26 replies to this topic

[bacopa]

If "bettering" the human condition is a good thing, then what is bettering? Are we implying that we will function better mentaly and if we do is overall happiness necassarily the best result possible? It seems to me that mindless hedonism has always existed and seeking overall happiness is not necessarily conducive to just being hedonistic. There are far too many "spring breaker" types that get drunk and simply "have fun." Obviously overall knowledge and appreciation and understanding are more desirable than just a bunch of clouded memories drinking with ones friends!

I would personally be upset if I lived longer only to spend it working to exaustion and then releasing my tension with drinking beers or something similar. It seems absurd to me that as of now most people work hard just to be able to let loose and get drunk and be stupid. There has got to be more to aspire to than simplistic primal releases. I know I think the whole "work hard play hard" idea reeks of stupidity and is the epitome of primitive human behavior. I would imagine most people dedicated to living longer would be apalled at living longer just to spend the rest of their lives "working hard and playing hard." Seems to me most people here want to function on higher cognitive levels and would rather combine the idea of work and play together in a more mature way of living. I have some dumbass friends who live for the drinking scene at the end of a stressful day. Granted some of them can't help but be stressed, one is a doctor, but nevertheless he seems to fall into this catergory.

I would like to see more improved ways of enjoying life rather than such simplistic ideas of having fun. Obviously sites like this offer intellectual challenge which is fun and exciting, and that's why I like it here, but as I've gotten older I seem to be surrounded more and more with people who don't appreciate life as much as they could. I've talked about this stuff before but I think it's worth discussing. Television is mindless fun as well as thrill seeking, but it is accepted. Hopefully as we get further along scientifically we will grow increasingly greater intelletually as well. It would be nice to see these two ideas go hand in hand. But I still sometimes escape by doing mindless things I should say. I don't know if that is a character defect or just apathy but I bet I'm not the only aspiring intellectual that escapes in this way and I'm not saying it's necassarily bad. I'm just saying it happens alot among even the supposed "enlightened people." Some of the brightest people I've known escape through drinking, and watching TV. It's almost comical to see people who bash mindless hedonism sucumbing to the same thing themselves the hypocrites! What are your thoughts?

Edited by Mind, 05 November 2003 - 10:55 PM.

[Utnapishtim]

My thoughts...

Its up to you!

I have no problem with hedonism per se. I have with no problem with those who enjoy 'simplistic primal releases' There is a definite time and place for that. I like to balance it with reading study and reflection but don't see one type of experience as inferior to others

QUOTE....................................................
I would personally be upset if I lived longer only to spend it working to exaustion and than releasing my tension with drinking beers or something similar
.............................................................

Then don't follow this path... Its your call.

QUOTE................................................
It seems absurd to me that as of now most people work hard just to be able to let loose and get drunk and be stupid.
.........................................................
Its their call. Why do you object? The ultimate barometer of whether any type of behavior is worthwhile, is the individual engaged in it not anyone else..

[bacopa]

good points I wasn't trying to come down hard ideologically I was simply making an argument for a different lifestyle. I hold no bitterness towards people engaged in hedonistic pursuits nor am I bothered with the idea of "work hard play hard." I was simply challenging this notion.

[Lazarus Long]

Its their call. Why do you object? The ultimate barometer of whether any type of behavior is worthwhile, is the individual engaged in it not anyone else.. 

Wouldn't it be nice if this were true...

But it isn't.

Their drunken driving threatens mine and my childrens life, especially as an adolescent and their poor understanding of health cost threatens my pocketbook with having to collectively pick up the expense of their behavior through medical and insurance costs as well as the shared social cost with respect to enforcement issues.

Stupidity is no excuse anymore than ignorance and if it just killed the guilty all would be well but it tends to take an even higher toll of the innocent.

[David]

The one thing I remember hearing one of the Popes saying that made any sense to me was "Work is for man, man is not for work". Get into some kind of work you enjoy, and it becomes play.

As for play hard, my definition of play hard is a solid hardcore 100km bike ride, a walk down an ouback gorge on a warm springs day, hammering out a tune with a band in a bar. One day I'm going to skydive!

It's all about the definition. [lol]

[Jace Tropic]

Devon,

One of the key things to realize is that virtually all pursuits are meant for gaining pleasure, even for the masochist. Some people will undertake ambitious goals which require a lot of diligence and self-sacrifice. Then they claim that you should only focus on the immediately perceptual—their discipline and self-abuse—and not on the pleasure they are undeclaringly aspiring. Another function of this focal distraction is so you can either envy it or become discouraged also to the avail and amusement of the awe-inspiring pundit of pansophy.

