The Nanocomputer Dream

re: oxford, england (8:06pm est sat may 01 2004)

well met, and i will again try to counter your points:

so by killing most of the humans, you give an easy time to some small percentage of humans, while simultaneously reverting them all back to a standard of living way behind where we are presently. first of all, we already have a world where a small percentage “survive” better than others, the rich and powerful. and secondly, why would you want to revert us to a more primitive and difficult lifestyle, that would not force better genes for survival in a modern world, but rather in a more primitive world, which is not the same thing. you can be fast and strong and take a bear down with your bare hands, but dumb as sod and thereby not survive well in our world, but you may thrive in a shattered earth.

clearly american, because i jump to the gun? indeed i am american, yet my point with the gun was only because a gun is a technological achievement that had not been made in those days. and yes, i am sure with a gun i could take down even a strong roman warrior. is my aim exceptional? no, and i imagine his aim with a sling would be quite good, but he gets one shot with a sling, and then he either has to reload and wind up again or use his hands and other assortment of weapons. since i'm not dumb and know to avoid his slingshot, i'll pick a place where i can do just that and dodge behind a tree or boulder, once he's shot, he can either reload, in which case i can remain hidden, or he'll charge me, which means he will have little lateral motion and will be a much easier target for my much more accurate and powerful weapon. i have the clear advantage, despite my lack of physical strength.

your “average intelligence” idea is silly, because there is no way i will believe that the average intelligence of humans nowadays is less than that of humans during feudal europe, with a huge and entirely uneducated serf class, and with nobles who were themselves often poorly educated. and then you take the old classical examples again. ancient rome had its philosophers and educated wealthy class, but the majority of the populace was entirely uneducated.

most societies nowadays provide, even force, education upon its citizens, and most people within those societies can read, write, and do basic arithmatic.

as for boring/menial jobs, well many of those jobs are for the lowest levels of our modern societies, and are way beyond the capabilities of the lowest classes in ancient rome. working a cash register, you need to be able to read, write, and do basic arithmetic (or at least understand the idea behind adding and multiplying, if not actually be able to do it yourself).

ok, your argument that the earth did well before humans and we are a parasite to it? thank you agent smith, but that argument is silly. in the beginning of the earth's existance the atmosphere was entirely carbon dioxide, and mostly unlivable. during various points throughout those 4.6 billion years the levels of gases in the atmosphere, and the temperature of the planet, and the availability of raw materials, all fluctuated. so now you're telling me, based on a few mesely little years of human existance compared to the billions of years in which the earth has been changing, that we are “destroying” the earth? the earth can't be destroyed.

conservation of matter, my friend. we mine materials, we dump them, they end up right back in the earth. sure it'll take millions of years under pressure for them to revert to their more useful forms, but that's why we recycle. recycles aluminum is actually cheaper than mined aluminum due to the processing done on the mined aluminum to seperate and purify it. also recycled paper uses preprocessed fibers, which means less work to make paper out of it. people are recycling, because we can't wait millions of years. but the earth is not harmed by us, that's a silly notion. petroleum? what does petroleum do for the earth? i am life. i give a uniqueness to the earth. petroleum actually may be a biproduct of life (it is organic), and may therefore also be unique to earth. but come now, would you give up humanity's existance in order to save the bodies of your dead relatives under the ground?

life persists, and there's nothing we as humans can do about that. as long as life persists, “mother nature” will persist.

so do i advocate chopping up readwoods, because they're not intelligent humans? no, i think that's horrible. i try to use pine and other young tree wood as much as possible to avoid the lumbering of beautiful ancient trees.

i also think that if we could use “nanotechnology” to increase our lifespans tremendously (infinitely, even), then we would not be so hasty to cut these trees, and otherwise damage things in nature that have stood far longer than we. (i do not consider these acts to be damaging to the earth, because the trees are not the earth, and have been alive as inconsequentially long as we have compared to t

by drsengir

Source :

Terima Kasih for visit my website
The nanocomputer dream
DARPA funds mechanical nanocomputer
I hacked my body for a future that never came
Light as a feather, stiff as a board
Thomas Südhof wins Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine
Weizmann Institute chosen world’s top university for life scientists
Brave New Nano-World Lies Ahead / One atom at a time, scientists are building a future of the fantastic