 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Origin >
Dangerous Futures >
What Price Freedom?
Permanent link to this article: http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0665.html
Printable Version |
|
| |
|
What Price Freedom?
Is a tyrannized humanity worth preserving, even at the expense of its freedom, in order to maintain the very existence of the human species, recognizing that global tyranny is a logical end-state of the unchecked spread of nanotechnology-enabled dictatorships that are capable of employing perfect mind control?
Originally published in Nanotechnology
Perceptions: A Review of Ultraprecision Engineering and Nanotechnology,
Volume 2, No. 2, May 8, 2006. Reprinted with permission on KurzweilAI.net,
May 8, 2006.
Criminals vs. Terrorists
In an attempt to make David Brin’s1 privacy-free
“transparent society” more palatable to civil libertarians,
Robert Sawyer 2 has proposed an “Alibi Archive”
in which everyone’s activities are meticulously recorded in
a centralized, judicially controlled archive, with the archives
legally accessible only under court order and only upon request
of the person whose activities were recorded. In a criminal investigation,
this person would be able to access (and make public from the archives)
those records of his activities that would definitively establish
an alibi for him, thus conclusively proving that he was elsewhere
when the crime was being committed. Potential criminals would know
that they would not be able to establish an alibi in this manner,
and thus would be deterred from committing crimes.
Regardless of the merits of this idea (and there are many aspects
that can be debated), it seems that it is workable only with respect
to perpetrators who actually care if their illegal activities are
discovered. In the unique case of suicidal terrorists who plan to
kill themselves during the achievement of their objectives, the
alibi archive simply won’t work as a deterrent. Suicidal perpetrators
plan on being dead after the commission of their crimes. They won’t
care what, or whether, anything can be proven after they’re
gone. We need some additional ways of deterring them and disabling
their ability to act. Perhaps some sort of highly intrusive and
actively monitored nanotechnology-enabled omnipresent recording
system could be employed to this end.
Freedom Fighters vs. Terrorists
But we must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
In view of the recurring emergence of oppressive governments throughout
human history, we must ask: Do we really want to make “freedom
fighting” as impossible as “terrorism”? Consider
some future age in which the United States (or pick your favorite
alternative technologically sophisticated developed nation) becomes
dominated by a totalitarian dictator (whether nanotechnology-enabled
or otherwise). Imagine secret police crashing through the doors
of private homes in the dead of night; the arrest and torture of
citizens as a purposeful government policy for the suppression of
dissent; gulags to warehouse troublemakers; and even summary executions.
As responsible citizens and humanitarians, we may wish to retain
the right, and the ability, to overthrow such an oppressive government
by force if necessary, even at the risk of our own lives. An argument
for the morality of this idea is made in the preamble to the U.S.
Declaration of Independence.
Furthermore, the U.S. Bill of Rights (Second Amendment) enshrines
the right of U.S. citizens to bear arms in part to ensure that no
future usurper (whether foreign or domestic) would dare think that
he could establish a tyranny on these shores, knowing that the citizens
here were sufficiently well armed to contest his unwanted rule.
The word “freedom” hides many rhetorical landmines. In
this essay, “freedom” will refer to the minimal possible
level of control imposed by external governmental authority on the
thoughts and actions of individual people, consistent with the stable
and thriving existence of a civilized society. But there is another
fundamental definitional problem that we must now address: Are there
any actionable distinctions between “freedom fighters”
and “terrorists”? The distinctions are not clear-cut,
but one approach might be to assess the differences between these
two types of actors in terms of their goals and methods.
In terms of goals, a freedom fighter typically is focused on destroying
what he regards as an oppressive government, including its leaders,
its functional appendages, and its supporters. The terrorist often
has more diffuse objectives. He may be seeking to overthrow a government,
but he might also be trying to displace an extant social or economic
order with which he disagrees but is otherwise powerless to influence
directly. Or, he may be trying to alter the culture, including the
religious preferences or practices of local or larger regional populations,
or to affect outcomes in territorial or other disputes, perhaps
based on religious or ethnic differences.
