I was attracted to the MaidSafe vision of the internet because I believe, contrarily to the technotopians, that it is knowledge and collaboration that will take humanity to the next level, not ‘innovative’ gadgets and mechanical devices. But I just heard David Irvine talk about “flying cars” glowingly - what potential good do these things or any Elon Musk-esque gimmicky new ‘tech’ have for humanity beyond contributing to the constant barrage of substance-less ‘news’ that keep the (so-called) first world’s Prozac-addled populaces distracted from their pain. I see the likes of Elon Musk and Ray Kurzweil, not as innovators or scientists, but as religious figures of the turning of science into a religion, of the unmooring of scientific endeavor from its foundations in humanism and rational inquiry. Anyone that speaks well of Mr. Musk, of Mr. Kurzweil, of the zany, incompetently-derived, results of Big Science (see “the God particle”), etc. are highly suspect to me. Maybe MaidSafe will prove to be yet another technotopian pipe-dream that will end in tears (and more Prozac).
Edit: I know Irvine participates in this forum, so Mr. Irvine if you’re reading this: I don’t mean to bash your hard work. I think you’re a brilliant and admirable man. (Unlike Musk.)
That is exactly what Secure Access For Everyone (SAFE, remember??) is all about. Exactly exactly.
What are you worried about here?
Your goals seem to be aligned with this project 1,000%.
What’s the problem with appreciating how Dubai is making progress in the transportation field? ?
MaidSafe spends lots of time and $$ making their code available and easy to understand for everyone, so everyone can collaborate and take humanity to the next level, Just like you said above
To put it another way, flying cars are impressive and people have grown so resigned and gullible that they will settle for mere impressiveness. I want innovations that are appropriate and effective in the most elegant, simple, locally adaptable and build-able way possible. Self-driving cars, whether they fly or not, are an example of solving a problem that doesn’t exist and ignoring the actual problem: in this case, that our cities are designed around cars and not people, and this has left people fractured, depressed, and community-less. There is only traffic because people are so wayward and restless, and people are restless because they don’t live well, and don’t live in real communities.
This article might help you see where I’m coming from:
I agree, and moved to a small town area because of this. Not all the world is like this
But I agree. I just think you shouldn’t group MaidSafe in with projects that are “gimmicky” or “flashy” or “unnecessary” or “without vision,” because it so clearly is the antithesis of all of those things. So clearly
I didn’t say that MaidSafe is gimmicky. I have yet to actually study the white paper. I was just worried by some comments of its chief architect that occurred to me as bad omens.
That’s why people are scared to mention any type of support for Kurzweil. And I hate that.
All he does is speak if exponential curves. Even though only 3/4 of his predictions have proven to be accurate, the theme he has of exponential human progress is undeniable, which is all that was mentioned in the video that has irked you so
Here’s a 12-minute video of Sepp Holzer that could possibly blow your mind. This is my idea of progress and this is the person that deserves the adulation that Elon Musk currently receives. And thank god for the internet, otherwise I wouldn’t know about him - but, again, I think the internet can be made much, much, better. MaidSafe is only the beginning.
Why so critical of Musk? I don’t like the great person stuff either, but strongly suspect ,climate driven instability or not, if we don’t kill petrarchy as fast as humanly possibly along with petrol fuel/energy we won’t have science because we will have extinction by way of nuclear war. And besides where stuff like digital physics goes seems to kill off science anyway. Left with something like mysticism. Annoying to to refer to the stuff Musk does as gimicry, when its cord cutter stuff. Its not mere stupid distraction. Its practical stuff. Battery backed decentralized roof top solar may not be zero point or cold fusion but its better than utility hot fusion which is saying something so the contempt seems idiotic.
Musk’s work is largely gimmicky, and I stand by it: it is the nature of ‘gimmick’ that many people, like you, will be fooled. The lesson to be learned from petrarchy is not just the specific effects of petroleum-power, but the danger of unintended consequences when people go gung-ho about something new that they haven’t considered deeply. And I hold that any deep, rational, consideration of Musk’s work in particular, but also most technological fixes, will show them to be empty and counterproductive. I’m not going to waste my breath in trying to explain to you that you worship a false idol; you must work that out yourself. But, if we’re on the topic of his batteries, I’ll point out that hi-tech electronic components usually require exotic materials that come with a whole host of obvious bad consequences that I’m not going to bother spelling out to you either. Finally, I’m not a cold fusion person: I personally favor super-low-energy super-non-invasive solutions like Plant-e (the tiny amount of electricity generated by such solutions being more than enough for our computing purposes when we finally figure out how to build all-optical computers).
That’s right. The notion of uploading your mind to a computer is preposterous, and only plausibly entertained by a member of a religious cult (I call it techgnosticism). But, hey, thanks for not calling me any names.
In my opinion, Safe will be a necessary step if we want to recover and maintain the ability to freely express , debate, inform and research diverging opinions about technology and progress in the not so far future.
The current internet and the main media are slowly but surely turning into the vector of a single ideology . The diverging voices are being either shut down or buried deep in the search rankings. We see browser tools and filters appear to “educate” and warn about “false” sources of information, that stigmatize websites and authors for not respecting the mainstream thinking. Just like the spanish inquisition created the Index and decided what book could be read or not.
I would not be surprised to find websites that promote Sepp Holzer in the "bad"category one of the days…
Last year we had some discussions here about should we have autonomous robots wander around and let them have money , rights as persons, vote, etc etc… I expressed concerns on the concequences of these projects, and found very epidermic reactions from people who expressed a deeply rooted faith in the fact that technology can not fail.
My point was , and still is, that while today such a discussion is possible, the way the current internet is headed will hinder the debate and soon or later make it either impossible or repressible. Not only about technology but about any subject that would diverge from the main, official way of thinking.
In this sense, Safe comes as a immense hope, as it will allow anyone to freely , and if needed, anonymously, express diverging opinions, without a possibility to be either censored or jailed.
It will then be our responsability to use it to educate and promote wisely thought ideas, so that we can have hopes for a bright future.
I strongly agree with the idea of
appropriate technology, btw
I think we want to use tech to short circuit ethical development, but we won’t succeed with that. But I still see Musk as a cord cutter and decentralizer. He seems to use money in ways that are calculated to benefit humanity. I get that his associated organizations seem more orange than teal in type but appreciate the vision and will to change things for the better.
I wouldn’t pay attention to the personalities. If the technology is good and useful, it will stand up with or without them. I know @dirvine certainly isn’t seeking fame.
I agree. Self driving cars have huge potential to cut the frankly unacceptable death rates on our roads. They could also significantly reduce transit times and energy expenditure because the roads would operate so much more efficiently.
EDIT: I also think it is uncalled for OP to criticise Musk in this way. Time-space compression has been at the core of social and economic development ever since we domesticated horses. Hyperloop is the next step of that development. It will be an incredibly time- and energy-efficient way to traverse large distances.
Not to mention the dramatic changes to car ownership and the sharing economy, access and price, the utility of regained time etc. The list of benefits is huge and the technology already exists.
I don’t know enough about the feasibility of other crazy ideas that he’s working on to comment really, but I’m glad someone is reaching for the stars. I have a lot of respect for people who aim high and are uncompromising about their goals. I don’t idolise him, but I certainly respect his energy and his attempts to contribute to a brighter future.
