I would disagree with that. Once basic needs are fufilled, u can move on to grander things. But beyond that, the author of the article is wrong in other ways. Cars, lightbulbs, and telephones were all invented in the 19th century and made cheap enough to use in the early twentieth century. I don't know how this is any worse than what the author complains we're doing in the late twentieth century. Indoor plumbing actually goes to Ancient Rome, and was only implemented in the early 20C. Also, he neglects that with certain things once invented they become moving targets. For instance, the first penicillin resistant germs appeared in the 1950s. Incredible innovation is required to stay ahead of these critters. Also, the average person in the 1950s would not have recognized references to computers. I also fail to understand how more bang for the buck (with computers) translates into less value. He also underestimates modern medicine. For instance, anti-psychotic and anti-depressant medications. They allow millions to live happier, fuller lives. There's a pretty big innovation. Also,with regard to spaceflight, that's a cheap shot. The '50s propaganda was overblown.
Just war isn't an oxymoron. I would consider defending your country against a direct assualt would be just. (Vietnam DEFINITELY doesn't qualify) I would think for all the American soldiers in WWII it was just. Hitler was planning a conquest of the US, as was Japan. We just weren'
t stupid enough to wait until they invaded the continental US. It was a war of democracy against fascism, barbarism agianst civilization. Imperialist wars of conquest are never justified. I think wars like Kosovo, the Gulf War, are a grey area. We have to be careful with those so they don't degenerate into wars of imperialist conquest. The price of freedom is eternal vigilence, and involvement in the world outside our borders.
Violence is among the worst problem solvers ever made. Yes, once in a blue moon it does do something. But look at how it always feeds on itself. The French Revolution was a liberal revolution hijacked by violence. Cycles of revenge and killing can go on forever. Witness Bosnia. The reason violence accomplishes anything is that it's masters happen to be for good causes. But look at the horrible evils that can be unleashed. WWI, the holocaust, the fall of Rome. Violence is incredibly hard to stop once it gets started. The only thing that stopped the great power wars of Europe was the atomic bomb and the superior power of the US and USSR. Violence is a terrible thing. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Morality and science are and should be two separate things. The mixing of the two has resulted only in the falisification of science and the cheapening of morality. For example, stands against contraception and abortion are unwinnable attempts to shackle technology to the whims of religious leaders. We are not a Christian nation, nor should be. The promise of the United States was to be free and impartial to anyone of any religion. Also, I would like to hear a technology that couldn;t be used for immorality without ridiculous unconstitutional censorship schemes
In these scenarios, won't control of electricity be the most impotrant? Becuase you can't manufacture electricity with robots, or with nanotech as far as I can tell. I also wonder how you would power nanotech robots. Vernor Vinge proposed radio waves in a Deepness in the Sky, but that's jammable and gives you a limited range. I've heard various things about micro-power generators if fuel cells become cheap enough. Maybe that's the answer. Also the author doesn;t discuss in the article the prospect of fully automated tyranny. If a tyrannical government controlled all the replicators in it's borders, and without privacy, who could overthrow them?
Slashdot Mirror
I would disagree with that. Once basic needs are fufilled, u can move on to grander things. But beyond that, the author of the article is wrong in other ways. Cars, lightbulbs, and telephones were all invented in the 19th century and made cheap enough to use in the early twentieth century. I don't know how this is any worse than what the author complains we're doing in the late twentieth century. Indoor plumbing actually goes to Ancient Rome, and was only implemented in the early 20C. Also, he neglects that with certain things once invented they become moving targets. For instance, the first penicillin resistant germs appeared in the 1950s. Incredible innovation is required to stay ahead of these critters. Also, the average person in the 1950s would not have recognized references to computers. I also fail to understand how more bang for the buck (with computers) translates into less value. He also underestimates modern medicine. For instance, anti-psychotic and anti-depressant medications. They allow millions to live happier, fuller lives. There's a pretty big innovation. Also,with regard to spaceflight, that's a cheap shot. The '50s propaganda was overblown.
Just war isn't an oxymoron. I would consider defending your country against a direct assualt would be just. (Vietnam DEFINITELY doesn't qualify) I would think for all the American soldiers in WWII it was just. Hitler was planning a conquest of the US, as was Japan. We just weren' t stupid enough to wait until they invaded the continental US. It was a war of democracy against fascism, barbarism agianst civilization. Imperialist wars of conquest are never justified. I think wars like Kosovo, the Gulf War, are a grey area. We have to be careful with those so they don't degenerate into wars of imperialist conquest. The price of freedom is eternal vigilence, and involvement in the world outside our borders.
Violence is among the worst problem solvers ever made. Yes, once in a blue moon it does do something. But look at how it always feeds on itself. The French Revolution was a liberal revolution hijacked by violence. Cycles of revenge and killing can go on forever. Witness Bosnia. The reason violence accomplishes anything is that it's masters happen to be for good causes. But look at the horrible evils that can be unleashed. WWI, the holocaust, the fall of Rome. Violence is incredibly hard to stop once it gets started. The only thing that stopped the great power wars of Europe was the atomic bomb and the superior power of the US and USSR. Violence is a terrible thing. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Morality and science are and should be two separate things. The mixing of the two has resulted only in the falisification of science and the cheapening of morality. For example, stands against contraception and abortion are unwinnable attempts to shackle technology to the whims of religious leaders. We are not a Christian nation, nor should be. The promise of the United States was to be free and impartial to anyone of any religion. Also, I would like to hear a technology that couldn;t be used for immorality without ridiculous unconstitutional censorship schemes
In these scenarios, won't control of electricity be the most impotrant? Becuase you can't manufacture electricity with robots, or with nanotech as far as I can tell. I also wonder how you would power nanotech robots. Vernor Vinge proposed radio waves in a Deepness in the Sky, but that's jammable and gives you a limited range. I've heard various things about micro-power generators if fuel cells become cheap enough. Maybe that's the answer. Also the author doesn;t discuss in the article the prospect of fully automated tyranny. If a tyrannical government controlled all the replicators in it's borders, and without privacy, who could overthrow them?