Des

I am sure this scenario is not far-fetched at all, and I have given some thought to the changing of scarcity in the future. Replicating systems of robots will eventually become the norm, so that robots are built and maintained by other robots. Due to the very small size of the nanotech robots, these will almost certainly outnumber the larger robots and machines (machines of the type where you could look at one machine without a microscope and understand it's workings). Uncluttered / attractively laid-out spaces become scarce, and attention from other people remains relatively scarce. Perhaps "paying [with] attention" will be the basis of the currency of the future. For example, suppose you create a large park, keep it free of the clutter that others could easily and cheaply put there. You pay for the defence of the park. Perhaps I would offer you one hour of my attention-time in exchange for permission to spend 50 hours relaxing in your park. Perhaps you are wealthy, don't need me to use that attention time on you, so you donate it to a friend, and I sit and listen to your friend, participate in a conversation which I might not choose for my own pleasure, as a way to pay for use of your park. Another example: perhaps I have thousands of attention-hours owed to me, and I use that to buy into a neighbourhood in which all landowners have agreed to build dwellings and transport routes below ground level, and keep the surface uncluttered to a specified standard, conforming with a theme, with competent arbiters of conformance to thematics and reduction of clutter. I have used attention-currency to buy a home where, above ground, I see water-features, benches, pedestrians and cyclists. No buildings, no motor vehicles, only what I care to see. The seller of the home I bought, can now get thousands of hours of attention from whoever previously owed those to me. To sum up: uncluttered spaces potentially become scarce (because making stuff becomes cheap), the attention of [other] people remains at current level of scarcity.

It is rational for a non-suicidal person to desire a minimum standard of behaviour from others, and to be willing to trade compliance with that standard [by himself] for compliance with that standard [by others]. This leads to the idea of a pact between a man and his neighbours, to agree to that minimum standard. I don't expect opposition to the assertion that murder has to be banned, for the minimum standard to be high enough to have rational value to the pact members. I assert that the other aggressions, and also fraud, have to be banned, for the pact to have value. This leads to a definition of evil as: all acts which must be banned for the pact to have rational value. Not that you cannot ban some non-evils (not that you could not ban being unreasonably late), but that the definition of evil is limited to those actions which have to be banned, failing which the pact becomes worthless.

I can't fault that response to the topic. I'm replying here to draw attention to a topic that may interest anyone interested in this topic.

Same goes for me. I have started a topic : https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/45329-life-expectancy-and-ethics/ I started the topic because I see the desire to postpone death, and the reason to desire ethical behaviour from others, and that desire for ethical behaviour from others, as the reason to offer our own ethical behaviour as part of any and all trade (in the widest sense of the word trade), and to trade only if the ethicality is reciprocal. To give an example of my meaning, it is not rational to suggest or accept: "I scratch your back, you scratch mine, murder is no harm, no foul, so if you kill me (or I kill you) at any point, it's no violation of the back-scratching deal". This requirement for ethics inside every agreement of exchange (for the exchange to have rational value to both traders, assuming neither is suicidal), is the basis for the value of a do-no-murder pact between members of any social group, which then extends to a do-no-evil pact, because any aggression which falls short of murder, if repeated in enough instances, can amount to death, so it must be banned as an evil, The pact must call it evil (or some synonymous term like "not good"), and ban it. Why it would be a pact, is a matter of practicality of having a large group sign up once to an ethic, rather than specify the ethic in each contract, or agree an ethic before one walks past another on a street (without being in a group of 3, weapons drawn).

I want to stay alive. In fact that is the title of the first video that I uploaded to youtube (after the initial test upload which I deleted). https://www.google.co.za/search?q=youtube+desmond+gorven+playlist&rlz=1C1ASUM_enZA521ZA521&oq=you&aqs=chrome.1.69i60j69i59j69i60l2j0j69i57.5434j0j9&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8

I predict that there will be a trend of people being increasingly interested in ethics as nanotechnology increases life expectancy. I have created a separate topic in the science and technology forum, "Nanotechnology and life expectancy". I see these two topics as interlocking, and created both, so that we can keep separate the discussion around the prediction of what Nanotech will achieve, from the prediction of the social effect that increasing life expectancy will have, and the relevance of that social effect to the computation of ethics.

I can say about research into nanotech, that in about 1994 I got a copy of http://e-drexler.com/p/06/00/EOC_Cover.html I read it and got some important perspectives from it. I want to discuss nanotech, to sharpen my understanding of what can be done, and to influence the planning for the future. No benefit to me if I get a panacea and then get killed by a moving vehicle or an armed robber.

Hi I'm Desmond Gorven. I was born in 1962 in Durban, South Africa, and live In Johannesburg, South Africa. I really enjoy my life, and that is why I don't want it to end. I think I have been fortunate genetically and by having parents who stayed together and spent time with me, especially in that my father spent time with me, which I am now aware has become unusual in some cultures. To repeat a point because it is really important to understanding me: I don't want my life to end, and I want to get something done about the approaching end, while I have time to get something done. I am not planning to develop all the nanotech it will take to extend my health. I am attempting to inspire other people to do that. I am attempting to inspire wealthy people to fund that research and development. I joined this message board with at least 3 aims in mind: To get advice/assistance/promotion for the R&D that will get me an extension of life. To discuss ethics as it relates to the aim of not having my life cut short by evil act(s). To interact with people with intellectual leanings and a capacity to refine arguments. If you are really interested in understanding my thinking, There is a playlist of videos I have uploaded to youtube. You can find the playlist with this search: https://www.google.co.za/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1ASUM_enZA521ZA521&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=youtube%20desmond%20gorven%20playlist