In short, Joy, one of the founders of Sun Microsystems, suggests that as technological systems grow increasingly complex humanity will loose its ability to control the systems it depends on.
Sci-fi authors' take on this is either grey-goo or terminator -- apocalyptic visions.
Reality will probably be much less exciting, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned.
Wolfe's opinion is a sterling example of how nanotech -- and not nanotech itself but even the idea of nanotech has potential to strip away human control.
He says that we should abandon our traditions of public discourse because public discourse will get in the way of economic and scientific "progress."
But isn't thought and discussion, even if it is sometimes hyperbolic or overly concerned, an essentially human activity that we should preserve, even if the cost involves moving slowly with technological advances?
Additionally, shouldn't we scrutinize the end results of this kind of progress? As with stem cell and other biotech research, nanotech promises to be hugely expensive, concentrate intelectual capital in the hands of a few major players, and in return give us more viable human beings with more stuff to consume.
...the best way to stop piracy would be to ensure that everyone got paid enough to have a little disposable income.
nah, it'd never happen. they'd have to raise the minimum wage to at least $10/hr, and maybe even, god forbid, tax the rich!
A certain roman emperor claimed "The sea I pacified, freeing it from pirates." He also claimed "The foreign nations--those which in safety I was able to forgive--I preferred to preserve rather than to kill."
Slashdot Mirror
Fortunately the debate is already underway. I'm sure many of us recall Bill Joy's piece in Wired a few years back:
y _pr.html "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us"
http://wired-vig.wired.com//wired/archive/8.04/jo
In short, Joy, one of the founders of Sun Microsystems, suggests that as technological systems grow increasingly complex humanity will loose its ability to control the systems it depends on.
Sci-fi authors' take on this is either grey-goo or terminator -- apocalyptic visions.
Reality will probably be much less exciting, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned.
Wolfe's opinion is a sterling example of how nanotech -- and not nanotech itself but even the idea of nanotech has potential to strip away human control.
He says that we should abandon our traditions of public discourse because public discourse will get in the way of economic and scientific "progress."
But isn't thought and discussion, even if it is sometimes hyperbolic or overly concerned, an essentially human activity that we should preserve, even if the cost involves moving slowly with technological advances?
Additionally, shouldn't we scrutinize the end results of this kind of progress? As with stem cell and other biotech research, nanotech promises to be hugely expensive, concentrate intelectual capital in the hands of a few major players, and in return give us more viable human beings with more stuff to consume.
No thank you.
So... the world of blogs is kind of like a giant beowulf cluster of /.'s?
...the best way to stop piracy would be to ensure that everyone got paid enough to have a little disposable income.
. html
nah, it'd never happen. they'd have to raise the minimum wage to at least $10/hr, and maybe even, god forbid, tax the rich!
A certain roman emperor claimed "The sea I pacified, freeing it from pirates." He also claimed "The foreign nations--those which in safety I was able to forgive--I preferred to preserve rather than to kill."
http://duke.usask.ca/~porterj/DeptTransls/ResGest