Questions on the conundrum of unlimited freedom and the future on man.

[Moonbeam]

In the thread about reasonable searches at airports, I posed a riddle that, perhaps in the heat of the particulars of that discussion, went unanswered, but one which is no less germaine. I would like to come back to it in unencombered form here. The cunundrum I posed, is this:

Everybody in the world should be entitled to life liberty and the persuit of happiness, should have protection of their inalienable rights, should be free of unreasonable search and siezure. We should be free to pursue our interests, develope technologies as we will including nanotechnology which will make it, in the not too distant future, a rather simple matter for a somewhat sophisitcated person, maybe like the anthrax killer, to creat a self replicating molecular disassembler that once loose will turn the entire planatary surface into powder. We must all be completely free and to manufacture and release, if we choose, a personal weapon, one that can kill all life. The ultimate end of complete freedom, and technological progress will be that anybody will be able to destroy all life. Long before such a day arrives, perhaps, we will have, alread have, variations on the theme writ smaller, 9/11 the anthrax episode, and, already, concerns about a suitcase nuke.

If we want to survive this evolution into a Class 1 Civilization and pass on to Class 2, 3 or 4, what will we need to do? Where are we going and how will we get there?

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

We'd have to work on our spelling.

Beside that a few strategically thrown nuclear warheads could help a lot too. You might be able to eliminate discrimination and hate if you'd reduce the human population to 2 or less persons.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

There is an old old Asimov story about a robot who was not "quite right in the head" This robot was able to create disintegration beam powered by flashlight batteries. Well someone got mad at the robot and told him to forget all about it. The robot did of course which pissed off the authorities, because he really did forget- forever- how to reconstruct it. The narrator was so angry with that man who gave the order the he said "I was mad enough to disintegrate the moon, if I had the equipment". Now this was metaphor, but obviously the potential to do this existed in that world. I was about 10 when I read this, and I recall wondering why the moon hadnt been blown up before if this technology existed. And what happens when we CAN do this for real? So many angry people.


What I do not forsee is patently dangerous technology being released to the pubic. Example. Flying cars. Why arent there any? Answer. We really dont want them. The technology has existed for a long time, and in mass production costs could be competitive with the auto. But imagine drunk flyers? Or anyone too impared to pilot a craft behind the controls? 9/11 would be a party compared to what would happen. So no one does this, because you can bet the craft would be regulated out of existance. Maybe when there is fully automated flight control beyond tampering or failure. Bet the OS is not XP.

That said, what about goverment agencies or industry? They might be playing with some nasty nasty stuff. Recall that there was a great concern by some scientists that a large fission bomb might not stip fissioning. It might perpetuate through the earth, making our planet one huge bomb. This would have been a bad thing. Before it was worked out the bomb was tested, because the generals considered it worth the risk. Yeah we might destroy everything, but there was the War, and that was more important. THIS is the scary mentality. People making decision that have no clue or care as to the consequences.

Then there is the "it is not my responsibility" scientist. These are the ones who create something guaranteed to be distructive, but absolve themselves in the name of discovery. The worst case of this I can think of is Teller, AKA father of the Hydrogen Bomb. Oppenheimer, who headed the Manhattan project, realized that the atomic bomb was bad enough, but the H bomb was infinitely more powerful opposed this, and if memory serves me, crossed McCarthy and his unamerican activities comission. No matter, Oppy was ruined because of his stance, while Teller was selling death in a can for all sorts of purposes. Trivia- there was a serious proposal to dig a canal through the mainland US, bypassing the Panama canal. It would have been huge, connecting the Gulf of Mexico to the pacific, and in one variant, all the way across the country connecting the two oceans. How would this be done? "Clean" H bombs. Just line up enough bombs to blow a ditch a half mile wide from sea to sea. Thank goodness that got nixed. Responsible science is too often an oxymoron. If someone else uses your concept and kills millions, that is on them.

