The book had a gigantic impact on me. In a broad range of ways from hypertext through nanotech through various schemes for social organization and the long list of human needs such organization serves.
One of many things I liked was an illustration that economical improvement is not enough to make people live well. If I remember correctly, in the fictional world the food was free; anyone could go to a public matter-builder and take food from it. Yet some children were hungry… because their parents didn’t care enough for them to get outside of the house and bring them the food.
Moral of the story: however good situation you have, humans can make it bad by simply not caring even the smallest. (Unless we get to a situation where humans are replaced by robots completely.)
This seems to me like a hyperbole of the world we have now. Economically, the life in developed countries is so great that for most people who lived in the past it would be almost like a paradise. Yet we have a lot of suboptimality simply because people don’t care. (Maybe it’s because the wealth made social pressure less relevant, and many people just naturally don’t give a fuck about anything, and without the social pressure now they don’t even have to pretend.) The good life does not make us automatically stronger; it often makes us lazy. I believe the possibility is still there, but without outside pressure most people don’t care about becoming stronger.
Who, specifically are you talking about? I’m thinking of the extropians, who coined “transhumanism.” I’m not sure of the timeline; the original group was definitely into MNT before Stephenson, but maybe they expanded a lot after him, and maybe that was because of him.
I’m pretty sure that the people Chris is talking about are Stephenson’s source, not vice versa.
Eliezer definitely definitely seems to have caught the nano-enthusiasm bug pre-Diamond Age, but maybe the book had a big impact on other people?
The book had a gigantic impact on me. In a broad range of ways from hypertext through nanotech through various schemes for social organization and the long list of human needs such organization serves.
One of many things I liked was an illustration that economical improvement is not enough to make people live well. If I remember correctly, in the fictional world the food was free; anyone could go to a public matter-builder and take food from it. Yet some children were hungry… because their parents didn’t care enough for them to get outside of the house and bring them the food.
Moral of the story: however good situation you have, humans can make it bad by simply not caring even the smallest. (Unless we get to a situation where humans are replaced by robots completely.)
This seems to me like a hyperbole of the world we have now. Economically, the life in developed countries is so great that for most people who lived in the past it would be almost like a paradise. Yet we have a lot of suboptimality simply because people don’t care. (Maybe it’s because the wealth made social pressure less relevant, and many people just naturally don’t give a fuck about anything, and without the social pressure now they don’t even have to pretend.) The good life does not make us automatically stronger; it often makes us lazy. I believe the possibility is still there, but without outside pressure most people don’t care about becoming stronger.
Who, specifically are you talking about?
I’m thinking of the extropians, who coined “transhumanism.” I’m not sure of the timeline; the original group was definitely into MNT before Stephenson, but maybe they expanded a lot after him, and maybe that was because of him.