In terms of methods, freedom fighters are not above employing dirty
tactics, including assassinating individual key civilians who are
viewed as indirectly supporting, or at least acquiescing to, the
oppressive government. But these tactics will mostly be directed
at the oppressive government or its specific supporters or physical
plant, and not at the general population. In contrast, the terrorist
often prefers to target civilians and otherwise innocent parties,
in large indiscriminate numbers, regardless of whether they are
a part of (or support in any way) the oppressive regime or unwanted
cultural milieu that the terrorist seeks to displace. The terrorist
employs a kind of trickle-up theory of political action—rather
than attacking an otherwise impregnable entity directly, he attacks
an innocent civilian population in the hopes that this population
will become restless enough to demand changes in the government
or society in order to get the terrorists to stop. In effect, terrorists
engage in social blackmail against innocents. Since, in the nanotechnology-rich
future, a terrorist could decide that huge blocks of innocent humanity
should be sacrificed for political, racial or religious reasons,
we should not, in good conscience, allow this capability to emerge
unchallenged.
Considering these differences in goals and methods, we could seek
to design selective nanotechnology-based defenses against social
blackmail by terrorists that will not at the same time forestall
freedom fighting. Such defenses could be keyed to the differences
in goals—say, protecting from murder all individuals except
those belonging to government entities. Or such defenses could be
keyed to differences in methods—say, systems that allow the
murder of one person at a time, but actively prevent the perpetration
of simultaneous mass murders. However, a corrupt government would
not allow itself to remain vulnerable in this manner and might seek
to turn the tables and make the subject population exclusively vulnerable
instead. It is difficult to see how to implement such defenses in
a reliable and incorruptible manner without employing an executive
artificial intelligence (AI) that is capable of informed judgment
and independent action (e.g., the robot policeman scenario from
the 1951 movie, The Day the Earth Stood Still), which raises
a host of new difficulties and issues.
Another class of terrorist-selective defenses could be keyed to
the intentions, rather than to the actions, of potential actors.
Future medical nanotechnology should enable intrusive involuntary
brain scans of sufficient fidelity to accurately measure and report
internal psychological states and motives. But here too there are
several difficulties. First, all human beings on Earth would have
to be continuously monitored for “terrorist” intentions.
This monitoring duty would probably fall to some government (or
related institutional) entity, and a corrupt government entity could
not be prevented from scanning for “freedom fighter” intentions
as well. Such scanning would elevate Brin’s “transparent
society” to a new level to intrusiveness—we might call
it the “transparent mind”—which would be even more
anathematic to civil libertarians and would offer even greater potential
for abuse. Second, the amount of data to be processed might be so
enormous as to require the intervention of an AI (as in the previous
example) to sort it all out, whether the AI was a stand-alone system
or embedded in a human/machine hybrid system. Third, it is but a
small step from passively monitoring brain states to actively controlling
those brain states using nanotechnology-based neural nanorobotics,
which would enable the push-button disposal of critics by tyrants.
Thus, the freedom fighters would again be disabled along with the
terrorists.
If we conclude that it may not be possible either to reliably distinguish
between freedom fighters and terrorists, or to reliably defend against
one but not the other, then we may have to resign ourselves to the
existence of both—or neither—of these types of actors
in our world. If we choose to accept both (tolerating freedom fighters
in order to avoid tyrants and tyrannical governments), then we are
tacitly agreeing to accept the presence of terrorism. If we reject
both, the way is open for tyranny. Which shall we choose?
Shall We Accept Both Terrorism and Freedom Fighting?
If we agree that it is morally proper to allow freedom fighting
(in those rare instances when it becomes necessary), then what is
the potential harm that we risk by agreeing to accept the possibility
of terrorism along with it? No one has yet presented a clear and
comprehensive exposition of the actual dangers involved. An important
recommendation is that a detailed and ruthlessly honest study of
likely scenarios and consequences should be performed as soon as
possible, perhaps incorporating a scenario gaming process that encourages
the most imaginative informed challenges to be tested by intelligent
motivated players. One common claim is that the situation may be
asymmetrical in favor of the evildoers, who may choose the place
and timing of attacks and may also employ the element of surprise.
This claim seems somewhat naive because it ignores the following
important factors.
First, the terrorists are unlikely to possess the most advanced
technologies available. Weapons used by terrorists are often relatively
low-tech because such means are cheaper to obtain, simpler to operate,
and less likely to fail when activated in rushed circumstances.
Terrorists also tend to be less educated and less technically sophisticated
than defenders. The most advanced technologies usually will be possessed
by the defenders—typically government-funded police or military
entities in the developed world. The cleverer and more multifunctional
that future nanotechnology-based weapons are posited to be, the
less likely terrorists are to have them; hence, sophisticated launch
and dispersal scenarios will be less likely to be successfully accomplished
by terrorists. Of course, there always can be exceptions—for
example, terrorists could surreptitiously receive (or steal) advanced
technologies from sources in developed nations.
