Actually I was going to post soon on this ’singularity’. I find it equally silly that so many are claiming things will be inevitably better! People often seem to take such a passive view & forget that it is we who shape what the future will be like by the choices we make in advance.

Post again when you have checked out Brin’s argument.

As regards AI, aliens etc. That’s for another day ; )

I actually agree with you on pretty much everything you wrote, both in your post, and in your reply to my rambling outburst. I’ve been frustrated recently with a slew of articles and opinion about the inevitability of, for example, a technological singularity, beyond which the future is pretty bleak for humans. Equally frustrating is the implicit assumption that post-human intelligence is somehow innately ‘evil’ and will inevitably seek the denigration of humanity. I agree, as do you, that these possibilities exist, but to use this fear to frame debate and possibly even policy (at some point) seems to be completely inappropriate and almost approaches a position of untenable ideology.

Setting things straight (!): it would be farcical to reject notions of ubiquitous surveillance, or not to entertain all possibilities, however ‘depressing’ they may be. It would be irresponsible to follow either of these paths, and you do not do so. I haven’t read David Brin, although I’m aware of his ideas, but I will be checking him out once I get back to a country with bookshops!

As for non-human sentience, I was conflating discussions about SETI (where was my brain when I commented above? jeez) which seem to proscribe all sorts of activities and decision-making by putative other ‘beings’ in terms of human psychology. This flawed logic limits discussions of possibility. This is a subject for another time. I see your Marscape header, and my mind wanders…

Can we start again!?

Regards.

As to whether the – admittedly depressing – prediction of Brin’s that any human elite – or *beings* if you prefer – are likely to use ubiquitous surveillance selfishly if they have exclusive use… I am not yet completely convinced either way. I agree with you that there is some reason to think we beings MAY be able to handle the problem but historically and psychologically there is a lot of evidence that we may not as well. I think we need more than you have said so far to really refute him. Being depressing does not equal being wrong?
His assertion that we cannot afford to simply have faith in human (sentient) ‘nature’ may possibly be invalid but I don’t think we can say it is *obviously* so. If we cannot dismiss his warning, should we not then at least consider the wisdom of his prescription?

The entire argment is anthropocentric. Notions of ‘fitness’, ‘rightness’, ‘expansion’, blah blah, are entirely misplaced. What are you talking about? Humans, that’s what, and humanity should not be the object under scrutiny.

Man, talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy.

We all believe in the project and are cheering for Liftport and you!

I agree with your sentiment about ’something like this’. What we need is economical access to space because then we can access the minerals of the Asteroids, the energy of Helium3 and the manufacturing environments of the Moon and LEO. We can take some of our most polluting industries out of our delicate biosphere and clean up the worst of others. Does that fit with your list?