There’s nothing you can do to avoid the fact that because you are conscious, you want to feel good. There is nothing particularly gratifying in conjuring up the most idealistic of all ends of entirely deceptive means. It merely tends to be the better of all evils. Somehow there is this notion that we need precise reasons for feeling good. Because if we don’t have a reason, others aren’t able to evaluate it and feel comforted in knowing whether it is a shitty reason or an acceptable reason.

So what you have is every right to your own pleasure until you are either killed or it kills you. You are under no obligation to be compassionate toward the results of your own actions if you are able to accept the prospective consequences. There are probably ways to eventually manage tremendous gradients of pleasure safely which actually give you a perpetually genuine feeling of being and how important it is for you to just be, but that will take some work to accomplish if you so chose. I recommend keeping in mind that this is the bedrock of an immortal life. Just don’t be a foolish deceiver, because you won’t be deceiving anyone.

Jace

[bacopa]

How is masochism pleasure? It is the antithesis of happiness, where one is literally hurting themselves because of an irrational urge to do so. Masochism is what happens when self loathing ensues. sure everyone would like to have pleasure but don't convince me that everyone falls into this category. There are plenty of people void of happiness. Masochism is what happens when people can't take in or accept pleasure. I'm not trying to fool or decieve anyone either, I am not a masochist but I aspire to more than just stupid ways of entertaining myself.

I'm not sure what you mean by pansophy, excuse my ignorance. I don't feel obligated to feel compassionate about the results of my own actions I don't know what you are trying to say! again my point is simply why live longer if you don't aspire to higher end goals.

My pleasures tend to be a little more analytical than most would want because I have a proclivity towards wanting to figure things out. Maybe we're all like that I'm not sure but for me seeing the different reasons behind people's actions interests me greatly even though I know many people get irritated by people who try to over evaluate ideas. People want to find systems of thought and action that simply work and most people hate to analyze why they are doing so.

[bacopa]

Lazarus the problem seems to be that human beings like to escape from life and I don't forsee drinking ending in the near future. It seems to be a curse peoples need to drink and take drugs in order to feel good. What is the solution? Is there one or will humanity always take the path of least resistance.

[Lazarus Long]

I love a good wine, beer, liquor and more when shared with good company. Please don't see me as a prude or tee totaller for advocating moderation. I am not advocating abstinence.

Somewhere else I quoted my drunken Irish friend in college that would always add the addendum to my claim:

"All things in moderation"

with

"And that goes for moderation too".

Some moments and people deserve passionate extremes but when we make such passion commonplace and the norm it loses its value as exceptional.

Moderating moderation is valid but that too only in moderation. )

[Lazarus Long]

BTW, my earlier comment was about the idea that there exists no reason to consider others when assessing choices we make that involve extremes of self indulgence.

Obviously there are profoundly good reasons why we need to assess one another's behavior all the time. What we are entitled to do about that judgment, and why we do what we do is a vitally important topic that shouldn't be glossed over but rather looked at squarely and fairly.

I have no guilt complex with respect to the pursuit of pleasure I enjoy life, I cherish it and thrive on both work and play. I tend to do both till I drop from exhaustion so I am perhaps more than a bit immoderate.

I dance, I sing (much to my children's ire) and I have flown aircraft in aerobatic formation for the pure exhilaration of knowing my wingman and I dancing in the sky or making a 3G pull up leveling off one meter off the deck at 200 knots and I have ridden motorcycles for over three decades under all conditions.

But having also picked up the pieces of those that crashed and burned as well as living long enough to understand that I am depended upon by children that may not need me forever but do so now, I also encourage rational risk taking. Consider it the difference between being a brawler and a bully who only picks a fight they think they can win versus someone that only fights the battles they deem worthy even if they entail a higher risk.

Also being a pilot that is willing to fly IFR (instrument flight rules a.k.a. Flying Blind), and training to perform tasks under extreme conditions as well as having walked my fair share of trusses many stories off the ground I simply wish to play the odds in my favor and minimize any impairment by never mixing any form of intoxicant with dangerous equipment and conditions.

[Lazarus Long]

Lazarus the problem seems to be that human beings like to escape from life and I don't forsee drinking ending in the near future.

Perhaps they should embrace life and provide it meaning rather than seeking to escape it. The ultimate escape is death.