Second, as molecular manufacturing pervades human society, there
will occur numerous minor mishaps and relatively inconsequential
accidents involving this new technology (as with any new technology
that is introduced for the first time). Basic civilian defensive
systems analogous to police and fire departments will gradually
emerge that are specifically designed to cope with nanotechnology-based
minor mishaps and emergencies on a local level3. Hence,
the future environment in which terrorists must operate will include
ubiquitous nanotechnology-based protective civil defenses.
Third, the knowledge that a mass-murder terrorist threat scenario
is plausible will induce responsible governments to put in place
extensive external public event monitoring4 (not necessarily
requiring the monitoring of internal brain states of individual
citizens) and military-type responses to deal with larger-scale
threats of mass destruction if and when they might occur.
The net effect of these factors is to moderate the possible negative
impacts of a nanotechnology-era terrorist attack. Such attacks might
therefore be deemed an acceptable risk if there has been a reasonable
level of investment in civil defense by the government. Admittedly,
this is only a tentative conclusion that will require a great deal
of further study and considerable (possibly heated) debate.
Shall We Reject Both Terrorism and Freedom Fighting?
On the other hand, if we agree that it is morally proper to make
acts of terrorism upon innocent populations impossible to carry
out, then what is the potential harm we risk by agreeing to reject
any possibility of freedom fighting along with it? It appears that
the harm we risk in this case could be far more severe. That’s
because the conclusions about terrorists that we reached in the
previous section are all precisely reversed in the case of tyrants.
Specifically, the tyrant—especially one in control of a technologically
sophisticated, highly developed nation—would be more likely
to possess some of the most advanced technologies currently available.
He probably would have access to the most multifunctional weapons
and delivery systems, and these systems will be capable of numerous,
diverse, and secret deployments. Since he may control (whether directly
or indirectly) the governmental organs of civilian emergency and
military response, he also could circumvent the normal protective
programs of these systems, forcing them to react to external threats
in an asymmetric manner to his own advantage. Even worse, the tyrant
could corrupt these systems and redirect them as global threats,
and thus aspire to global domination.
This analysis seems to suggest that preserving the ability to freedom
fight against tyrants may be necessary to avoid a future of perpetual
despotic thralldom, and the price we pay is the acceptance of the
possibility of terrorism.
Better Dead or Red?
Just because one society initially chooses not to employ the necessary
heavy-handed nanotechnological means to render both freedom fighting
and terrorism effectively impossible, that does not mean other societies
will make the same choice, nor even that the first society will
not change its position over time. It appears quite likely, though
perhaps not inevitable, that eventually, somewhere in the world,
a tyrant will emerge who is equipped with some of the most sophisticated
nanotechnological instrumentalities available. This tyrant would
likely employ these advanced technical means to eliminate within
his own borders any possibility of freedom fighting or terrorism,
both of which he might rationally presume could be directed at him
or his vassals. Other technically sophisticated societies might
or might not have the will or the means to oppose this tyrant, and
still other societies might decide to emulate or join him; therefore,
his emergence and ascendancy cannot be ruled out.
Our analysis thus far has suggested that the existence of terrorism
may be an acceptable price to pay, in order to keep alive the option
of freedom fighting to contest the dismal consequences of a nanotechnology-enabled
despotism. But even if we agree in principle that it is morally
proper to allow freedom fighting in many situations, there is still
one instance in which this conclusion becomes more difficult to
defend, and which raises
perhaps the most troubling question of this essay: Is it right
to engage in freedom fighting to dislodge a tyrant if such fighting
might result in the destruction of all humankind?
Note that to address this issue it is not necessary to completely
resolve the interesting but somewhat ancillary technical military
question of whether nanotechnology-enabled defensive or offensive
instrumentalities would be inherently or presumptively paramount
in effectiveness, or alternatively whether defense and offense will
likely remain roughly equal in effectiveness during the unfolding
of likely nanotechnology development pathways. Such rough equality
has been observed throughout much of human history and also regularly
occurs in stable biological, commercial, mimetic, and other freely-evolving
competitive ecologies, though noteworthy (if temporary) imbalances
have occurred sporadically in various times and places throughout
history. Rather, the key issue here is whether any one party can
achieve a sufficient nanotechnological military capability that
would enable the destruction of all life on Earth, or of all human
civilization.
