From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Mon Sep 17 2001 - 03:39:18 MDT
"Robert J. Bradbury" wrote:
>
> Well, first off, I want to apologize to the people who I may
> have unduly upset by my post. Some of you may be newer to
> the list and may not realize that one of my fundamental
> motivations revolves around the question of the reduction
> of "Years of Potential Life Lost". Previous posts are motivated
> from that perspective.
There is no meaningful way of calculating such a number as there
is no way of judging the value of the various individuals
involved in any particular impact and their actual and potential
impact on subsequent history effectively. Not to mention that
it is a cold-blooded intellectual game of the worse sort. I
think it is
far, far more important to evaluate the effect of what we
propose and do on the living, present and future than to
evaluate backward on how many who would have died (presumably
irrevocably) in some future we aim for need not die
irrevocably. I have tried to get across before that focusing on
"the dark side" of these equations leads to a large possibility
of ruinious policies, pronouncements and actions and to a darker
motivation of the workers in the field themselves.
>
> Why is this important to discuss? -- because it is precisely
> the issue facing U.S. politicians today. Whether to execute
> rapid indiscriminante strikes that may satisfy a need for
> revenge or whether to proceed so carefully that individuals
> who have an "irrational" agenda against the United States or
> its citizens are able to execute further actions resulting in
> a not insignificant loss of life (current news reports seem
> to suggest that there are still undiscovered "cells" in the
> U.S.).
The need for revent is irrelevant compared to the need to
greatly reduce the potential for further actions of this kind.
There are certainly cells of various kinds in the US. Do you
turn the country into a police-state to find them all? Probably
not. Do you attempt to dry up their funding and command
structure? More likely. Do you go after the main training and
supply depots for such actions where you can find them. Yes.
Do you knock out some especially troubling and degenerate
governments who are oppressing their people and funding
terrorism? Possibly.
>
> First I will respond to Anders:
> > The ethical is most serious: you assume that human lives can have
> > negative value, and do an essentially utilitarian calculation not
> > of happiness, but simply of utility towards a certain goal.
>
> Anders, first, can you make a reasonable case that lives that
> have as a fundamental raison d'etre the elimination of other
> lives do not have a "negative value"? Second, can you make the
> case that individuals who openly support or fund individuals who
> have as their raison d'etre the elimination of other *innocent*
> individuals from the planet is not of "negative value"?
>
I don't think you can make a reasonable case for "negative
value" at all. You can make a case that some lives are so rabid
and poisonous that the only sane course is to lock the
individuals away or kill them. You can certainly make the
second case as many otherwise seeming sane and even productive
governmental groups do employ killers when they believe it is
necessary. It is sometimes possible to change their belief or
the extent of their belief it is necessary or making doing so
too costly in consequences to leave this option open.
> Bottom line for me -- lives dedicated to the destruction of
> other lives (or supporting the destruction of other lives)
> are clearly unextropic. So my previous post on face value
> is clearly unextropic. [NOTE THIS QUITE CAREFULLY -- I
> HAVE PROPOSED A POTENTIALLY SELF-CONTRADICTORAY SOLUTION
> AND AM WELL AWARE OF THAT.]
>
So all warriors everywhere are unextropic? Come again?
> Anders continues:
> > The core idea of transhumanism is human development, so that we
> > can extend our potential immensely and become something new. This
> > is based on the assumption that human life in whatever form it may
> > be (including potential successor beings) is valuable and worth
> > something in itself. It must not be destroyed, because that
> > destroys what transhumanism strives to preserve and enhance.
>
> Yes, of course, and if my previous note is read carefully, it
> should seem apparent that my desire is to maximize "life".
> Whether the proposed strategy to maximize this is *really*
> optimal is certainly open to significant attack.
>
To optimize life it is necessary to only destroy some living
beings when this is truly essential to increasing life and only
to the extent necessary. The idea of blowing Afghanistan away
is clearly much too heavy-handed.
> However, the discussion of the fastest path to transhumanism
> or the broadest path to transhumanism is not something that
> should be cast aside due to some unsavory bumps along the road.
>
Nuking a country until it glows because we are mad and can't
thing of a better way to handle the situation is not merely an
unsavory bump. It is an admission that we aren't ready to grow
up to any sort of posthuman status. The broad path leads to the
destruction of us all.
> Anders:
> > Even if some humans are not helpful in achieving transhumanity doesn't
> > mean their existence is worthless, and if they are an active
> > hindrance to your (or anybody elses) plans destroying their lives
> > is always wrong as long as they do not initiate force against you.
>
> Ah, but the key perspective is "as long as they do not initiiate
> force against you". We are past that point. They are initiatiating
> force against us in an unextropic perspective that seems to involve
> the support of brain-washed individuals in Afganistan and Pakistan.
>
The entire country is initiating force against us? Every single
man, woman and child? No? Well the government itself has
declared war on us? No? Then on what basis are you talking
about nuking the entire country?
> Anders:
> > The logical mistake is to ignore the full consequences of your
> > idea, and just look at the "desirable" first-order consequences.
> > What you miss is that if this form of "practical genocide" is
> > used, then the likeliehood of other forms of "practical genocide"
> > are becoming far higher and harder to ethically suppress, as well
> > as resistance to the US or other genocidal group is likely to
> > become *far* more violent.
>
> Anders, *I* did not, and it would appear the U.S. military
> officials (at least currently) are not, ignoring the potential
> consequences of bombing Islamic states. My statements were
> carefully made based on estimates that (a) a backlash would
> develop; (b) a response to such a backlash would be moderately
> effective; (c) technologies would develop that would make the
> entire response vs. counter-response irrelevant)
>
> Statements like "or other genocidal group is likely to become *far*
> more violent" ignores the fact that *we* too can become *far* more
> violent.
Great. You propose to use genocide to answer terrorism which
leads to great terrorism and possibly a full jihad which leads
to more genocide and the entire world embroiled in World War
III. Brilliant! NOT!
>
> Anders:
> > This post is going to haunt us all - it is in the archives, it has
> > been sent to hundreds of list participants. Be assured that in a
> > few years, when the current uproar has settled down, somebody is
> > going to drag it out and use it against extropianism in the media.
>
> I've heard this from Anders, and I've heard it from Eliezer
> (as well as the not small number of messages filling my personal
> mailbox)
>
> I must only say that I am shocked and amazed. If one cannot voice
> on the extropian list thoughts, ideas and opinions that one has
> for the maximization of the evolution of our society -- then we
> are doomed. We are implicitly stating that ideas exist that are
> not fit for public consumption or that we would prefer the veneer
> of public approval rather than the debate of rigorous, rational
> discussion.
>
You can voice thoughts, etc. about what maximizes evolution.
And you can expect to have them ripped to shreds if they lead to
a world none of us wants to live in or help build and seem quite
likely to destroy our all our dreams of tomorrow.
We are in a fishbowl here. You can bet your ass that the
enemies of transhumanism will pick up such suggestions and
reasoning and make quite a bit of unextropic hay with them.
There certainly are ideas that are not fit for public discussion
and will have a very, very hard time being taken as "rational".
> Strike me down, tear me to shreads, rip me into tiny pieces --
> but never, never, never argue that my voice should not be heard.
>
I don't say that. But I will say loudly when I think you are
way out to lunch.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:10:45 MST