From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Mon Sep 17 2001 - 03:09:03 MDT
"Robert J. Bradbury" wrote:
>
> Harvey wrote:
>
> > Some recent postings seem to suggest that we should sacrifice innocents to
> > speed up the development of technology in the name of The Extropian
> > Principals.
>
> Now Harvey, I didn't say that. What I *attempted* to do was set up
> a reasonable extropic "corollary" in line with the Principals --
> i.e. the ability to save the greatest number of lives in the shortest
> amount of time is "extropic". (People should feel free to attack the
> corollary *or* the means of achieving it.)
Let us not mince words. You suggested blowing an entire nation
to kingdom come to supposedly advance extropic ideals. This is
ludicrous. Such an action could only greatly harm maximizing
extropy in the near term.
>
> I also object to the use of the term "innocents", though I do not deny
> that the use of nuclear weapons would of course kill children whom
> one can reasonably consider "innocent". An unbiased observation
> of the demonstrations in the streets of towns in Pakistan neighboring
> Afganistan would not label the adults involved in these affairs
> "innocent".
>
More mincing words. You are talking about killing
non-combatants. I don't see how it is reasonable to feel better
at killing non-combatants if they happen not to like you and
have been taught all of their life that you are a great
millstone around their neck and therefore celebrated when they
saw you successfully attacked. And also, it is likely only a
relative handful celebrated. In any case it is hardly a sane
response to wipe them out for that.
> As Samantha pointed out, it may be necessary to prioritize the
> Principals so that sentients have self-determination privileges
> that supercede the other goals.
>
> Now that raises a *very* sticky issue as to what rights one assigns
> to (a) irrational individuals; or (b) individuals who are rational but
> operating from a fundamentally misinformed belief systems? [Of course
> one is free to question the degree to which all Americans or "Western"
> individuals are operating from misinformed belief systems.]
>
(a) Irrational indivduals have the right to be as irrational as
they wish as long as they do not interfere with the rights of
others. When they do they will be interfered with sufficiently
to stop their interference with others.
Same for (b).
> Given that individuals exist who have been indoctrinated with
> fundamentally unextropic belief systems -- who have the power or the
> will to intervene in the extropic directions of free societies -- the
> question is "How much are you willing to allow such individuals
> to cost you in extropic productivity?"
>
See guideline for (a). What do you mean by "cost".
> I think this may be the fundamental question -- "What is the value
> of a human life whose read-only-memory is based fundamentally on
> a set of synthetic fabrications?" *Particularly* if those
> fabrications are likely to represent a threat to individuals
> who base their reality on a more rational examination of the facts?
>
>
What is this "read-only memory" bs? Minds are not immutable.
If they were we might as well all hang it up.
> How does one tradeoff "human compassion" against "rational meme
> triumph"?
>
I do not consider the lack of this type of compassion to be in
the least "rational".
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:10:45 MST