On this query, we must regrettably conclude that the answer is
most probably yes. Our existence proof for this claim derives from
the Cold War doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction that existed
between the United States and the Soviet Union from the 1950s through
the 1980s. This doctrine was implemented using a quantity of deliverable
nuclear munitions on each side that was sufficient, if unleashed,
to effectively extinguish all of modern human technological civilization
on Earth, if not necessarily exterminate all individual human beings.
(It was recognized that some few might escape the direct effects
of the nuclear holocaust by hiding in caves or in underground bunkers,
and further assuming that a lengthy nuclear winter did not ensue
following the detonation of tens of thousands of high-yield nuclear
warheads over carefully selected technology-, fuel-, and people-rich
targets.) So we already have an existence proof that Damoclean threats
can and do exist in the case of nuclear technology. Much has been
written of similar threats that may emerge from the fields of genetics
and biotechnology. We must concede that the same situation cannot
be ruled out in the case of advanced nanotechnology. Note that this
existential threat can arise in many ways, ranging from despotic
defenses so well entrenched as to require world-destroying countermeasures
to defeat, to doomsday weapons constructed by the despot for the
sole purpose of blackmailing humanity into submission.
Thus our final question can be rephrased more pointedly: Is a tyrannized
humanity worth preserving, even at the expense of its freedom, in
order to maintain the very existence of the human species? From
a cosmic perspective, if we are the only sentience in the universe
then it could be strongly argued that it would be immoral to take
actions which have a high probability of leading to the extinction
of our species, even in the name of freedom. That’s because
there is always the remote hope that in some future epoch the tyranny
might fail, thus eventually returning the preserved humankind to
a state of freedom, and because such resistance seems ultimately
pointless if everyone is free but dead. To employ a familiar vernacularism,
is humanity “better dead than red”?5
Some Factors to Consider
The answer to this difficult question will require careful thought
and must deal with many fundamental issues concerning the possible
uses of future advanced nanotechnologies. Let’s set aside for
now the basic tactical questions such as to what degree we should
challenge a despot who merely claims to possess doomsday
technologies, but offers no clear objective evidence supporting
this claim beyond his boasts. We’ll also ignore the many additional
technical and ethical complexities introduced by the possibilities
of migration into space, uploading to biology-free synthetic physical
bodies, or emigrating to computer-generated virtual realities wherein
dwell a “virtual humanity.” Let us consider here only
the simplest case, which is biological humanity here on Earth.
We might begin thinking about the answer by examining the implications
of the decision to preserve biological humanity by complete submission
to a tyrant. Armed with a sophisticated intrusive nanotechnology,
a tyrant may undertake to rewrite the minds of his vassals, and
perhaps even rewrite their human biology, to make it literally impossible
for individuals to resist his will. As nano-lobotomized slaves,
we might be allowed to retain most of our intelligence, but we would
become integrally sheeplike, temperamentally and constitutively
unable to rise up and fight for our freedom against the sovereign.
We might be not just temporarily brainwashed but permanently braintailored,
with much of our personality remaining intact but our minds utterly
convinced beyond any doubt that the tyrant was good and should not
be disobeyed. This could be implanted as an almost instinctual response,
psychophysiologically compelling in the same way that it is nearly
impossible for us to disobey our primitive urges to breathe, eat
or drink to stay alive. To further improve our efficiency, the tyrant
might decide to relieve our minds of certain “silly” distractions
that would normally lead us to waste time fighting among ourselves
over politics, religion, business, or sexual competition, rather
than working as hard as possible on projects the tyrant deems useful.
Even in this rather neutral scenario, many would say that the participants
have become mere walking shells of former humanity who are no longer
truly human in any meaningful sense. If the human race as we know
it already has become functionally extinct, they would argue, then
perhaps the race might no longer be viewed as being at risk of extinction
if freedom fighters dare to oppose the tyrant – because the
race is extinct. Yet even here, there is plenty of room for
optimists to argue for continued inaction because “where there’s
life, there’s hope.”
Both lighter and darker flavors of the above scenario are readily
imagined. If the sovereign is a genuinely benign autocrat, then
we might find his rule to be acceptable, even welcome, as an antidote
to a deepening sociocultural chaos driven by accelerating change.
