• Google
    This Blog Web

October 2011

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          

RSS Feed

Bookmark and Share

Email Feed



  • Powered by FeedBlitz

« Nanofactory Security | Main | China and the World »

June 14, 2005

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451db8a69e200d83429c53153ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Business, Politics, & Science:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

cdnprodigy

I get the point of the thread, but their are many Kyoto nations that are taking the 1st steps to deal with global warming. I'd hate to see how a corporate entity devoted to profit and eliminating competition, would treat MM capacity. Nations of the world exhibit varying degrees of self-interest for their own citizens and administrations. But if lots of personnel are desired it might be a MMs the only choice, to clue in national bodies you trust. These are also the main entitiy with experience in enforcing police and military powers, so might be the best choice to deal with the military aspects, especially if the security of a pre-MM research effort is not guaranteed. A Nanhattan Project might win anyways, so governments cannot be completely rejected. I think (correct me if I'm wrong), scientists/engineers tend to be value neutral. I don't know if they could be trusted to administer MM based on their credentials alone. I think what is really needed here are philosophers. People need to be judged as individuals. Perhaps some sort of safe MM administrative course or reading list could be developed in addition to multi-disciplinary technical study. All course participants could harmonize their MM efforts?

Mike Treder, CRN

CRN has never said, and does not believe, that governments should "be completely rejected" in developing responsible administration for MM. In our "Systems of Action" paper referenced above, we propose a trilateral structure that includes government, commerce/industry, and information/altruistic/NGO entities.

michael vassar

You know Phillip, self proclaimed Philosophers don't exactly have the best track record as governors of nations. In fairness, their record isn't bad or neutral either, but is more like one of dramatic successes (Athens, The early Islamic Caliphate, the US) and dramatic failures (France, India, the USSR). Fredrick of Prussia is quoted as saying "when I wish a province punished, I will have it governed by Philosophers", probably in reference to Plato's Republic. Likewise, in life, the best philosophers are a mix of extreme success (Russell, Smith... actually, this list consists almost exclusively of English, and pre-moderns), and extreme failure (Neitzsche, Rand, Jesus, Wittgenstein), with a bit of extreme blandness (Kant) thrown in. It would sure be nice if people could better distinguish between genius and madness, but it doesn't seem likely that MNT can do much to directly help solve that problem.
I have recently been thinking that the early hopes of the e-currency, cypherpunk, and open source movements could have contributed substantially to laying the foundations for some potentially preferable systems of governance that might be better able to handle MNT, but these movements seem to have stalled after the stock crash.

cdnprodigy

I think the administration of a modern nations and the administration of MM fulfill goal structures in direct conflict. The successful administration of MM should bring an end to modern nation-states in everything but a token cultural form (to preserve continuity). While a successful national administration utilizing MM, would likely yield varying degrees of nano-tyrannies, depending on the specific bodies in question. "Philosophers" as a word choice for the drafters of an administrative structure is ambiguous. I meant to suggest those most likely to realize the world is not a zero-sum game. Basic necessities precede education precedes responsible democratic administration of MM. The latter in a cyber-community forum would be biased to the wealthy and there probably won't be time to allocate provision of the former before MM is reached. It would be great if FAI or neurotech would be ready in time for the critical time period shortly before and shortly after MM is reached. But if not, I believe developing safe MM administration course material to be read by as many MM researchers as possible, along with developing a list of desired personnel to contact graded by their adherence to the ideals of the course material in their past actions, must proceed along with the technical development of MM. Nanhattans and other potential MM entities are likely to ignore any such suggested MM administrative heirarchy. Hopefully such a "safe-MM" bloc could technically triumph without spilling all its secrets. Many of the risks are already delineated in this website. They need to be quantified and modelled for all initial MM technical capabilities, and esp. for situations in which the responsible-MM effort is suspected to be slightly behind or slightly ahead of varying degrees of other efforts other irresponsible-MM efforts.

Chris Phoenix, CRN

Cdnprodigy, I like your suggestion of quantifying and modeling risks. I would suggest the additional factor of how rapidly MM is developed. Will it take a year or a day to design a new product? That makes a big difference in some of the risks.

Can you design this analysis project in more detail? If we can produce a plan in enough detail to implement, we might be able to get someone to do it. At the least, we could forward it to the NRC tech/implications MM study, though of course we don't know what use they'd make of it.

Chris

cdnprodigy

The plan is: give MM to me. Bwa haha ha, AHH HAH HAH HAAA!!!.... Sure, I'll draft an outline and fill in the parts I think I've some competence to do so. Should be ready in a few weeks?

The comments to this entry are closed.