Sunday, 9 October 2011

Singularity Investigation David Willetts Reply.

Regarding questions submitted in my Singularity Investigatory Committee proposal, below is a reply from David Willetts MP via his Ministerial Correspondence Unit.

Publication of this reply was delayed. It was a lengthy process obtaining copyright permission from David Willetts. My request for permission to publish appears to have been initially overlooked, but finally permission was granted thus I sincerely thank David and his department for the kind permission they granted regarding publication of the following letter.

David's response is far from ideal; it is basically a blunt dismissal, but during the early stages of our Singularity-awareness campaign this response was predictable. Articles in The Economist, which David insists refute the notion of the Singularity, were not actually cited by the Ministerial Correspondence Unit therefore in the absence of evidence we must assume Singularity-critical articles in The Economist do not exist. I actually provided a couple of examples regarding how The Economist has a Singularity-supportive outlook.

It is true IEEE generally has an anti-Singularity theme, generally dismissive, but the so-called IEEE proofs are easily refuted by actual evidence of scientific advancement. IEEE basically descends into childish name-calling, denigration, via slanderously labelling the Singularity with religious terminology: the "rapture". The smear of labelling science with a religious term is a poor type of debate. Given the poor writing style exhibited via IEEE, it isn't surprising to discover the logic published via IEEE can subsequently be proved, via actual scientific breakthroughs, to be substandard logic.

Subsequent to the IEEE article "Rupturing The Nanotech Rapture", which states: "It's not that the singularity vision is completely unrecognizable in today's work. It's just that the gulf between the two is a bit like the gap between traveling by horse and buggy and by interplanetary transport.", we can see how very wrong such statements are when we consider how nano and mirco-spiders have been created; living metallic cells have been created; 3D-printing is progressing rapidly, and smart DNA capable of learning has been created.

For posterity regarding the following letter, and other similar letters from politicians, it is important to record these letters here on this blog to demonstrate how people were unaware of where technology was leading us to. Hopefully we can help enlighten politicians sooner instead of later regarding the shape of the future we are rapidly moving towards. Read about the letter writing campaign here.

Monday, 3 October 2011

#occupywallstreet Futility.

The #occupywallstreet civil disobedience, non-compliance, seems very futile. One obvious aspect of non-compliance, which tellingly hasn't been enacted by arrestees, is for them to move their cuffed hands from behind to in front. I suspect the protesters don't actually want to change the world. Changing the world is actually very easy, but people behave in ways not likely to create change.

I suspect Wall Street protesters enjoy their marginalised status. I suspect they revel in the glory of their outsider nonconformist clique thus they don't actually want to change the world because such change would destroy their outsider-against-the-system status. They enjoy the phenomenon of feeling deeply aggrieved, unjustly persecuted. They enjoy the righteous indignation they can feel against the system. I believe their protestations are not about changing the world; for them it is all about being able to feel deep self-righteousness in the face of oppression. This is why they don't attempt to circumvent rear positioning of wrist restraints.

I base my opinions upon their failure to adopt a basic non-compliance technique. After they are arrested they meekly accept being cuffed. Their acceptance of being cuffed could be permissible if prior to arrest they'd made strenuous attempts to evade capture. Their meek acceptance of cuff-positioning illustrates their true relationship to the police and society. Sadly not one person, as far as I am aware, has attempted to invoke non-compliance techniques regarding their wrist restraints, namely the simple gesture of moving cuffed hands from behind your back to in front.

I'm not advocating this minor act of defiance but I am curious why it hasn't been enacted. Maybe I have long arms therefore it is only myself who can wriggle rear-cuffed arms past my bum and then step through to have front-cuffed arms? Considering this review of plastic wrist restraints it is apparently difficult to move rear-cuffed hands from behind your back to your front, but I don't find it difficult. I'm sure with minimal effort anyone can do it. The point is; it should at least be attempted.

This minor act of defiance (moving rear cuffs to front cuffs or at least attempting the manoeuvre) has been overlooked therefore maybe other more significant aspects regarding a victorious resolution have been overlooked. Maybe methods of defiance exist beyond empty gestures, but people are currently unaware of the powerful methods to create freedom.

I have some powerful ideas but I am not sure if people will listen, or maybe people will think my ideas are silly or maybe they cannot see the power of my ideas.

I wanted to share my ideas about why I think the Wall Street occupation is futile. Maybe this awareness can counteract the futility.

Sunday, 2 October 2011

Google+ Terrorist-Bogeyman = Fascism

This post is part of a ongoing series of NymWars posts, but what's all this fuss about? It's all about the painfully slow journey to technological utopia. Google recently created a slight temporary obstacle, which obstructs the route to utopia. The problematic nature of Google needs to be explained but there are bigger issues requiring our attention. Initially regarding this post I wanted to write about how Google+ executives employ the bogeyman of hypothetical antisocial behaviour to curtail freedom on its G+ network. After reflection I decided to address the bigger issue regarding safety, the prevention of harm, the monster of fear and terror.

Beyond the realms of Google+, regarding usage of terrorist or antisocial threats to limit freedom, I will expand the notion of evil propagandistic falsehoods. I want people to consider all aspects of scapegoating, the usage of bogymen (unrealistic and often implausible fears), to purposefully and unjustly restrict our freedom.

Today in the news it was reported how an English politician (Theresa May) wants to abolish Human Rights. Theresa justifies her nonsense in the name of deporting terrorist suspects. She wants to scrap Human Rights not because of actual convicted terrorists but due to terrorist suspects! What happened to the notion of innocent until proven guilty?