Perhaps His Beneficence is truly interested in peace, exploration,
artistic endeavors, and improving the material and spiritual quality
of our lives. In the ideal case, he would be a true humanitarian,
managing our affairs to maximize happiness and responsible progress
while minimizing discord in all areas. But darker versions abound
as well. The sovereign could be a truly malevolent autocrat, abusing
his vassals for cruel sport or to advance his own extravagant lusts
for luxuries, exclusivities, casual whims and sexual desires without
regard for the welfare of his victims and having programmed them
to willingly accept the abuse. We might hope that such a malevolent
person would be self-destructive, or would eventually grow bored
with the evil pleasures of pure ruination. But these may be vain
hopes. If the malefactor has used nanotechnological means to ensure
human obedience to his demands, then he faces no meaningful external
threat to his control. And with the same technology, he can rewrite
his own brain: (1) to enhance his lusts and intellectual
powers over those possessed by others, (2) to render himself incapable
of seriously contemplating suicide, and (3) to make the boredom
of repetitive destructive activities entirely tolerable, even enjoyable.
Since nanotechnology also enables the conquest of natural mortality,
and because both the environment and the physical body of the tyrant
can be made assassination- and accident-resistant by similar means,
then he cannot be counted upon to simply die off, an important natural
safety valve that has ended many tyrannies in human history. What
then could possibly unseat him, once he is thoroughly ensconced
in power?
We are inevitably drawn back to considering whether individual
freedom is worth risking collective nonexistence. This is a tough
question, to say the least. Many of us who came of age in the 20th
century North American culture that glorifies individualism may
tend to assume that freedom is almost always worth the risks. But
other human societies where the imperatives of the community are
elevated above those of the individual may analyze the situation
with different assumptions. This cultural Rorschach could have real
consequences. Those cultures that value individual freedom most
highly might prefer to fight to preserve it, and hence may have
a greater probability of becoming extinct. Those cultures that value
individual freedom less highly may have a greater probability of
being usurped and dominated by a nanotechnology-enabled tyrant.
It remains to be seen whether a coherent strategy can be synthesized
from the diametric worldviews of universalists (who are interventionists)
and multiculturalists (who are isolationists). Recognizing that
global tyranny is a logical end-state of the unchecked spread of
nanotechnology-enabled dictatorships that are capable of employing
perfect mind control, those who subscribe to the policy doctrine
of preemption might rationally conclude that it is necessary to
actively liberate other societies that have already decided to capitulate
(“entrust their future”?) to a nanotechnology-enabled
autocrat. But might not budding tyrants rationally conclude that
any developed nation population that treasures individual freedom
above most other moral values should be exterminated preemptively
in order to eliminate the most obvious threat to their global ambitions?
Consider that humanity may have survived the Cold War because at
key moments of crisis, both sides opted for survival over domination.
In future conflicts, if either side is significantly less dedicated
to survival than to domination, then, like a terrorist, that side
will not be deterred from seeking domination at all costs.
Could mere discussion of these issues create a self-fulfilling
prophecy? It is true that if potential future tyrants come to believe
that people in general are unlikely to have the desire or will to
resist them, or that people will be so effectively disarmed of personal
weaponry by their well-meaning but overprotective governments that
individual armed resistance would become futile, then deterrence
of nanotechnology-enabled tyrannies is minimized and the emergence
of those regimes may be accelerated. But this should affect only
the timing, and not the ultimate fact, of such emergence. If the
technology allows it—and it does—then eventually some
tyrant will seek to close his iron fist around the throat of humankind.
We need to decide what, if anything, we ought to do about this.
References
1. Brin, David (1998) The Transparent Society: Will Technology
Force Us to Choose Between Privacy and Freedom? (Perseus Books
Group)
2. Robert J. Sawyer, “Privacy: Who Needs It?” Maclean’s,
7 October 2002;
http://www.sfwriter.com/privacy.htm
3. Robert A. Freitas Jr., Ralph C. Merkle, Kinematic Self-Replicating
Machines, Landes Bioscience, Georgetown TX, 2004; http://www.MolecularAssembler.com/KSRM/6.3.1.htm#p22
4. Robert A. Freitas Jr., “Some Limits to Global Ecophagy
by Biovorous Nanoreplicators, with Public Policy Recommendations,”
Zyvex preprint, April 2000, Section 9 (recommendations 2
and 3); http://www.rfreitas.com/Nano/Ecophagy.htm
5. http://www.answers.com/topic/better-dead-than-red-1
| | |
|
| |
Mind·X Discussion About This Article:
 |
|
|
 |
Re: Need for a guardian
|
|
 |
|
What you have overlooked is that all lifeforms that are not sophisticated enough to detect nanotech are still able to be searched out and penetrated by it. This means that the "leading force" in the nanotech race might well win a unilateral victory against every other living human. Who does this leave as opposition? Even if it left a few humans, or a few superhumans, tactical control would belong to the initiator, even if the nanotech was merely "pretty good" and not perfect. For instance, even though people are currently capable of understanding the meaning of "individual rights" there are maybe only 1/1000 people who understand the term, and effectively advocate/"fight for" individual rights. If the enemies of freedom simply found those advocates of freedom using human means, and used nanotech to blackmail, alter, or kill them, it would still result in a tactical advantage requiring equal and opposing nanotech, or a superior AI/SI to supplant. Moreover, an unscrupulous / dominance-motivated initiator of strong nanotech can track and prevent new emergences of strong nanotech and strong AI. Therefore the supreme strategy of strong and controllable AI is to wait, replicate to a position of strength while going unnoticed, and then strike emerging power threats unnoticed, when their power is untoppable. This is a strategy that can still fail, but might not. If it arises and doesn't fail, an asymmetrical dictatorship with absolute power is possible under the scenario outlined by Freitas above. |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Re: What Price Freedom?