Perhaps if people embraced life to give it meaning there would be less need to feel like escaping. Just a thought but maybe into each life there comes a time to stand and fight, not flee.

Perhaps making our lives and those of others worth fighting for is part of what the problem is all about.

Like the idea about rights and the first amendment: "I may disagree with what you say but I will fight for your right to say it".

[bacopa]

The ultimate escape is death. However there are escapes that are intentioned badly and escapes that are postitive. I was referring to the hard working archetypal person that releases his stress by getting drunk like alot of my high achiever friends. This is not to say one needs to drink at the end of the day there are other stress relievers.

I love life, I have some regrets due to my OCD and have occasionaly wished death on myself in the past, but I certainly have no intention of wanting to escape through death or sleep these days. I too like to engage in many activities and wish to celebrate life as much as possible. I personally would rather understand why we do the things we do rather than just "do." It irritated me in College to just be assigned an assignement only to have to "get it done." I dreaded the act of clogging my brain with useless information only to have to get it graded in the end like a trained monkey.

It seemed to me that mind numbing work only results in the need to have a release at the end. And I have too many friends that hurt their brains during the day workin g really hard only to excape in a drunken and ridiculous display of machismo assholeness at night!

I would rather enjoy the whole journey like you Lazarus. I may not be a thrill seeker per say but I enjoy the thrill of life. What else...I like to work on film projects and put things together but I would much rather appreciate what I'm doing rather than just do it. and I have no guilt complex...my mind is as open as a book, the only thing I'm bitter about is people who don't stop occasinaly to realize what it is they are doing.

[bacopa]

furthermore I think it is interesting the underlying reasons behind our actions. Why we feel compelled to engage in any activity for that matter. Life is fastly becoming a civilization of people who just "do" stuff for a simple enjoyment factor without appreciating what it is they are doing. There is nothing wrong with fully engaging in life by doing and accomplishing things but the thinking should go hand in hand I think. Like working construction on my friends house this weekend only made me long for more intellectual pursuits afterwards, I guess this is a motivating kind of thing again working hard can fuel ones ambitions further I guess. My friends tell me "act now think later" would be a good motto for me to live by but I would rather combine the two, it's just difficult to do because of the nature of most of the work that is out there for people these days.

As for appreciation of life that seems a bit difficult in the society we live in today. College grooms people to become automotons and most role models for people seem to be celebrities who have tons of money and clout but little more. Reading has waved bye bye to many people and it's easy to feel akward in a society that frowns on intelligent and intospective thought. however this isn't always the case obviously I'm generalizing

Edited by dfowler, 06 November 2003 - 08:36 PM.

[bacopa]

Lazarus can you honestly say that appreciation always goes naturally with action? Also I agree with you that things can loose their meaning if always done to extremes such is the society we live in today.

[Jace Tropic]

Devon,

I included the term "masochist" as an example that wasn't intended to be an included idea in its following dialogue. But that is my fault for rushing through writing the post and not taking the time to read it as if someone else had written it. But I also think that you might have the definition of "masochism" mixed up with "stoicism," in which the former means gaining pleasure through pain while the latter means being indifferent toward pleasure and pain.

But all this is really beside the point. In my little world, I tend to play out all of the outcomes of all possible actions. Granted I don't have enough information to precisely determine what all the outcomes will be, but I think the essences of them is not very difficult to come by. The first conclusion that comes naturally when thinking any of this is its pointlessness. In order to tick I'm not reliant on other people to be impressed by me. Rarely have other people been impressed by me, but when it does happen I don't care. I don't feel anything. If I try to impress myself, it doesn't work either, because nothing anyone has ever done has ever impressed me. If this is the case, how could there possibly ever be something I could do to impress myself? There are very few things that someone could do that would impress me, but those things are impossible, and if they ever did become possible, then that means it would become possible for me too, and this also would render it unimpressive.

So, in my little world, I require an external stimulus to begin appreciating things. There is nothing inherent in anything that is appreciable in itself. This line of thinking is tainted with existentialism, but there is no satisfying proof to the contrary. And I will only live in denial if I can be aware of it and feel tremendously euphoric at the same time. This kind of feeling is not to be confused with being jaded or exuberant. The aforementioned feeling is impossible to acquire with today's technology, but it is worthwhile enough to be a goal in itself. Sure, I want a value system that others can live with, but I would rather die than to submit to value systems imposed upon me. At the same time I also want to be immortal, because death too is pointless.