"I'd personally like to see the Human Rights Act go because I think we have had some problems with it. I see it, here in the Home Office, particularly, the sort of problems we have in being unable to deport people who perhaps are terrorist suspects."

I want you to consider how Google uses the fictional bogeyman named antisocial behaviour to scare people into surrendering their freedom, but more importantly I want you to consider how corrupt Governments utilize the so-called terrorist threat in an identical manner. When Google+ insists upon real name usage to limit antisocial behaviour this is no different to standard methods of tyrannical population control. Tyrants utilize fears to justify enslavement of the populace.

When Google insists its policies are for our protection, this propaganda is identical to scenarios where fascist Governments insist authoritarianism is for the protection of citizens. It is the archetypal scenario of Nurse Ratched insisting R. P. McMurphy needs to be lobotomised for his own good to help him. If anyone needs lobotomising then maybe the world be a better place if we lobotomised people such as Theresa May. Incidentally Theresa May somewhat resembles Nurse Ratched.

People should have the freedom to define their own identities in cyberspace, but the Google+ identity rules are anti-freedom. When Google+ states "real names" encourage people to be more polite; Google is making an unjustified statement based on no evidence. The excessive focus on safety, via real name usage, is a bogus focus because safety without freedom is very unsafe. Politeness without freedom is slavery.

Is Terrorism Really A Major Threat?

The humiliation which people suffer due to airport security is a appropriate example of how the cure is worse than the disease. Obviously the cure is worse than the disease because there never was a disease regarding terrorism. Likewise with the issue of pseudonyms on the internet; pseudonyms were never a cause of antisocial behaviour. People will be antisocial whether or not they use a real name or a pseudonym. Terrorism is identical to the Google+ naming rules. Terrorism is a fictitious construction for the purpose of oppressing people. The terrorist threat is severely exaggerated, it is excessively and ridiculously exaggerated.

People in the USA are apparently 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than die in a terrorist attack. I cannot confirm the following statistics, apparently from the US National Safety Council, 2004; but the statistics seem plausible. Think about it.

■ You are 13 times more likely to die in a railway accident than from a terrorist attack

■ You are 12,571 times more likely to die from cancer than from a terrorist attack

■ You are six times more likely to die from hot weather than from a terrorist attack

■ You are eight times more likely to die from accidental electrocution than from a terrorist attack

■ You are 11,000 times more likely to die in an airplane accident than from a terrorist plot involving an airplane

■ You are 87 times more likely to drown than die in a terrorist attack

■ You are 404 times more likely to die in a fall than from a terrorist attack

■ You are 17,600 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack

■ You are 1048 times more likely to die from a car accident than from a terrorist attack

■ You are 12 times more likely to die from accidental suffocation in bed than from a terrorist attack

■ You are nine times more likely to choke to death on your own vomit than die in a terrorist attack

■ You are eight times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist attack.

Saturday, 1 October 2011

Solving All Problems.

The #occupywallstreet protests against financial industry corruption recently stimulated my thoughts. I therefore decided to express my thinking about changing the world.

You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink. We all see the world very differently. Some people want deeply to fit in; they don't want the hassle associated with rocking the boat; they are desperate for an easy life without any complications. We all desire an easy life but some people are willing to sacrifice more of their freedom for a easy life. The problem with protesting against The Elite Power Controllers of civilization is that most people don't share the need for rebellion, but the lack of support from The Masses is not the major problem, the major problem is the confrontational opposition to The Elite Power Controllers. Confrontation is problematic because the people you are confronting are very powerful, they control the media, politics, businesses, and The Masses, furthermore they are unwittingly supported by legions of submissive people who don't want the boat to be rocked.

The Solution.

We must unite all people in a common goal instead of divisively focusing on the corruption of The Elite or divisively focusing on the stupidity of Sheeple, because let's face it, many common people would also be equally corrupt if they had the chance. The only distinguishing feature of The Rich Power Elite is that via the luck of their circumstances they've entered their privileged position in life. Most people would take the vast riches available to The Elite if such riches were offered, thus we see The Elite are not inherently bad, they are simply a facet of our civilization therefore we are all equally responsible for their existence. The solution must therefore address the root of greed, the root of the desire to be rich, and the solution must be unifying, non-divisive, and equally beneficial for everyone, because anything else will result in oppression by the Power Elite (they will only let you push them so far before they show their deep authoritarian natures, personality traits which are generally common to all humans in situations of scarcity).

Root of problems.

Scarcity is the the cause of all money woes and all other problems. Scarcity causes greed, oppression, and mortality. Resource scarcity entails population control. Scarcity causes Mass stupidity. The unifying solution is to stimulate global awareness of our pending Post-Scarcity (PS) situation. Via technology the old scarcity-based model of civilization will soon end therefore everyone will be rich beyond their wildest dreams. There will be limitless riches for everyone. The unifying solution to the root of the problem, the scarcity problem, is therefore to accelerate the coming PS era. We need to accelerate the growth of technology, we need to hasten the technological explosion of intelligence. We need all people to focus on this acceleration. Only extremely advanced technology can solve our problems. Only via a technological end to scarcity will we eliminate the corruption associated with a civilisation based on limited resources. We need all people to realise our future will be a place of limitless possibilities, it will be a place of limitless wealth for everyone. Resource scarcity is a precarious financial situation thus people savagely cling to wealth. Rich people need to realise they don't need to cling savagely to their wealth because in the not too distant future they and everyone else will possess limitless riches due to Post Scarcity. The solution to the problem of scarcity is to generate mass global awareness of the pending PS technological explosion of intelligence.

# Blog visitors since 2010:

Archive History ▼

S. 2045 |