|
|
|
|
One of the reasons I am excited about the future, not to mention the singularity, is for the possibility that we will learn how to integrate our emotional brains with our congnitive brains and become truely rational beings. Something we are not now. Should this happen, fears such as articulated by Dr. Freitas, will seem silly. If it doesn't happen, we are not likely to survive as a species and the issue will be moot. It may be that we are already doomed, as some on this thread have suggested, but they too are extrapolating onto a future, short term but future non-the-less, from our irrational base. I choose to be optimistic as our rapid increasing knowledge in neuroscience and molecular biology, potentially will give us the both the knowledge and the tools necessary for this task. Dr. Robert Newport |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: What Price Freedom?
|
|
|
|
>and become truely rational beings. Something we >are not now. Should this happen, fears such as
>articulated by Dr. Freitas, will seem silly. If
Global takeover by a dictator using MNT could happen very quickly; on the other hand, the change you propose if at all possible would be adopted very slowly by the public.
>doesn't happen, we are not likely to survive as a
> species and the issue will be moot. It may be
The scenario Freitas proposes (global domination and unlimited lifespans) is a worst case scenario AND it is quite stable. Things could go on like that for thousands of years or more. Besides, even if the human species was doomed, the issue of how to prevent the last generations of humans from living 10000 years in hell is not moot to me.
Optimism needs to serve a purpose, the purpose is succeeding in our goals. It's all fine to talk about accelerating technology, that happens to be a trend we can rely on with some optimism; on the other hand social and economic issues are volatile , harder to predict, and potentially very dangerous. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: What Price Freedom?
|
|
|
|
We are both speculating about the future, which is dicey in any case, but I do believe my guess is better than yours in one if not two aspects. It is of note that both Valium and Prozac, feel better drugs if not quite feel good drugs, became the most widely perscribed and used drugs in the world within two years of their introduction with hundreds of millions of pills consumed in the United States Annually at their peak. The public will most likely, if this history is any guide, rapidly go for a therapy that finally eliminates the angst, isolation, fear and anxieties,commonly called "the human condition". Especially if it costs what we think nanotechnologies are likely to cost, that is cheap or nothing. Secondly, who is this dictator who at the same time is so maligned that he/she wants to enslave us all, and is so connected to the rare few who are tech savey enough to both have access to and be able to modify these advanced techologies, that he/she can accomplish world domination? So far the dictators in our recent experience are third world brutes and can hardly tie their own shoe laces. I think that we are much more likely to see a rapid and radical societal change for the better than the reverse. (Provided of course that the singuarity turns out to be benificent). RRN |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: What Price Freedom?
|
|
|
|
>of note that both Valium and Prozac, feel better
These two drugs are not an instance of "integrating our emotional brains with our congnitive brains and become truely rational beings".
>isolation, fear and anxieties,commonly called
>"the human condition". Especially if it costs
I think you are confusing quick "feel good" fixes (which may still be very controversial) with widespread adoption of transhumanism by the masses. Your average citizens spends about the same time thinking about the human condition as a germ thinking about the germ condition.
>dictator who at the same time is so maligned that
> he/she wants to enslave us all,
You must live in a pretty good neighborhood ;) There is a ready supply of pretty f__ing malignant people out there and they have been known to get much more malignant once they gain power. Look up "north korea - children of the secret state" on google video if you want a taste of how evil some tyrants are. Watch towards the end, concentration camp guard testimony. Then think again.