Next we have what I call the "Oops" scenario.
Example- Strange matter is theroized to be a catalyst which turns ordinary matter into strange. That new strange particle interacts with more normal matter and on and on. It may be that some clever dick may make it in the lab. If he does, and the theories regarding strange matter are correct, the unfortunate soul wont get his Nobel, because in a few milliseconds, the earth will be reduced to a softball sized clump of strange matter. Bad mojo.

I can go on and on with this, but I think that large scale destructive technology will be regulated out of the public hands. It will be kept by the government for it's own uses, provided by industry for profit. I do not take much comfort in this though.

The only solution I can see that could work is open scientific peer review of all potentially dangerous technology. Unfortunately, this wont work because politicians outrank those who know. If someway could be found to avoid power hungry political types, then this could work.

 

[BD2003]

Freedom is overrated. Besides, all of you americans dont REALLY think youre free, do you?

The world isnt that bad. Its just the damn sensationalist media that makes it seem so.

 

[IGBT]

Isn't freedom (America) nothing more then a matrix?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: IGBT
Isn't freedom (America) nothing more then a matrix?

Eventually, it may be. If the Matrix were possible, and you could tailor your universe to suit you, the temptation to plug in might be irrestible.
Only thing is, that once you are in, how can you be certain you ever got out. Might be an illusion to make you think you are back in this reality when you are in a counterfet world

 

[Corn]

Why does it seem that liberals are always throwing up their hands shouting "the sky is falling".

Oh, because they are.

Moonbeam, you definately have the vocational skill to be a columnist in one of the more well known trades that features stories of the wolfboy, ponders Richard Gere's sexual orientation, or exposes how fat Martha Stewart is. I hear those guys make a lot of money.

Or maybe Molly Ivins needs a ghost writer while she's on vacation.

Either way, it's a good fit.

 

[Moonbeam]

If you want to start a thread on whether America is free please do so. It would make an excellent and interesting topic. I'm assuming here the ordinary freedoms ordinary people ordinarily assume, at least in America, those guaranteed by the Constitution. I'm asking what the upshot or long ranged consequences of those freedoms will be as technology advances to the point where individuals as individuals may relatively easily, as a result of those freedoms, come to posses capacities of mass destruction, be it nuclear, biological nanotechnological, etc. How or will we be able to survive?

Hayabusarider, I see no way, as for example with nanotechnology, where 'the powers' can keep withhold such capacities from large numbers of people. The whole portent of nanotechnology is assembly at a micro level. Disassembly will be an obvious consequence, I would think. It may easily become a ubiquitous technology with no possibility of making it a nonotechnology.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Corn
Why does it seem that liberals are always throwing up their hands shouting "the sky is falling". Oh, because they are. Moonbeam, you definately have the vocational skill to be a columnist in one of the more well known trades that features stories of the wolfboy, ponders Richard Gere's sexual orientation, or exposes how fat Martha Stewart is. I hear those guys make a lot of money. Or maybe Molly Ivins needs a ghost writer while she's on vacation. Either way, it's a good fit.

Interesting. I am not a liberal, but obviously I have concerns about these same things. Perhaps I should follow the example of some here and let others do my thinking for me. Doesnt matter anyway, chances are I'll be long dead before anything major happens. Let the future take care of itself, and my childrens children take care of the mess I make.

 

[Moonbeam]

Corn, it's because us Liberals don't have our heads up our.... I mean it's because us Liberals don't have our heads in the sand. We're just not afraid to look.

 

[Moonbeam]

Corn, do you know the story of the princess and the pea? Perhaps that may clear things up.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Regarding nanotechnology M-
Some of this will come out to the public for sure. An example might be a plate that can turn into a bowl or a cup on demand. There are levels of complexity here though. To use an analogy, consider pets. Hamsters are not killer rodents. Now if we started keeping tigers around, then we would have problems. They are both animals, but there are inherent limits on what kind of havoc they can wreak. Now keeping tigers as pets is illegal, because they are dangerous. Hamsters, no. I suggest that what Joe Public would get are hamster nanobots. Very simple mechanisms. "Mutations" would not happen, because well they cant. Imaging your 486 mutating to a P4. Produce billions of 486s and the mutation rate is zero, because it is made that way. No hack is going to change that. If more complex machines are released, then all bets are off, but if people keep tigers I am not going to their homes either

 

[BD2003]

The problem here is international competition, and for lack of a better term, political darwinism. In our day and age, nanotech and H-bombs are the big killers. A few hundreds years ago, people would probably be saying the same thing about the standard bomb or the machine gun.

