| [Discussion] WARGAME:What happens to oil exporting nations, and thus the stability of the world, when newer tech replaces oil.Many of these countries (in fact, almost all) are already basket cases i.e. Russia, Middle East, Venezuela, Sudan... When oil loses its importance for energy production, will this cause chaos or lead to order? In the short/long run. View 1: This leads to the collapse of already troubled states and helps in the radicalization of already disenfranchised populations, as radical groups take advantage of the situation by scapegoating advanced countries as the enemy. With this new cacophany of radicals joining the extremist fold, Terrorism rises exponentially just as technological advancement is beginning to do the same. Put simply, the equation now becomes: exponential growth in crazies + exp growth in tech = more bad s&%# than we can imagine. This leads to the public outrage and dissilusionment with advanced tech, and thus to goverments restricting or rather centralizing control over all new technological advancements and uses. This slows down technological progress, while at the same time allowing rogue states and crazies the opportunity to advance beyond us or rival us , as government has stifled our innovation. We are then surpassed or equaled in some ways by those with nefarious intent. Conclusion of this view: hell on earth. Of course there are many points in there where things can veer off into other directions. For instance; how do the developed countries respond and help the disenfranchised in the former oil exporters? View 2: Since almost all of the oil exporters are basket cases, their downfall will be a blessing to the world. It will mean the devastation of the clout of dictators and so, the increased power of the more liberal (not speaking politicaly necesarily, just in terms of freedom for the people) countries. The balance of power will have then permanently shifted to the freedom-loving nations of the world and to individual liberty. The advanced countries will help the destitute populations of the former oil exporters. These populations will become more influenced by and eventually embrace the ideals of their benefactors over those of their former dictators and strongmen and corrupt governments. They will embrace personal liberty, governments' power from the people, and human rights. As a result of the downfall of the a##holes the world becomes a more stable place with less and less people feeling disenfranchised and so less and less people trying to hurt others. Terrorism diminishes, instability diminishes. All, just as tech advancement hits the knee of the exp growth curve, at which point hunger and disease and poverty become things of the past. We all sing "Kumbaya my Lord" and live happily ever after. Of course view 2 also has many possible ways to veer off course. For instance, will the sh#%y oil exporting dictators give up power without a fight? Unlikely. It seems then, that a common thread exists between views 1 and 2. The road between future A (view 1) and fut B (view 2) diverges at the point where oil becomes irrelevant, according to how our govt's react and what they do about these populations. If we help the populations out with kindness and efficacy then view 2 becomes reality. If we don't step up to the plate. The world goes ape-s#@*. It seems then that when 2 roads will diverge in that yellow wood, we'd better take the right one even if it's at great expense to ourselves in the short run. Please don't give me crap about grammar or structure. I don't care lol. I view this as a quick blurb expressing a quick summary of my opinion and view on the matter at hand. Please be advised, if this or the unorganized, rambling and rantish nature of this annoys you; here is the consideration I will afford your complaint lol.RAMBLERAMBLERAMBLERAMBLERANTRANTRANT . |
| April Fools. CADIE is a hoax. Google. No Cog-AutoheauristicsThe article Jeriaska linked to below was an April fools joke on the world by Google. It had me going for about 2 seconds. Until I realized that this leap was impossible unless we're 7-15 years from now. Also, they made a mistake which I immediately caught. The article refers to CADIE working on 'Crystal Lattice to form an Einstein-Bose Condensate'. I remembered reading a physics paper a few years back on the subject (I'm a self educated amateur, but literate nonehteless). So I searched for the paper and found who wrote it and is working on this. A physicist by the name of Dr. Alex Zunger. I asked myself why this problem? Why put CADIE on this task? So, I researched (googled) the name Alex Zunger and Lo and Behold, if I shouldn't find a google boss/scientist named Yonatan Zunger. Turns out he's the physicists son. Thus, with my detective work (which I know nobody gives a crap about), I had found not only that it is a hoax but also who is behind it. Yonatan Zunger, or at least someone who knows his fathers' work. |
