I don't see a truly meaningful difference between the two. The primary difference is which systems they focus on, but that's a bit like the difference between two artists that work in different media. They're both still artists. It's not a zero-sum game, there are many paths up the mountain, and etc.

some interesting points, but hey Im an optimist.

And what about recent news regarding ol' bushys interest in solar power?

Roof makers will one day be able to make a solar roof that protects you from the elements and at the same time, powers your house," Bush said.

http://khon.com/khon/display.cfm?storyID=11435§ionID=1161

I'm personally more impressed with How To Drop Out; the dude is ballsy enough to live what e preaches.

Well, that and this part:

when they are brushing seeds into baskets with their fingers, and a stranger appears with a new threshing machine that will do the same thing with less time and effort, they will need to say something smarter than "the Gods forbid it" or "that is not our Way." They will need the knowledge to say something like:

"Your machine requires the seed to be planted alone and not interspersed with perennials that maintain nitrogen and mineral balance in the soil. And from where will the metal come, and how many trees must be cut down and burned to melt and shape it? And since we cannot build the machine, shall we be dependent on the machine-builders, and give them a portion of our food, which we now keep all for ourselves? Do you not know, clever stranger, that when any biomass is removed from the land, and not recycled back into it, the soil is weakened? And what could we do with our "saved" time, that would be more valuable and pleasurable than gathering the seed by hand, touching and knowing every stalk and every inch of the land that feeds us? Shall we become allies of cold metal that cuts without feeling, turning our hands and eyes to the study of machines and numbers until, severed from the Earth, we nearly destroy it as our ancestors did, making depleted uranium and polychlorinated biphenyls and cadmium batteries that even now make the old cities unfit for living? Go back to your people, and tell them, if they come to conquer us with their machines, we will fight them in ways the Arawaks and Seminoles and Lakota and Hopi and Nez Perce never imagined, because we understand your world better than you do yourself. Tell your people to come to learn."

Brilliant, result-oriented, brilliant. But goddamit I don't want to lose the Internet :D

That said, I imagine his ideal would be for us to become ... hi-tech primitives, I guess. Hunter-gatherers with full scientific and psychic (whatever definition of psychic you care to use) awareness of their environment and actions.

Not bad; it's definitely one way to go.

cofoegbu@y a h o o.com

Ive always been impressed with Drexler et al's vision of nanotech 're-greening' our communities ... In the future what appears to be a perfectly natural tree will be a nanotech hub minted for communication on the run ...

What is natural?

It's either BREAKTHROUGH to a new age of nanotech and robotic and zero-point energy ABUNDANCE, or BREAK*DOWN* into a new Dark Age in which the bulk of humanity will die of starvation, pestilence, etc. The **former** is much more likely...and rather **better** (duh...), I should think...don't you!?

And, as often if not always, THANKS, Upwinger, for your comment (and anonymous, too, for that matter)...natural, after all, is not necessarily good. Aging-unto-death may be "natural", but surely not (at least not **thereby/therefore**) good!!

Bring on the nanotech in general, but bring on the defensive shields and ecological custodial nanotech to go with the abundance...

Hope for the best...but prepare for the worst. I don't know who said that, but there is no doubt in my mind that either a new Dark Age or a Panopticon Singularity will happen. A Dickensian Singularity, that is, "Robotopia", most definitely WON'T co-exist with basic human nature.

We need to tweak the "Panopticon"
towards transparency.

ADBatstone: Why do you characterize robotopia as "Dickensian"; and why to think it is incompatible with human nature. Something along the lines of a robotopia as imagined by Jim Lewis of the "Robtopia" site (and by Moravec, among others) would seem to be in the offing withing the next 15-30 years, unless it is "swamped" by the nanotech (assembler/utility-fog) revolution. Indeed, the two techno-trends will tend to merge (probably) over the next 5-20 years, anyway.

Why is robotopia/nanotopia some impossible (*qua* incompatible with human nature). How do you expect advanced AI/Robotech and nanotech to be instantiated!?

And Bryan (bk_2112), is, as usual, quite right. We need both strong privacy and strong transparency. This synthesis will be difficult to achieve, but I think Lessig (among many others) will help out, jurisprudentially, here. But strong corrective feedback loops and transparency for both government and corporations is, indeed, imperative....

ADBatstone: Why do you characterize robotopia as "Dickensian"; and why to think it is incompatible with human nature!?!? Something along the lines of a robotopia as imagined by Jim Lewis of the "Robtopia" site (and by Moravec, among others) would seem to be in the offing withing the next 15-30 years, unless it is "swamped" by the nanotech (assembler/utility-fog) revolution. Indeed, the two techno-trends will tend to merge (probably) over the next 5-20 years, anyway.

Why is robotopia/nanotopia somehow impossible (*qua* "incompatible with human nature"). How do *YOU* expect advanced AI/Robotech and nanotech to be instantiated!?

And Bryan (bk_2112), is, as usual, quite right. We need both strong privacy and strong transparency. This synthesis will be difficult to achieve, but I think Lessig (among many others) will help out, jurisprudentially, here. But strong corrective feedback loops and transparency for both government and corporations is, indeed, imperative....
[corrections...]

Regarding the closing paragraph of Paul's
Feb. 20 Post:

> Regarding Gaians vs Transhumans, there is
> really is no conflict and I consider myself
> to be both. I see no reason why we as ....

This is one of the most dead on, accurate, descriptions of what the Millennium and beyond
will be like (at least as far as can be said in one paragraph).

There's no guarantee that we will attain the Milennium on this version of history, but then again God is not limited to working with a single version of history.

Paul has real vision, and I personally would like to affirm its value. The Millennium will have many other characteristics, but Paul has grasped a fundamental truth about a version of the future for which there is no good alternative. It behooves us to pay attention.