(fatal assumption: just 'cause yer smart at something,
means that yer smart at everything.)
New sciences 'threaten end of humanity'
A CREATOR of the Information Age has turned prophet
of doom with a warning that humanity could be extinct
within two generations.
Bill Joy, the American co-founder and chief scientist of the
software maker Sun Microsystems, says: "The 21st
century technologies - genetics, nanotechnology and
robotics - are so powerful that they can spawn whole new
classes of accidents and abuses.
"Most dangerously, for the first time these accidents and
abuses are widely within the reach of individuals or small
groups. They will not require large facilities or rare raw
materials. Knowledge alone will enable the use of them."
In a 20,000-word article in Wired magazine, Mr Joy says
that the menace comes from imminent advances in three
fields of technology: genetic engineering, nanotechnology
and robotics. "We have yet to come to terms with the fact
that the most compelling 21st century technologies pose a
different threat than the technologies that have come
before," he writes.
"Specifically, robots, engineered organisms, and nanobots
[microscopic robots] share a dangerous amplifying factor:
they can self-replicate. A bomb is blown up only once -
but one bot can become many, and quickly get out of
control."
One of Mr Joy's fears is genetically engineered viruses
against which people have no defence. Another is
nanotechnology, which enables scientists to use individual
molecules as circuit elements. It could create smart
machines small enough to fit inside a blood vessel and able
to reproduce themselves like computer viruses, he says.
In robotics, a generation of superintelligent machines could
make humans superfluous. "Once an intelligent robot
exists, it is only a small step to a robot species - to an
intelligent robot that can make evolved copies of itself.
"The only realistic alternative I see is relinquishment: to
limit development of the technologies that are too
dangerous by limiting our pursuit of certain kinds of
knowledge."
His article, Why the Future Doesn't Need Us, is being
compared to Einstein's 1939 letter to President Roosevelt
alerting him to the possibility of a nuclear bomb.
A former co-chairman of a presidential commission on the
future of technology and one of the original designers of
the Unix operating system, Mr Joy insists that he is "no
Luddite". But he agrees with key sections of the rambling
manifesto written by the anti-technology terrorist known
as the Unabomber, now in jail.
"I am no apologist for Theodore Kaczynski," Mr Joy
writes - one of his scientist friends was seriously injured
by the reclusive former mathematician during his 17-year
bombing campaign. "Kaczynski's actions were murderous
and, in my view, criminally insane. He is clearly a Luddite,
but simply saying this does not dismiss his argument."
Mr Joy foresees a "rerun" of the nuclear arms race, but
this time, unlike the original Manhattan Project that
developed the atom bomb, it will be driven "by our habits,
our desires, our economic system, and our competitive
need to know".
A Berkeley graduate, he moved out of California's Silicon
Valley a decade ago to establish a small laboratory in
Aspen, Colorado. But he has continued to be involved in
the development of such powerful software as the Java
programming language and Jini, a system for linking
household appliances and other devices over the Internet.
"I have always believed that making software more
reliable will make the world a safer and better place," he
writes. "If I were to come to believe the opposite, then I
would be morally obligated to stop this work.
"I can now imagine that such a day may come."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Science does not...
From: SubGenius Spice <anon2166@hushmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Wed, Mar 15, 2000 12:27 PM
Message-ID: <7shvcs40vvt4pgnsvg8p98oe50oiinrnne@sgs.org>
# 88 on todays alt.slack hit parade is nu-monet and Frontier GlobalCenter
Inc. doing their rendition of :
[...]
> "Specifically, robots, engineered organisms, and nanobots
> [microscopic robots] share a dangerous amplifying factor:
> they can self-replicate. A bomb is blown up only once -
> but one bot can become many, and quickly get out of
> control."
and that's what usenet is all about, charlie brown.
--
SubGenius Spice
www.distributed.net
moo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Science does not...