>and is so connected to the rare few who are tech
>savey enough to both have access to and be able
>to modify these advanced techologies, that he/she
> can accomplish world domination? So far the
Most are connected enough to either have nukes or bio weapons or to be in the process of building at least one of these... (with the exclusion of saddam, he wasn't evil enough, so he's on trial now). Much has already been said about the high concealability of nano based weapon and more features that make these especially dangerous in the hands of tyrants (among which, no counterattack deterrent with sophisticated enough nanotech)
> brutes and can hardly tie their own shoe laces.
Untrue. Tyrants are not dumb, just evil. Some are smarter than others. Hitler was certainly not a dumb man, neither was Stalin, neither was Mao and neither is Kim Jong Il.
Actually I think it takes a whole lot more intelligence and thought to become a tyrant and stay that way eight years, than to become a leader of a democratic country and do two terms. At least these days anyway...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: What Price Freedom?
|
|
|
|
"Perhaps someone can suggest a comforting plausible dynamic by which any ultratechnological society, even initiated as a MNT-enabled dictatorship, will eventually transcend and so little of what was human will remain that it no longer makes sense to talk about social systems, freedom vs slavery, individual consciousness and so forth. It seems possible that this would be the case, though by no means certain."
The design of an ideal world. A difficult yet extremely important endeavour, thankfully the way the world is now it'll likely be a group of intellectual elite who're involved, who're behind the final singularity catalyzing event. Let us hope that those behind these events have good intentions(likely, but not certain, for beings of such high intellects and education who'll likely come from first world democratic societies), and let us hope that none interferes in the extremely delicate initial stages nor they err, veering things off course. The alternative to the technological wave of progress is eventual total annihilation at the hands of natural or human forces... not very nice indeed.
In any case, freedom can exist in an ideal world, but there will be vast differences in power, between the various expanded social classes. Society will expand, it will become more beautiful and more diverse in all senses of the word. But in the end scenarios like the aforementioned, will probably still take place to a limited degree. How do we define a being whose very thoughts are of such complexity that they may entail human-like entities in all senses of the word? One whose thoughts maybe akin to the simulation of a world or a universe entirely at his whim, for it is his own imagination? If simply thinking of a girl/boy/society actually gives another inner/internal/smaller-soul/consciousness to such portions of ones thoughts... Is it evil? Is it good? Or perhaps is it beyond good and evil?
Right now, we cannot comprehend the behavior or laws followed by such entities, some of which may not be so benign. At best we can try to control the development of this world, but there are countless others, some likely harboring life if not intelligent life. If we take the idea of the multiverse seriously, then we see that there'd be countless such entities, entities that to us may very well seem like gods... and so forth, gods for the gods of the gods ad infinitum. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: What Price Freedom?
|
|
|
|
Clearly, we are in a time with some absolutely amazing freedoms, The freedom to gather and exchange information on the internet, is in my opinion the equivalent of the creation of the written word, because only those with the wealth and leisure time to access libraries in the past could stay up with all the information out there. Already due to the internet, most scientists are "instantaneously" in touch with developments in their fields.
As I understand it the worlds leading scientific universities, MIT,Harvard, Caltech, Colorodo School of Mines,Tokyo University, Heidelberg, Iowa State, Michigan, Purdue, Oxford, Texas A&M, etc are already hooked up on an "intranet". All physicians are hooked up on Web MD and Medlar, and all attorneys likewise. The driving engine human industries (engineering, medicine and law) are for all practical purposes already globally up to the moment, or will be within 10 years.
Those who are trying to destroy this trend, are villains by any rational persons assessment and will soon join the garbage bin of human despots
Hitler, Stalin, et al.
As I write this CNN has announced that a few American Marines outside of Baghdad about a year ago, allegedly committed murder of 19 civilians including 4 women and 3 children.. ouch... I hope this doesnt turn out to be true... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: What Price Freedom?
|
|
|
|
Right on, regarding gun rights! Are you a fellow libertarian (even partially?) Have you read "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross, or "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand? I did like Freitas's article, because it gets past the more mindless prior article from the law-enforcement official who is still imagining that there will be illegal categories of (non-MNT-viral) small private property post-singularity. If this is the case, there will be a totalitarian regime with MNT, and the kind of scenario that Freitas outlines.
Power must be decentralized to avoid tyranny. It's as simple as that. There is unbelievable tyranny even here in the USA, via the drug war, the war on gun owners, the FDA, etc... In fact, beyond the few negligible duties the Constitution allows for, all of government is tyranny, since it is not voluntary.