For a peer review board to work, the entire world has to agree. Assume america wanted to set the example, and for a hundred years, produced nothing that was earth destroying, meanwhile, the rest of the entire world goes on building far more advanced technologies.

Eventually, it will be a cinch for any of those countries to take over america, since we have no way to defend.

America doesnt have H-bombs because they want to drop them on people. We have them because we dont want other people to drop them on us.

Unfortunately, as time goes further, the stakes are only going to get higher. There is no way around this unless everyone is in on it and agrees. And how do we police those who may decide to break the agreement? Maybe we should bomb them?

It is an unavoidable cycle.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Here is a disturbing thought. I suppose that if truly dangerous technology were to be commonplace, and survival were an imperative, humans would have to change. I do not mean education or any enlightenment, because there will always be the craving for revenge or hatred or destructive behaviors of all sorts. The only way around this is to change what humanity is. Genetically. Eliminate negative traits and replace them with positives. Problem- who gets to decide what negative is? And what if those traits are needed at some future time for an unforseen circumstance? Who gets to play God for real?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: BD2003
The problem here is international competition, and for lack of a better term, political darwinism. In our day and age, nanotech and H-bombs are the big killers. A few hundreds years ago, people would probably be saying the same thing about the standard bomb or the machine gun. For a peer review board to work, the entire world has to agree. Assume america wanted to set the example, and for a hundred years, produced nothing that was earth destroying, meanwhile, the rest of the entire world goes on building far more advanced technologies. Eventually, it will be a cinch for any of those countries to take over america, since we have no way to defend. America doesnt have H-bombs because they want to drop them on people. We have them because we dont want other people to drop them on us. Unfortunately, as time goes further, the stakes are only going to get higher. There is no way around this unless everyone is in on it and agrees. And how do we police those who may decide to break the agreement? Maybe we should bomb them? It is an unavoidable cycle.

I hope are not destined to become "moties"

 

[Moonbeam]

And whom do you think Niven and Pournelle were refering to, Hay, the people out there in God's Eye, or the ones right here.

There's is, of course the most obvious solution. We will simply destroy ourselves, possibly and hopefully not completely, but just enough to trhow us back into the stone age.

You seemed to have given up rather quickly on the possibility that we might be able to transcend our negatives and will require genetic alteration. I don't see a way to genetically fix what I see as the major problem, the creation of dualism as a consequence of language.

Perhaps some sort of soma might work. Some variation on the Niquil theme Corn finds so useful.

We might also opt for total control as I suggested elsewhere. A chip that monitors or actions, our mood, and terminates us if we have any bad thoughts.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I wish I had hope for universal rationality. I am not sure how this could be achieved since the definition of what rational is varies according to the individual. That said, if controls are needed on individuals, I am not sure life would be worth living. I would be existing in anothers utopia. It does come to a point where one asks, is it better to be free (in a limited sense) or alive. At some point, I suspect I would choose freedom or at least the illusion of it over security. If I go the way of the dinosaur, then so be it.

 

[BD2003]

A lot of the problem lies with the fact that the human brain can never be totally 100% satisfied and happy. While it sounds like a bad thing, it is this universal dissatisfaction that drives the "progress" humanity is searching for. However, it never ends.

A few hundred years ago, if they had been given even a glimpse of life as we live it today, they would have trouble conceiving of the fact that we could be unhappy. Even today, so many people think if they were rich, that they would be happy.

