Thanks for your response (below). To clarify, I wasn't talking about the need to initiate a public policy (at least not at the front end of the process). Rather, I was talking about the need for an open dialog and discussion, such as we now have regarding education, the environment, etc. Right now automation is not a "public issue" such as these, as I think it should be. As mentioned, inhibitors may already exist (lack of agreement among computer scientists, for one, and the public disregard of the Sci-Fi "geeks" for another).
As for incremental steps, my concern is that any mystery regarding what is around the corner might generate more concern than giving everyone a picture of the final product. Incremental, for example, would be like saying "you're all going to loose your jobs". I would rather have a discussion (as utopist as it may sound) regarding why "jobs", in the end, may not be necessary, because then we could, in turn, have a discussion regarding why humanity should, in that event, at least think about constructing a transitional financial system (whatever that might be) to take care of the economically displaced. There should therefore be more "politics" posts and discussions, such as we are having now. Jon -----Original Message----- From: Mark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 2:22 PM To: singularity@v2.listbox.com Subject: RE: [singularity] The humans are dead... Jon, regarding your politics post - My impression is that, as a general principle, proposals for radical change, of almost any kind, are not well-received by the general public, and that such change is more likely to occur if it's ideology, presentation, and development are broken into gradual and incremental steps (which are individually less threatening and more amenable to public digestion and acculturation) and if it is kept more in the realm of personal lifestyle, and less in the realm of public policy, where it is more vulnerable to obstruction by organized opposition (e.g. in the scenario you present, the broad adoption of an automated world would be more likely to occur if it is offered by private organizations that individuals could opt to join and demonstrate its benefits by example, than it would if it were pursued as a public policy of social engineering - i.e. it is my impression that such change would have a better chance of staving off the political arena than it would of succeeding in it). -Mark ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&; ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&user_secret=7d7fb4d8