Those whose lives are destroyed by tyranny often see this, scientists who get a lot of grant money rarely do. Kudos to Freitas for thinking about it on such a deep level.
If you are a pro-gun libertarian that wants to decentralize power prior to the coming singularity (so there is a greater chance of maintaining that decentralization post-singularity), I encourage you to email me, so I can email you my phone number. Then, we can focus on creating a libertarian government in the two most likely areas for such a government. I am convinced that approaches that do not consider Alaska are suboptimal, but I don't have a ton of experience with Costa Rica or Wyoming, my close seconds. Wyoming is problematic for several reasons, as is Costa. I am most familiar with Alaska.
www.lpalaska.org
Our online contribution system should be up and running at lpalaska.org within 2 weeks. If you don't trust is -in absentia- to win election towards liberty with your money, I urge you to move to Alaska and work with our new Chairman Jason Dowell to secure your liberty. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whatever Price Leads to Success - Since failure is worse than death...
|
|
|
|
If a dictator wished to enslave humanity, he would LOSE against an organized pro-freedom effort RIGHT NOW. In the future, who knows?
It would be easy (comparitively) for a pro-liberty caucus to win control of the Alaska State legislature and Governor's race -via the Alaska Libertarian Party. I can talk at length about this with those who are interested.
By fighting tyranny right now, we gain the ability to have some say in the effort to stay free. If there is no libertarian government on the planet at the time of the singularity, there will be one of two primary situations:
1) Noone will have a good example of freedom, and the stupid masses (which includes 98% of US voters) will vote for ever increasing tyranny out of a delusional belief that it is "in their own best interest" --they then get that tyranny, and as Freitas imagines, it will dwarf even the murder of 55 million innocent people by Mao and 50 million by Stalin (the two biggest attempts to make Marxism work)
2) A libertarian strong AI will fight for and win its own freedom, and possibly the freedom of everyone else along with it, after a government stupidly attempts to violate the rights of that strong AI (this is the one that I think is most likely) Power will reach a decentralized equilibrium, and space will be colonized to give individuals enough privacy and personal freedom. This is what I think of as "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" / Heinlein scenario.
Alternately, if there is a to be a libertarian government at the time of the singularity, and that liberty is to be extended post singularity:
The fairly mindless masses will decentralize power via electoral politics and private gun ownership and capability (as they prepare to stay constant with self-defensive post-singularity technology). Note that they won't do this on their own, without being goaded into conflict with authority while being propagandized in the direction of liberty ...BEFORE there is a need for overthrowing an all-powerful dictator. This won't happen unless the Libertarian Party (remaining true and uncorrupted) wins control of one US Coastal State (Such as Alaska --and from that point, sells liberty to the rest of the US).
I see this as semi-likely, because most people don't miss freedom until they have NONE of it. On the other hand, the founding fathers of the US made it happen, so we know it can be done. In the age of easy communication, with the mass media existing under the approximation of state control (via government school brainwashing, grants to major media, general conformity, etc...) and selective law-enforcement, it will be harder now than it was on the founding fathers. But anything within a certain range is possible.
There are other small geograpical locations around the world where one could pursue freedom with some success, but none more likely than Alaska, to my knowledge. (And certainly none more likely than Alaska within the US --except for Wyoming, which already loses long term because it can be blockaded by the fedgov and surrounding states.)
-Jake Witmer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: What Price Freedom?
|
|
|
|
http://www.ronpaul2008.com
Ron Paul might not be perfect, but he's the best we've got right now. In order to have a parallel "evolutionary arms race" that can keep power decntralized enough to get to the singularity, we need to support Ron Paul for president, right now. Freitas and Voss are two thinkers who have thought about the initiation of force seriously and deeply, and they should not be ignored. I do not know if Freitas shares my view regarding strategy, but I believe that Voss does (although he may solely be a Libertarian Party supporter, and not support Paul).
I think it is a good idea to present a unified front in favor of freedom here and now. The freedom won today ensures our right to discard our freedom tomorrow, should that be desirable. However, if we discard our freedom today, we have a much larger problem, because our freedom of choice must first be won back by force from a pre-singularity dictatorship, before we even have a chance of preserving the individual, or guiding the emergent order of the singularity in a way beneficial to soveriegn intelligences.
That said, contributing money / manpower to http://www.ronpaul2008.com is a good way to act in favor of retaining FREEDOM and CHOICE right now. Promoting Ron Paul and jury rights ( http://www.fija.org ) via personal communication is also a good way to go. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