If none of this makes any sense to you, then you should be glad. This is the kind of life and mentality I have to live with.

Jace

[bacopa]

Jace, No, it makes sense to me you seem like a real thinker and you realize the potential outcomes of different circumstances. Your'e also a passionate person which can also be difficult. I weigh possible outcomes as well and I think many people do to an extent... Perhaps you are a little afraid of becoming enamored with someone or some idea that might upset your equilibrium, I know I am this way... I know there are many things I avoid as they might get me too emotionaly upset. this might sound trite but sometimes simply changing where one lives can change one's thinking and emotional responses.

So maybe you've become humdrum to things as a result of something as simple as your lifestyle... but I may be wrong and I'm not trying to be presumptous. For instance I know if I got my act together, and got alot of money and moved to say New York City my perspectives and emotions would completely change and probably become extremely intense again!... hence things and ideas would once again impress me with the rejuvination that goes along with a new environment and lifestyle. even simple things would interest me again. But as of now I'm living a dull lifestyle living at home and working as a counselor. Within a week I'll most likely move out near the Boston area and i guarantee life will again interest me and maybe amaze and impress me as well... at least on a superficial level. If I can figure out my career than I'll really be able to right myself...again we all have our hang ups and I believe there is amazing things out there and one only needs the right set of circumstances to appreciate it all.

But maybe I'm just a schmuck that over analyzes stuff and needs to grow up in some ways...

Edited by dfowler, 07 November 2003 - 12:36 AM.

[Jace Tropic]

Devon,

I don’t know if I can say that my lifestyle is humdrum. I’ve experienced many things most people haven’t or wouldn’t want to experience such as live killing, violence, and other criminal activities. I don’t say this to elicit awe or pity; it’s just an observation worth mentioning as to show that my attitudes are not derivative of a dry lifestyle. On the other hand, I’ve also experienced many things people would enjoy like solving other people’s problems and winning public speech contests in college.

There are many things people can do to love life. Even when people think they have been fully actualized, there are still burning questions that remain unanswered regardless of how much they know or have done. No one can be fully actualized unless they are in complete control. However, I will say that some think they are in complete control, when in fact they aren’t. These people may perceptually be self-actualized, but that is the sort of denial of which I’m incapable.

But now here comes the eternal conflict. In order to be in complete control, you must impose eternal laws on sentient and volitional beings, and on nature itself. However, this is an ethical issue that can never be resolved, because its logical conclusion is recursive, i.e. if I have complete control, it gives others the right to complete control; therefore, I don’t yet have complete control; as long as others have the right to complete control, I cannot account for their every thought and action.

Now the questions are: What are the alternatives? How much power should I have until I determine that it is unethical?

These questions are interdependent. When the alternatives are evaluated, the logical conclusion affects the answer to the question of power. When the question of power is evaluated, the logical conclusion affects the answer to the question of alternatives. This interdependence is of key importance. I don’t introspectively determine what’s ethical by being credulous and accepting what everyone else thinks is ethical. My actions may sometimes be within ethical boundaries because of characteristic limitations, but this shouldn’t be confused with what I would actually do if I wasn’t delimited. I don’t think this only applies to me. I think most intelligent people determine what’s ethical by discovering it for themselves philosophically and pragmatically.

In essence, everything with volition has the potential to evolve into something that is dangerous to everything else but absolutely safe and necessary for itself. This is the key idea that is sometimes overlooked. Life is not an objective pursuit. We may be “objective” once we discover our axioms a priori, but these axioms are subjectively biased with the underpinning that life is necessary.

I think one solution is accepting this bias, and then consequently accept where it could ultimately lead. One good way of accepting it and preempting the natural volitional course is to somehow come to fully appreciate life without the necessity for real self-actualization.

Jace

[bacopa]

I am perhaps too thick to understand exactly what you just said but I'll try to line by line.

"No one can be fully actualized unless they are in complete control. However, I will say that some think they are in complete control, when in fact they aren’t. These people may perceptually be self-actualized, but that is the sort of denial of which I’m incapable."

I think what you're saying is that control equals self understanding which in turn results in self actualization, the epiphone one gets when they truly understand who they are and what they are capable of. not sure what you mean by "denial of which I'm incapable." why are you incapable of this denial?

