Comments on: GLENN REYNOLDS: The Singularity is Near

By: Incony

Incony — Sat, 08 May 2010 00:36:34 +0000

A technological singularity may accelerate time, since that is relative.

By: projectmkultra

projectmkultra — Fri, 07 May 2010 00:46:37 +0000

It’s all part of the Lucifer Principle. It’s only natural human behavior. That’s the real scary part. (Read the Lucifer Principle by Howard Bloom. Great read.)

By: jay curci

jay curci — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 22:50:14 +0000

New world order / utopian sociaties / bla bla bla. If the U.S. continues on it’s progresive path we will ALL be contolled by the Elites and the end will be like the Doomesday movies. However, if we fight back and win back our Freedom and our rights Humans have a shot at the singularity. Decent rightous people will maintain some semblance of order in the world while science continues on our path to salvation! (The Singularity). History is not on our side / we soon shall see.
J

By: Matthew Sforcina

Matthew Sforcina — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 01:59:51 +0000

Very True.

It seems, constructive is simply a bi product of the great motivation to generate destructive through the need to contain and control society.

We are at our technological peak, with such diversity. Yet, it can all go in one moment.

Equal development between countries, so everyone has the same capability would ensure, each ‘protect themselves’ accordingly. Greed and power are simple diseases of the mind that will hinder great eternal development.

If only we could focus on what is real, and stop trying to kill each other…

By: DSM

DSM — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 22:17:07 +0000

You are ignoring Kurzweil’s own Law of Accelerating Returns. That is, the faster you produce the technologies to protect against the destructive capabilities of today’s technologies, the faster that new technologies will spring up with destructive capabilities. Therefore, the window of vulnerability remains.

In fact, I would postulate that, as the technologies become more and more complex, the window of vulnerability widens because it takes longer and longer to devise a protection. The development of protective technologies is more difficult than the development of other (destructive or not) technologies because it has to be focused on one particular area. Therefore, the only true protection against the window of vulnerability is to slow the development process down so that safeguards against the technology can be devised before the technology is made available.

And the above is from someone who believes that the only long-term chance for the survival and flourishment of the human race is the “singularity” that changes everything overnight.

By: gerova

gerova — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 01:35:48 +0000

The distinction is a minor one, surely no serious person would adhere to the view that antibiotics or missile interceptors are constructive in the most narrow sense of the word. However, the primary thrust of the argument holds, namely, that destructive utilization of advances in technology usually precede constructive usages. Additionally, any technology or medicine which frees human beings for more constructive, creative purposes is certainly within the broad definition of being constructive. After all, all constructive things and constructivity itself is essentially no different from a missile interceptor, in that it serves to promote life and civilization, in whatever particular utility it happens to function within. Erecting buildings, for example, is constructive because it shelters us from the elements, not because building buildings has any inherent constructive nature to it.

By: Nala

Nala — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 18:13:03 +0000

You are confusing anti-destructive with constructive. Missile interceptors and antibiotics do not build, create or construct anything.