From: "temujin9, das Überfiend" <temujin9@t9.addr.CON>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Thu, Mar 16, 2000 12:07 AM
Message-ID: <go70dsk2pl9kafgrpcnku8nru03jdb7q05@4ax.com>
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 06:09:17 -0700, nu-monet <nothing@succeeds.com>
wrote:
> In robotics, a generation of superintelligent machines could
> make humans superfluous. "Once an intelligent robot
> exists, it is only a small step to a robot species - to an
> intelligent robot that can make evolved copies of itself.
He says this like he honestly believes its a bad thing.
"We are the pinnacle of evolution, and must remain so by preventing
anything else from evolving."
--
temujin9
"It was just so much eyeball - how could I resist?"
- Reakk -- http://www.sluggy.com/d/000223.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Science does not...
From: nu-monet <nothing@succeeds.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Reply-To: like.excess@sex.org
Date: Thu, Mar 16, 2000 7:48 AM
Message-ID: <38D0D81F.4C91@succeeds.com>
temujin9, das Überfiend wrote:
>
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 06:09:17 -0700, nu-monet <nothing@succeeds.com>
> wrote:
>
> > In robotics, a generation of superintelligent machines could
> > make humans superfluous. "Once an intelligent robot
> > exists, it is only a small step to a robot species - to an
> > intelligent robot that can make evolved copies of itself.
>
> He says this like he honestly believes its a bad thing.
>
> "We are the pinnacle of evolution, and must remain so by preventing
> anything else from evolving."
>
People seem to think that Social Darwinism's focus is on eliminating
the sick, lame and defective. In reality, its purpose is to
exterminate all superior mutants.
--and you can quote me
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Science does not...
From: Unit 4 <UnitIV@SPUTUM.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Reply-To: unit4@sputum.com
Date: Thu, Mar 16, 2000 7:57 AM
Message-ID: <nem1dsc4f39ls6rd3bvkcea0bgv8j0stsb@4ax.com>
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 05:07:31 GMT, "temujin9, das Überfiend"
<temujin9@t9.addr.CON> wrote, in alt.slack:
}On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 06:09:17 -0700, nu-monet <nothing@succeeds.com>
}wrote:
}
}> In robotics, a generation of superintelligent machines could
}> make humans superfluous. "Once an intelligent robot
}> exists, it is only a small step to a robot species - to an
}> intelligent robot that can make evolved copies of itself.
}
}He says this like he honestly believes its a bad thing.
}
}"We are the pinnacle of evolution, and must remain so by preventing
}anything else from evolving."
}
Replace "evolution" with "society" and try it on them to see if it fits.
Yuh, that's them. Religion? yup.
Sums them up quite nicely.
Can I kill them now?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Science does not...
From: "Abbess Abyss" <abbessabyss@uswest.net>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Thu, Mar 16, 2000 10:40 AM
Message-ID: <%i7A4.39$zI6.3637@news.uswest.net>
"nu-monet" <nothing@succeeds.com> wrote in message
news:38D0D81F.4C91@succeeds.com...
> temujin9, das Überfiend wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 06:09:17 -0700, nu-monet <nothing@succeeds.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > In robotics, a generation of superintelligent machines could
> > > make humans superfluous. "Once an intelligent robot
> > > exists, it is only a small step to a robot species - to an
> > > intelligent robot that can make evolved copies of itself.
> >
> > He says this like he honestly believes its a bad thing.
> >
> > "We are the pinnacle of evolution, and must remain so by preventing
> > anything else from evolving."
> >
>
> People seem to think that Social Darwinism's focus is on eliminating
> the sick, lame and defective. In reality, its purpose is to
> exterminate all superior mutants.
>
That extermination (first?) extends to any members of society who, though
largely ungifted themselves, would support, protect, or merely openly
acknowledge those superior mutants as their rightful betters instead of
puckering up to the emporer-by-hype's nonexistant hem.
Original file name: Science does not...
This file was converted with TextToHTML - (c) Logic n.v.