EM launch

>
> I don't find the site alarmist at all. There is a long list of
> catastrophes with fairly high probabilities that could destroy all life
> on earth or at best set civilization back to square one.
It needs some positive balance. If you weren't on the list I wouldn't
have given the site a second look because it is all about catastrophes.
I find that people who only dwell on catastrophes are trying to get me
to think only with emotion and not to weigh the pros and cons.
> ...
> Regarding the residents of the space city having godlike power, it
> seems to me that they'll actually be in a vulnerable position, while
> people who possess an assembler version of nanotech would have godlike
> power...
This is interesting. The obvious place for nanotech assembler testing
would be in space in orbits where the space craft could not ever
intersect Earth possibly lifted by a electromagnetic launcher. So there
may be a lot of nanotech and other possibly dangerous technology
available in space. Why would you assume that there wouldn't be? In
fact cost wise it would be cheaper to build unmanned research centers in
space then to build a space colony.
> ...
> I agree with you here as well, although here I think that you are
> somewhat over the top. I live a pretty minimal lifestyle and rarely
> drink (mostly because it's difficult to find the time), but I lean more
> toward Kantian moral philosophy rather than - I can't identify your
> quote here - following some monastic vows? So, for example, applying
> Kant's universalizability, if, by having a glass of wine during
> conference receptions, I cause everyone else also to do so, would there
> be a contradiction or other negative consequences? In fact, most people
> do have a drink at conference receptions, and it probably increases the
> flow of information.
>
Hmmm, I didn't manage to make my point clear. Do you share
responsibility if somebody driving home from that conference is killed
because their reaction time was slowed just enough by the alcohol to be
unable to avoid an accident that could have been avoided otherwise. If
you share responsibility what should your actions have been?

...
> > Our concern would be
> > for the betterment of all mankind instead of our own pleasure.
>
> Our concern should be for maximizing the "total happiness" (a la John
> Stuart Mill), which often means making sacrifices, but does not mean
> completely neglecting our own happiness.
>
I failed to make a concept clear again. I am certainly for the concept
of both personal and general happiness. The caveat is that sometimes we
don't understand what makes genuine happiness. The alcoholic and drug
addict is convinced that the next hit will make them happy.

Mitchell James