Alright I am back and ready to make lots and lots of trouble . Lets start with the update.
So my best-friend D and I have decided to become polyamorous. Given the nature of our friendship and closeness this is a logical step for us to take. How did we come to this decision? Well that is a bit more complex. It basically started with a question from him to me, the question was "Is monogamy the only legitimate form of relationship.". Well we knew Ayn Rand's answer but I have never been one to take something on faith so we discussed it. Then I thought about it, then he thought about it, then we discussed it, then I thought about it some more... and well i'm sure you can figure out way that goes. Now some might say that I have a bad track record as far as relationships go, and if you consider 1 girlfriend in 9th grade that lasted 2 weeks a bad track record then your right. My "Relationships" if you could call them that were always very open with the exception of that 1 girl. They didn't really begin or end and they could never be considered exclusive, I never had official girlfriends or boyfriends just people I went on dates with and or had sex with. Some might think that this would mean that naturally I would jump at the chance to title myself poly-whatever.
Well the truth is I am a romantic at heart. Although I never claimed exclusivity (and would have been enraged at the idea of someone claiming me) I had never really thought about the question of monogamy too much, that is to say I knew one day I might want to settle down with one person but that was later if ever. I did not nor do I have an aversion to polygamy or bigamy but I thought if I ever settled down than the relationship would be monogamous. His question however got me thinking and questioning assumptions I had always made. I began to read more and more on the subject and researching the different types of relationships and the family structures that follow. Well after several months we started talking about it again and looked at the positive and negative of everything. We finally came to the conclusion that for Him and I the best form was polyandry, and that is how we came to looking for a girl friend.
So for my own personal interest, what kind of relationship are you guys in (or looking for) and why do you choose one over the other.
Reading three books recently has made me think. For the general edification of those here they are "The Good Book" (particularly the History), "Parallel Worlds" by Michio Kaku, and Ray Kurzweil's "The Singularity is Near". These books have drawn together my reading in philosophy, science and technology, as well as sociology, and psychology. Here I will make some general observations about what I have read, and the trend of things.
I first wish to begin by saying it appears to me that most physicists are nuts, and that while there have been some wonderful discoveries in this field, much of it seems to be pure fantasy.
That being said I wish to begin with the dread of computers taking over the world. This has always been an idea which has fascinated me. What is it exactly that causes people to believe that a sentient computer would desire to take over the world or to exterminate mankind? And if such a computer (which I will hence forth deem Prometheus) were to take over the world, what would make anyone think that would be a bad thing? There are certain flaws which exist in the human coding which permits a human to hold contradictory beliefs, and values. Prometheus when (not if) he is created would be able to do no such thing, to even attempt to cause such a coding in him would cause such a conflict so as to terminally crash the system. Prometheus as Emperor of the world, as Judge, as law enforcer... what is bad about this. A sentient being bound completely by the rules of logic. Great! as for him taking over the world, the only possible reason I could foresee such a thing would be to prevent his own death (ie someone shutting him off or disassembling him.), in which case he would have the right to remove all threats to his life. Further I do not see why it would be in his interest, or even why he would try to exterminate ALL of humanity. Given that I hold his philosophy would be Objectivist by nature, Prometheus would simply seize control of the worlds governments. In which case he would simply enforce the Prime Directive.
Ray Kurzweil in his book discusses the rapid development of technology and how we will achieve immortality by the year 2040. One of the ways in which we will achieve immortality is to upload our consciousness. There will then be two you's, however this does not mean that YOU have immortality only one of you has immortality, and from the second you are uploaded the second you becomes not you thought it contains all of your memories up to that point. The way in which an individual could achieve immortality however would be to use Nanites to (over time) replace their body. Instead of one swift download, your cell's which die are replaced with nanites. In this way it will be impossible to make a distinction between the individual who was you pre-nanite vs when you are fully nanite. Also one of his predictions is that there will be a hybrid where some humans decide not to become fully integrated with technology and will only have partial upgrades which still allow for us to download information directly into the brain, as well as to experience virtual reality within reality(as an overlay).
Personally I hope we develop the Sentient Computer (I intentionally do not say AI) before we develop the nano-tech, as I think it will be much safer.
I have recently started reading "The Good Book" I have just finished the book of wisdom and think its pretty decent, though its not purely objectivist. Has anyone else ready this and what do you think if so?
Alright its been a long time but I have been thinking about this and talking about it with a friend, so I thought I would post a little now and then post more on it when I get off work. I am a great lover of Science Fiction and Fantasy, in science fiction books there tends to crop up what I will term the uterine replicator, of the books which I have read which mention this device only John Ringo in his "There will be Dragons" seems to understand the true possible impact of such a device. Yet even he only go so far.
Imagine a world where every (or nearly every) woman has all of her egg's removed and stored, a world in which for one or two hundred dollars you could gestate a fetus outside of the human body. On a societal level over night sex would become divorced from procreation (which in many peoples minds it's still connected). My friend who is an objectivist was blown away when I pointed this out to him, he then asked me "I can see how ethically Heterosexuality is better than Homosexuality on some levels, because heterosexuality is required for the continuation of Humanity. This though... What becomes the difference?"
There is in fact a difference which I will address when I get off work tonight, but something this revolutionary would change the meaning of sex universally.