Ah, good point Abe, maybe we have to use Moore's Law as the only available corollary?

when designing the future world rather than envisioning technology as some inviolable free-standing product of evolution.
----
well, i understand your sentiment, but technology is the product of human social and cognitive and contstructive evolutionary
processes.

i like the idea of designing soft and fluffy ape man environments for those future arcologies and starships, its an interestin
balance and tachnology does neccessitate enahanced responsibilities.

as far as the primary premise goes, if humaity survives the next 200 years we will be rapidly approaching the realm
of operational biological nanites. If i could get a movement going out of this room to design, that could happen a lot
faster.

Biological nanites are one science explanation for making us into virtual superpeople.
given that premise, i could make you bullet proof, capable of flight via electromagnetic induction, zero point energy powered,
give you ten times the strength and a hundred times the stamina, and given some networking and a bit of a crisp
frizz, we might even be able to increase reflex speed into the reptile brain sampling range.

no more death, no more disease, and you can program yourself to take on the next look of whomever you find
interesting to be in the master program puters... including probably hopping genders.

Whoops, sorry, Roy is your name, I don't know what I was thinking.

Roy hits the nail on the head. To paraphrase: either you get comfortable with change, or you attempt to resist change.

The unfortunate side-effect of successfull resisting change, is that everyone else gets smarter, faster, and wealthier before you. Resisting change makes you less competitive, which, over a long enough period of time, makes you extinct.

Those who adapt to change survive. The risk of creating a permanent, disenchanted underclass is easily mitigated by the opportunity to improve the standard of living for the already suffering at the improvrished end of the spectrum.

We are always going to have a permanant "underclass". All changes or technological changes cost a lot initially then later drop in cost until everyone has such. This is often put forward as a reason to not have new techniques and advances. Frankly I see this as silly. If the wealthy don't start to pay for an advance, then no one will get a chance at it! Motor cars, radios, TVs, etc. all started as playthings for the wealthy

"Gray goo" or "nano-sludge"? Its been pretty well demonstrated that this is science fantasy stuff that would be extremely unlikely in real life.