This will never happen. The jury is still out as to whether this can be "medicated" using drugs, but I'd assume never, not totally. Brave New World was a work of fiction, nothing more.

What everyone needs to understand is that our "negatives" are not negatives. Without them, we wouldnt be what we are today. And that includes, depression, war, hatred, and "evil".

 

[ElFenix]

freedom isn't unlimited. man had unlimited freedoms before society, but he was not secure enough to enjoy them. someone larger or quicker or more clever could take his things, so he had little incentive to acquire anything of use beyond simple survival. man joined into societies, trading some freedoms for security. freedoms such as taking from others without payment, killing those that cross you, etc. he relinquished the right to kill to society. society was given the responsibility to reduce or eliminate member's or outsider's rights if those were threatening the remaining individual rights that each citizen of the society retained.

so you are taking the argument to a falacious extreme. actually it may not be falacious becase your lemmas are wrong.

 

[daddyo]

You're thesis statement is incorrect.

Complete Freedom and "protection of their inalienable rights" cannot coexist. Either you have complete freedom, OR you have protection of rights, but you cannot have both. Complete Freedom leaves you the option to deny inalienable rights to others, while protection of rights neccesitates the limitation of freedom.

I don't consider Complete Freedom a goal for society, rather something along the lines of Successful Freedom. It is a careful balance among the rights of all individuals, but involves some restrictions for the greater good of society.

Complete Freedom is Anarchy.

 

[JupiterJones]

Moonbeam,
This is probably not something that should concern anyone, since the trend seems to be away from Liberty. I know that I am less free than my grandfather was. As I read your post I wondered what nations on earth are considered bastions of personal liberty.

 

[SpongeBob]

Next we have what I call the "Oops" scenario.
Example- Strange matter is theroized to be a catalyst which turns ordinary matter into strange. That new strange particle interacts with more normal matter and on and on. It may be that some clever dick may make it in the lab. If he does, and the theories regarding strange matter are correct, the unfortunate soul wont get his Nobel, because in a few milliseconds, the earth will be reduced to a softball sized clump of strange matter. Bad mojo.

Been reading Cat's Cradle lately huh?

 

[Dark4ng3l]

Look at it this way as we advance technologically we find better ways to get energy(strted with fire, the bombs and fireworks, atomic today, zpe tomorrow) It becomes more easey to destroy evrything. It's much easier to use atomic energy in a destructive manner than a constructive manner, because in a bomb you dont want the reaction to be controlled, in a reactor you dont want to destroy your power source, harder to use. Unless humanity as a whole "evolves" in a few hundred years joe will be able to buy ancient nukes and kill whole cities, and joe gates will be able to blow up the earth or the sun or anything he wants because he can buy or make insanely destructive devices that use new sources of energy we dont know about yet. We need to evolve to where we dont want to kill eachother anymore, we need to make better defecive technologies than offensive ones, or we wil just die.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I dont think anyone is arguing for absolute freedoms, but freedoms that have been taken for granted may become forfeit. Here is a hypothetical.
In this country, one may have as many children as one wishes. If you have more than you can support, the state will feed them. This is how it works. I am not here to debate the rightness or wrongness of this, it just is. Now populations grow. More room is need. At some point overpopulation will be delt with. That means limiting reproduction. You all know how nasty arguments can be about abortion. Imagine the state coming in and limiting the number of children you can have? That is going to be ugly, and unless we have a war or natural disaster the likes of which we have not seen, is going to happen. It could be in the form of a child tax. Something less blatant than a 2 parents 2 kids rule, but someone sometime is going to have this "right" changed. Moonbeam was referring to the Pandoras box of technology being unleased on the public. Have you DEALT with the public? Pretty frightening bunch to have unlimited access to technology. Ok, the public is out. But what about terrorists? I mean not with little airplanes that fly into insignificant office buildings (and in the grand scheme of things this is true), but the ability to destroy millions or more. Spooky stuff

 

[BD2003]

Mo Money, Mo Problems!