decentralized systems, normal mammal (but especially male human) competitive sexual nature, irrelevance of morality to outcomes other than emotional, relevance of ethics in escalation, and other principles elaborated by Gandhi or Chief Seattle. You appear to be ready to employ the principles elaborated by Ronald Reagan, which frankly could not have worked without a "de-escalator" (Mikhail Gorbachev) "on the other side".
It is a poor strategy which relies on your enemy deciding that your rhetoric is somewhat valid and deciding to stand down as a moral decision despite the hundreds of millions of poor people such a decision creates, and thugs it enables… imagine breaking up the USA the way the USSR or Czechoslovakia broke up! The USA is likely to go the way of Yugoslavia rather than do anything on a clear moral basis.
I don't think "your goal and mine appear to be exactly the same: eventual world peace." You have put certain conditions on that peace, such as your own friends and allies (the "we" you keep invoking which I don't recognize as including me) remaining the most powerful people in the world and able to veto any decision that they dislike. In other words, applying a "moral code". That always leads to evil. Shall I rest my case here?
Would you *surrender* to achieve "world peace"? If not I doubt you are actually committed to it. At least not to the degree that Gorbachev was/is.