The coming nano-era, CRN's "System of Three Ethics, and Bologna!


Bologna seems to be one of the greatest cities of all time. It was
founded by the Etruscans which evolved into the Roman world. Later, it
was conquered by the Lombards whom named it Bologna. It went through
all the medieval period gyrations; and then, with the crusades and the
translations of Greek and classical civilization books in Spain around
1000 A.D., Bolongna was at the center of it all again. Petrarch is
one early pre-Renaissance(1500s) name. Cardano also learned and
taught medicine there. Today, Bolongna is considered one of the five
top cities of the world! Not bad historical and contemporary value to
say the least! Why all this about Bologna though?
Well, this!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtI-hWUQI7w&feature=related
i thought i'd give that link first since it is the start of the show!
But, really, what I'm poining out is in the second part of this
youtube!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCGEE1FzhCQ&feature=related
Well, between the history of mathematics I read and this video, I took
a little bit of an interest in Bologna; and, I noticed the
correspondence between some of what James Burke says about Bologna in
this second part(the second link above) and CRN's "System of Three
Ethics." As James Burke says it, around 1050, Bologna was growing
again, and they were amongst the first to his the problem; he stands
in I'm guessing a(possibly 'the') major social/political center of
Bologna; and he points out how the place is set up; i mena he's
standing in a square concrete center with fountains and all . . . and
various great buildings which as James Burke points out correspond to
a division of various social/political concerns of a given city-state;
there is the emperor building, the town council building, church, and
merchant building(notice, there's no university building(s)! As he
says, all of them wanted to run the place, nobody was strong enough to
do it by themselves; so, with all this political back and forth,
humdrum concerns like "who threw the boiling oil" took precedence!
As Mr Burke says, the trouble was they were trying to run before they
could walk; they didn't understnad things; they didn't have education!
(not to mention, they were all split up; you can't funciton when
you're all split up!)
I'm not argueing against the 'System of Three Ethics'; i'm arguieng
that the points about the 'system of three ethics' is incomplete;
who's in charge? The military? THe scientists? Or, the business
people? CRN and really the founding fathers of the U.S.A, prove the
system of three ethics; but, I'm thinking we have a choice amongst the
three(or four, if your counting the religion!) activities of . . .
civilization. Let me point out that Nano-manufacturing and its
associated nanotechnologies allows a given person or group(I would
think a given person would chose not to be lonely) to do away with
economics. Military? If you need it. Let me point out something
else; who's going to maintain all this potentially wonderfull
technologies? Nano-manufacturing allows a given person(s) to forget
about the world; a given person(s) could grow rather forgetfull of the
science and technology we as human beings need to survive in this
world; we are the technologically dependent species; we forget that,
and the nanotechnologies break(including the nanomanufacturing system)
the nanotechnology dependent humans . . . become extinct!
In a previous post, I've pointed out that at the same time a given
state comes up with a primitive nanomanufacturing system, all the
stats of the world will have sufficient nanotechnologies to surive on
their own. There are two possibilities here. One, soembody thinks
they've got to conquer the world to prevent nano-wars(and to feed all
the poor people of the world . . . finally); the other is to not
because you don't need to; you have all the necessities of the world
and nobody is going to bother with you(except that your living in the
same land as a previous nano-era state). The previous possibility
leads to world war three; not just a nuclear war anymore; a nano-war;
in this war, you have no idea who's going to win out because you don't
know what the other side knows. The second possibility could lead to
wars; but will it lead to the extermenation of the whole species? I
think not.
There will be great pressure to just expand out in space because
nobody knows what hundreds of nanotechnology states are going to do.
I for one prefer this second possibility. Why? Because in this
world, nobody can conqure the rest of the world, and two, nobody
becomes complacent with their nanotechnologies. I don't think the
majority of the nanotechnology states will wage war; and really, I
have an interest in space; i'm not going to worry about nano(and
nuclear) wars, because I'm going to be billions if not trillions of
miles away. My only concern is not having others to give insights
that I cannot(becaue everybody has insights others can't have); i'm
more worried about not having a social group that enjoys exploring the
universe with me. I know that all knowledge is incomplete and that we
are dependent on learning ever more. My goal is to set up an Isaac
Asimovian 'Foundation.' And, I'm not worried about all these other
nanotechnology states expanding in opposite directions because I know
that even if they are anti-my Jacob Bronowski scientific humanism
because they are dependent on that science and technolopgy and over
time due to the pressures of existence in this universe and the fact
that they are human beings, they will change over time.
My worry is world war three with nanotechnology and nuclear
weapons . . . and roman republic/and empire and Nazy Germany stuff;
Republics and Democracies that vote out democracy and science.
I'm propsing an Isaac Asimovian 'Foundation" which chooses science
amongst the system of three ethics with Arthur Kantrowitz's science
courts to keep those military, economic, and supernatural/vagueness
gmaing religious influences form steering my Isaac Asimovian
"Foundation" from going wrong. We should be collecting, analysing,
and synthesizing the world's knowledge in an Isaac Asimovian
"Foundation" before the nano-era really kicks in; and if some of our
group concludes the data differently, they can exapond out in space in
opposite directions . . . and we'll see who's right or wrong about the
data because those who are wrong will run into one contradiction after
another; the moral thing to do is in their court; to change their
ways.
By means of this poocess, humanities(and intelligence in the universe)
is secured in the universe; because 1) dogma does not take over and
complacency does not blidn us the breakdown of the bewildering
nanotechnologies that nobody is ever going to understand it all, and/
or number two, supernova and other astronomically energetic events
doesn't wipe us out because we have all our eggs in one basket here on
Earth.

.