| [Discussion] http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=9932.phpScientists at MIT have genetically engineered a virus to build a battery at the nanoscale. This uses phosphorous, but as it progresses to manganese this should begin to revolutionize energy production, God willing. Article can also be found in science magazine and at MIT. This is a prime example of singularity science: Genetic engineering (biology), nanotechnology, and physics. |
| Ray Kurzweil on Glen Beck part 1Glen Beck 5 part interview with Ray Kurzweil from a few months ago. See all 5 parts. Very well done; it is an example of the strategy I write about in my discussion topic. |
| [Discussion] [Discussion] How to sell this to the majority, so as to make the transition as smooth and pleasant as possible, for all.The above question is one that I contemplated as I watched Ray Kurzweil's interview with Glen Beck, a few months ago. The reason that this interview struck me, is that Beck is very religious, and yet was quite accepting, even complementary, of Kurzweils' opinions. I know many people who are religious or might just have a kneejerk reaction to some of this stuff. Yet, when I come at them with respect and an honest effort to answer their questions, they are quite open to this future and don't have much of a hard time, as some might think, of reconciling it with their beliefs, or even reorienting their views somewhat. Here is why this is important. There are two possible routes to this future (inevitable though it may be unless we destroy ourselves with it); the first is a smooth transition where the public is behind these changes to the maximum extent possible. The second, is with strife between society and inevitability. Perhaps both reach the same end, but the first is much smoother and less violent for all, especially the scientists (think, AIG executives- you don't want that treatment). So presumably option one is what we all want. So, how do we do it? Suggestions- 1. Go to the nonusual outlets- Glen Beck- Talk Radio- late shows ...introduce the public to the benefits of accelerating tech. 2. don't take an 'us vs. them' mentality, and explain simply and clearly, and you will find people more receptive then you thought.... 3. Get religious scientists to be the spokesmen on selling this to the public. I know from freinds that are orthodox Jews and are scientists that they don't have religious problems with these things. I also presume that there must be some scientists with other religious affiliations who have no problem reconciling their faith with these advancements. The fact that you guys don't share their faith is irrelevant. Remember, the point of this exercise is how to gain wider acceptance from the public, so as to minimize resistance, so as to ensure as smooth a ride as posiible, for all. Kurzwels' upcoming movie is a good start. However, I believe realigious scientists will be more effective spokesmen because they'll be a clear exampleto people that they don't have to give up faith to accept this. Thus, they will be less apt to resist these things, politically or otherwise, God forbid. Explain things, again, not with an 'us vs. them' way about you, but with explanations like 'we are simply doing waht God put us here to do- to explore, to learn, to grow, to help people, to cure diseases, to use these technologies to do good things- and God surely approves of doing good things'. Also explain and drive home the point that if we, the 'Moral' democracies don't advance these things, then the dictatorships will. And their dominance would ensure an immoral world. These two directions will help win over religious people and nationalistic people. Again, the aloof inevitability 'listen up you hicks and hay-seeds'- Angle, won't work. It is counterproductive. For smart people, you're pretty good at stupid when it comes to selling the public on your ideas. Please comment on any other suggestions you might have, or on any flaws in my suggestions, if they exist. And to clarify, I am not being cynical. I do belive in a creator and I myself don't have an emotional or intelectual or moral problem with any of this. I am not suggesting lying. I am simply suggesting an approach that doesn't needlessly antagonize, and that achieves our goal of a better world for all. For the best and fastest and safest way to get to this world, is for all of us to be working in tandem to get it done. Some using their financial accumen, others their political clout, and each bringing their own skill to the table, and as few people as possible opposing. This can only be achieved by explaining things in the way I have set forth above. And as I stated before, you will find people to be far more receptive then you imagined. Believe me, I know from experience, they will be receptive if you do things in the above listed manner. Check out the Glen Beck interview with Kurzweil (you tube) to get a glimpse of what I mean- and while watching the interview-remember, this is a super duper religious mormon accepting and being positive about these ideas. This is what you can look forward to if things are done in the way described above. The way AIG executives are being treated, is the second route. That is not good for anyone. Excelsior. |
|
|