Please elaborate more on 'virtualized envt and space,' not only to
explain the concepts for those of us who haven't been educated, but for
population management options.
On 21 Feb 1995, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
>> In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.950217225426.4163A-100000 at corona> Patrick O'Neil <patrick at corona> writes:
>> >On 17 Feb 1995, Rick Abrams wrote:
>> >> >> Drexler's ideas suggest a future of boundless wealth, opportunity and
> >> >> adventure, not for a few billion, but for trillions. Drexler's science
> >> >
> >> >I know of his fantasies....
> >> Translation: 'I don't want what he wants.'
>> >OK, yes that is it, but...I'll wager my left testicle that the VAST
> >majority of people would most definitely NOT want to live with TRILLIONS
> >of other people. People actually DO like their parks and wilderness
> >areas. They actually DO like wildlife and open land. They actually
> >DON'T want to pave the entire surface of the planet and kill off all
>> The existance of trillions of humans in no way implies that the entire
> surface of the planet be paved. The solar system is a big place, and
> with a functioning nanotechnology it would be trivial to move people
> around it. The material in the solar system could support artifical
> habitats as nice as the best parts of earth that could accomodate
> trillions of people at very low population densities. This is, of
> course, assuming people even wish to maintain a physical existance --
> in a fully virtualized environment, trillions of trillions could live
> and interact in our solar system and be just as happy as if they each
> had a planet to themselves thanks to the "virtualized" space.
>> Oh, and most people actually DO want to live. Which is why they will
> probably have to kill off your kind at some point -- as I recall, you
> have threatened the genocide of most of the planet with genetically
> engineered disease organisms, an act of barbarism that makes Hitler
> and Pol Pot look like pikers.
>> >> What kind of technical people are US universities turning out today
> >> anyway?
>> >They type who care about more than their own individual lives.
>> No, I think the right term for you is "would-be mass murdering butcher
> with no respect for any kind of life whatsoever". You are
> unquestionably the most evil sort of individual that I've yet
>> >The type that would rather have relationships and interactions with
> >living, breathing creatures rather than machines and
> >computers...leaving them for what they are: tools.
>> In other words, you have preconcieved and thoroughly irrational
> notions and insist on imposing them on all of us -- and indeed, far
> worse. Were you in the caves with our ancestors, I suppose you would
> have been telling them not to turn those berry juices into pigments
> and arguing that cave walls were to be left alone an not marked up.
>> Human life is a wonderful thing -- you have so much respect for it
> that you'd wipe it off the planet. Computers are our greatest
> invention, and you have this sickening irrational fear of them as if
> they were cold mechanical objects and not wonderous devices capable of
> freeing the mind from all physical limitations.
>> You are, in short, both a luddite AND a butchering hatemonger.
> Perry Metzger perry at imsi.com> --
> "Just another selfish, me first kind of guy."