I don't often request list moderation, but if this kind of off-topic spam and clueless trolling doesn't call for it, nothing does, so: I hereby request that a moderator take appropriate action.
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Steve Richfield <steve.richfi...@gmail.com>wrote: > Sometime when you are flying between the northwest US to/from Las Vegas, > look out your window as you fly over Walker Lake in eastern Nevada. At the > south end you will see a system of roads leading to tiny buildings, all > surrounded by military security. From what I have been able to figure out, > you will find the U.S. arsenal of chemical and biological weapons housed > there. No, we are not now making these weapons, but neither are we disposing > of them. > > Similarly, there has been discussion of developing advanced military > technology using AGI and other computer-related methods. I believe that > these efforts are fundamentally anti-democratic, as they allow a small > number of people to control a large number of people. Gone are the days when > people voted with their swords. We now have the best government that money > can buy monitoring our every email, including this one, to identify anyone > resisting such efforts. 1984 has truly arrived. This can only lead to a > horrible end to freedom, with AGIs doing their part and more. > > Like chemical and biological weapons, unmanned and automated weapons should > be BANNED. Unfortunately, doing so would provide a window of opportunity for > others to deploy them. However, if we make these and stick them in yet > another building at the south end of Walker Lake, we would be ready in case > other nations deploy such weapons. > > How about an international ban on the deployment of all unmanned and > automated weapons? The U.S. won't now even agree to ban land mines. At least > this would restore SOME relationship between popular support and military > might. Doesn't it sound "ethical" to insist that a human being decide when > to end another human being's life? Doesn't it sound "fair" to require the > decision maker to be in harm's way, especially when the person being killed > is in or around their own home? Doesn't it sound unethical to add to the > present situation? When deployed on a large scale, aren't these WMDs? > > Steve > > *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