"However, this is an ethical issue that can never be resolved, because its logical conclusion is recursive, i.e. if I have complete control, it gives others the right to complete control; therefore, I don’t yet have complete control; as long as others have the right to complete control, I cannot account for their every thought and action."

what your'e saying here is obviously that once one realizes the extent of his/her control it makes sense that others can and will too, therefore your control is diminished within that group of people. But at least you're mingling with people up to your level!

What are the alternatives? How much power should I have until I determine that it is unethical?

I would answer that when my power starts to opress and hurt others than I probably have too much power or am using it wrong. However as a caveat to this If I had that kind of power I would use it altruistically and help others as only one with the power and the strength to do so could. I would use my power and influence to empower others and in the process gain respect and appreciation for doing so.

I think power can be a wonderful thing if you know how to use it.

[Jace Tropic]

Devon,

This time I will try not being so abstract. I’ve actually attempted to describe a very simplistic concept that’s caused me to write much more than should be explanatorily necessary.

In most of the events and occurrences that many of us experience, it superficially seems as though we will ultimately need to function within a strong economy and political system. This seems so because as professionals, we need to work in teams and as organizations to get things done. In present terms we have limited resources on all fronts—physically, cognitively, locally, globally, and universally. Quiescently, we are moving closer to becoming completely autonomous in the definition of not living within a sovereign state and even the global economy. In other words, our actions and the way we carry out our lives are moving us toward the time when we, as individuals, have virtually unlimited resources and technology that allow us to control and protect what we evolve to think is ours—completely detached from everything else, again, as individuals—entire galaxies and quite possibly more.

We can include “peace” in the definition of “self-actualization.” But this is utterly short-sighted. We don’t move forward and advance just to become dumber. As you increase in the years you live and begin increasingly cherishing those years more because of sheer quantity, reciprocally you will appreciate what it actually means to live an eternal life. The longer you live, the more valuable you should see your life. The more valuable you see your life, the more threats that become apparent. The more threats that become apparent, the further you distance yourself away from self-actualization unless you take necessary precautions. These precautions are impossible to define for yourself unless you understand that precautions mean control.

Precautions may be benevolent in nature in the beginning. But it is foolish to assume that it will always remain this way. The more advanced technology becomes the easier it is to gain control of our own life on the immediate scale. Since technology is ever-advancing, and is amicably giving you ever-more control, there is absolutely no way to determine whether you have enough control. Imagine up some allegories and apply this thought on terms of living for eternity.

Does the reason why I said this, “One good way of accepting [volitional bias] and preempting the natural volitional course is to somehow come to fully appreciate life without the necessity for real self-actualization,” make sense yet?

Jace

[immortalitysystems.com]

What can i say,

BEAMUSED (love beauty)

you find it all around you!
it's a good reason for Immortality.

[bacopa]

“One good way of accepting [volitional bias] and preempting the natural volitional course is to somehow come to fully appreciate life without the necessity for real self-actualization,”

I understand what you're saying It's a very interesting way of looking at the concept of saftey in terms of immortality. I certainly agree with the idea that the longer one lives the more they cherish life and life becomes more important. And I can imagine a kind of paranoia ensuing trying to protect ones assets always having to be on guard. And not knowing if you have enough control I'd imagine is a paradoxical idea. Self actualization by your definition is different than my definition. I'm not scared to achieve this even with the threat of death looming over me although you may argue that this is impossible by your definitions.

Excuse the stupid analogy but I imagine a Scarface scenario of becoming increasingly paranoid and vigillant about protecting one's self and assets. I know you're intentions are benevolent though, but it still is an interesting way of looking at the idea of survival as a whole. You have some brilliant thoughts on the game of survival and exactly what it means to protect one's assets, life. Gaining unlimited resources certainly is worth aspiring for but I'd imagine there will quickly reach a point when one really doesn't need all that much just to live longer. I think you're confusing the idea of unlimitted life span with a power or greed kind of scenerio. The two don't necassarily have to go hand in hand. Just because one cherishes life to an extreme doesn't necassarily make them need more or become power obsessed.

I think that as long as one has enough to survive that is all they need. Working in teams is a great way to achieve progress but again I don't understand why you need to include this in your argument. I think you're lumping concepts and ideas together in an overdramatic way.

Edited by dfowler, 07 November 2003 - 03:39 PM.

[Jace Tropic]

Working in teams is a great way to achieve progress but again I don't understand why you need to include this in your argument.

It is included to show exactly the very thing you just wrote. You take for granted that working in teams is a great way to achieve progress, and that this will be so forever. However, with enough superintelligence the concept of “team” becomes a liability.

