Originally posted by astrocreep
Actually I eluded to the study of the "science" of eugenics in a thread on global warming over in Fragile Earth. Many of the leaders of the world
put vast resources into its study and its what backed the Nazi movement as well. Back then it was a scare tactic. It was a so called "proven fact"
and used as an excuse to kill millions. "If the human race continued to interbreed, a breakdown at the genetic level would destroy us all"
Typical scare monger tactics we've seen for decades. Nowadays, nobody's ever been a proponant of eugenics. Now adays, our "scientist" develop
new theories to scare us into feeding their hunger for fear. Oh the mechanism may change..eugenics, ice age,nuclear holocost,cold war,ice age,global
whining..er uh..warming but the message is always the same; "Cower in fear for the destruction of humanity is at hand. Do what we tell you or
you'll bring it all down upon us!"
Ya know what? Bull Crap! I'm sick of these man-made scare tactic agendas. Is this the next wave once we have finally gotten over this global
warming bit? Well, of course it is. Why, our people in Hollywood have already began to give us a glimps of what our future holds through film.
(They have been so accurate to date, ya know) And what devine mystic spark illuminates (careful) this knowledge of the future? Hell, I loved "I
Robot" but to be that far in 30 years? I got news for you, 1984 was "slightly" exagerrated and I think this whole scenario may be as well.
I'm not trying to make light of this post or anyone's ideas. The people that ask these kinds of questions are the very people that prevent the
worst from happeneing. I'm not upset at those, I'm upset at the perpetrators of these theories..because I know their motives.
Well I can totally see where you're reasoning comes from. But I think that discounting the threats that are viable with the coming maturity of
Nanotech would be at best unwise, at worse, fatal.
The things that we're looking at are not "black and white". Even if you take out any form of "motive" for any group to want to force an
evolutionary step upon humanity. If you take out the intentional human element, there are still a million things to worry about.
You have to question containment procedures of ALL forms of Nanotech. You have to question how much autonomy will be given to the devices.
Like I said, I understand where you're coming from. That the "big boys" scare us via different mechanisms as our civilization needs to be steered
into various directions.
But let's not forget the times where technology was sold as a road to wonderous and beneficial bliss, only to be turned into the bane of humanity.
The wonderful Atom was poised to bring in a new age of growth and prosperity. The energy was supposed to be used for the good of mankind, etc. We've
all see the old reels that spoke of the amazing things that the atom would bring us. Everything short of a flying car.
Granted some would say Atomic power has been a success(although not as it was proposed), it really is only known for it's destructive power.
Or let's look at the good old days of NASA. Everybody was high on the vibe of "Space travel"(cue Star Trek intro) and it was just wonderful.
What was the space program in reality though? The development of a missle platform for launching the much lauded Nuclear devices that were built in
abundance, rather than helping humanity.
Now, that whole period of the Cold War era was ruled by MAD, and so you had the "big boys", pretty much the same big boys who spoke of the great
wonders of the atom, and the uses of space, those same "big boys" were then instilling fear in the public. Can you say "Duck, and cover!"? I
can.
So really, what you end up with, is either way you slice it, looking at the vantage point of "fear mongers" or "Snakeoil salesmen", both are part
of the same beast. And even though we've seen their kind in each era, the threats are actually there, it's just the degree of threat that varies
from their word.
And then you must ask yourself "Why? why is that the way it is?"
And so far, my answer is: "Because we have foolishly built a society based on perpetual war."
All advances seem to stem from a very harsh and militaristic tech tree. Almost anything that reaches civilian hands, was first the sole property of
the military industrial complex.
Ain't that something?
Now, why would the awesome power of nanotech be any different? Be a realist and ask yourself that again?
In a civilization, which currently models success off of perpetual war, all applications of technology must first hold a practical military purpose,
or funding will falter.
Now sure, every nation has enemies, yadda yadda ad infinum. I'm not hear to argue that. I'm just saying that there are clear and present dangers
found in just about all new science and the resulting tech.
Always has been.
Always will be. At least, as long as our society is based upon a war that cannot stop.
Well, that's my take on it currently, sorry for rambling.
X
And I agree with you Sofi, but sometimes it's better to pose a question to viewers than to force a statement. I want people to read and ask the same
questions. The answers are there, I know ya know that. Thanks for the help.
X
