From: J. R. Molloy (jr@shasta.com)
Date: Sun Apr 15 2001 - 11:28:08 MDT
From: <ManuelOmar@aol.com>
<<Ok... that's like saying "Let them buy thier crack, eventually, they'll die
off because of it, and the world will be better for it.">>
Well, I don't know if I'd go quite that far, but perhaps you've come up with a
kind of solution (reminescent of the "7% solution"). This policy would
probably do well in US prisons, where more than half of inmates have been
convicted of drug offenses. Naturally this approach would only involve
volunteers.
<< It strikes me as a rather socially irresponsible view. They *dont* die
off. Drug addicts today, and simsense addicts tommrow, always have a stead
suppply of new converts, and the rest of society suffers for it. >>
Probably one of the most destructive and anti-social memes (are memes real, or
just another useless hypothesis?) going around these days is the accusation of
social irresponsibility. If your're sincerely concerned about social
responsibility, then you should support responsible policy vis a vis the
so-called "war on drugs" which would mean ending it.
Anyway, you started off with "Abuse of future neuroscience applied
technologies" and now you're confuting that with illegal drug use. Do you have
an ulterior agenda here... one which would place applied neuroscience
technologies in the same category with illicit drugs?
<< Further I happen to believe that people have intrinsic value in
themselves. Letting them deal with the consequences of thier actions is one
thing, but letting them die because they made a few foolish choices is pretty
damn jaded. What, you don't believe in social support nets, and catching
somebody when they stumble and fall, rather than just letting them smash thier
head on the sidewalk? >>
So we need to institute social support nets for people who are addicted to
games? And who provides social support nets for the bureaucrats who are
addicted to the game of providing social support nets? No thanks. The position
of Extropy Institute and other groups dedicated to improving life by expanding
technology seems more responsible to me.
I've noticed a suspicious correlation between the numbers of social support
nets that spring up like mushrooms, and the incidence of sociopath behaviors
reported in the news. Like the newsman said, "Follow the money," if you want
to understand how society works. In this case, the money leads to career
busy-bodies who would be out of jobs if the supposed social problems they
decry were to evaporate. You see, the social engineers have a heavy investment
in preserving, rather than eradicating, social problems.
BTW, here's some information about memetics, which some people consider part
of neuroscience (but I'm not so sure):
http://www.memecentral.com/
Welcome to Meme Central, the center of the world of memetics. Memes are
contagious ideas, all competing for a share of our mind in a kind of Darwinian
selection. As memes evolve, they become better and better at distracting and
diverting us from whatever we'd really like to be doing with our lives. They
are a kind of Drug of the Mind. Confused? Blame it on memes.
Perhaps "Abuse of future neuroscience applied technologies" is just a meme
that we can make go away by ignoring it... or by invoking the game-playing
meme.
τΏτ
Stay hungry,
--J. R.
Useless hypotheses:
consciousness, phlogiston, philosophy, vitalism, mind, free will, qualia,
analog computing, cultural relativism
Everything that can happen has already happened, not just once,
but an infinite number of times, and will continue to do so forever.
(Everything that can happen = more than anyone can imagine.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:06:59 MST