Gaining unlimited resources certainly is worth aspiring for but I'd imagine there will quickly reach a point when one really doesn't need all that much just to live longer.

This is a fatuous assumption. Underneath this line of thinking is taking for granted that a government will always be able to keep up with the components it is trying to govern, concurrently trying to protect you. It has a very difficult time doing this even today. To live smugly forever with your rice bowl and hut, you will need to posit a Universe Government. This won’t happen unless everyone’s willing to abide by your rules. Some friendly advise: People don’t give a shit what you think.

Devon, the tone here is not intended to be on the platform of me versus you. It is to show that you are eternally up against much more than you are willing to accept if intelligence never becomes complacent.

Jace

[Jace Tropic]

Jace: It is to show that you are eternally up against much more than you are willing to accept if intelligence never becomes complacent.

I think it should have been added what is now self-evident. I think there are two fundamental paths: 1) the path where technology never ceases to evolve, and 2) the path where it eventually ceases to evolve. If it never ceases to evolve, I can't understand how there could ever be peace for reasons already described. If it does cease to evolve in vain of our pharmaceutical delusions, then there could never be peace with nature.

Life is an eternal war with either intelligence or nonintelligent nature. I certainly hope for the possibility of another choice. I don't see it though.

Jace

[bacopa]

I think it should have been added what is now self-evident. I think there are two fundamental paths: 1) the path wh1`er ceases to evolve, and 2) the path where it eventually ceases to evolve

I don't see technology ceasing to evolve unless it reaches a plateau. Like anything else ideas and things go in spurts and than plateau and increasingly back and forth like this until it reaches another plateau etc. The path where technology ceases to evolve is in my book like a dark age where ideas don't work I have trouble imagining this with our abitility to increasingly produce greater and newer ideas! Unless a nuclear war wipes out our beloved scientists I have a difficult time imagining a world where there will be stagnant technology. I think it's scary how fast technology is advancing I just don't see this stopping in the near future do you?

[Jace Tropic]

dfowler: I think it's scary how fast technology is advancing I just don't see this stopping in the near future do you?

No, I don't see advancements slowing anytime soon. It seems rather easy to determine the type of major technologies that will come about before the Singularity. Beyond that, it's anyone's guess. That, to me, is scary.

[MichaelAnissimov]

I wouldn't say it's "rather easy" to anticipate future technologies; there could be surprise technologies invented before the Singularity, or technologies we already knew about that might be developed and applied in unpredictable ways, or various technologies might interact synergetically in unforseen ways.

As far as the Singularity is concerned, I venture to guess that you probably aren't afraid of the prospect of unpredictable technologies themselves, but the way in which these technologies are put to use. The solution to this fear, of course, is to increase the overall benevolence, wisdom, and concern of the agents using the technology; that way the chances it will be put to negative use are greatly lessened. Having an overarching security system to prevent negative use of technology before it happens, in the most noninvasive and freedom-preserving possible way, would also be a plus. It's fairly easy to imagine a superintelligence equipped with nanotechnology that could disassemble bullets in midair, defuse ICBM's, shield human beings from clouds of anthrax, and so on...

[Jace Tropic]

Michael: I wouldn't say it's "rather easy" to anticipate future technologies; there could be surprise technologies invented before the Singularity, or technologies we already knew about that might be developed and applied in unpredictable ways, or various technologies might interact synergetically in unforseen ways.

You’re right. Future technologies in general are difficult to anticipate for the reasons you mention. Major technologies, however, are a bit simpler. Such technologies include intelligent highways, fuel cells, ceramic engines, superconductivity, etc. Major technologies in the sense that I’m talking about are usually a matter of accumulating the resources and doing some maneuvering into the mainstream—not so much that even the theories haven’t been established yet. But I agree that the technologies which are a little more inconspicuous and generally less valuable are much more difficult to anticipate.

Michael: … I venture to guess that you probably aren't afraid of the prospect of unpredictable technologies themselves, but the way in which these technologies are put to use. The solution to this fear, of course, is to increase the overall benevolence, wisdom, and concern of the agents using the technology…

I agree. The issue probably then becomes who or what has the power and influence to impose the actual solutions? There may be theoretical solutions that would work, but the implementation aspect would generally not be in the immediate interest of local economies. Solutions that aim toward trying to make things “safe” for everyone generally need to be imposed in one way or another. This is fine with me, but I’m uncertain as for who this is not fine.