From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Thu Oct 18 2001 - 01:36:42 MDT
Randy Smith wrote:
> This issue has NOTHING to do with genealogy! It has to do with long term
> future of this country, and the short term future of our wallets.
It has *everything* to do with genealogy. The United States of
America is a nation built on the genes of risk-takers. The people
willing to say -- "I am willing to give up my family, my friends,
the tribe that I 'know' -- and risk myself in a situation where
there may be no family, few friends and a hostile tribe."
If you do not believe that risk taking vs. playing it safe is a
genetic characteristic, then I'd suggest you consider reviewing
the literature. It is *fundamentally* built into all animals
where there is a social hierarchy -- when beta males decide to
challenge alpha males, when females decide to cheat on their
mates in hopes of obtaining better genetic resources at the
risk of losing the commitment of lesser males -- willingness
to take risk goes to the heart of whether species are successful
or become extinct. It goes all the way back to bacteria in
which there is a genetically programmed "SOS response".
Your genome makes a decision -- If the current genetic program
is not working to promote your survival and reproduction --
then change it! Evolving upwards into humans involves
decisions whether to risk oneself in "war" (to capture mates
or secure those you already have) or to leave a secure
environment (where reproductive opportunities are dismal)
for an environment where the opportunities might be signifcantly
better. Those genetic programs still operate within our
personna.
"It has to do with long term future of this country"
-- Make the case that the U.S.A. is 100% likely to produce the
most extropic future and I will agree with you.
"the short term future of our wallets"
-- A claim with no linkage to extropianism unless you can make a
strong assertion that preserving *your* income is in some way
more extropic than allowing an immigrant to take your place
(at a lower *or* higher salary).
BE FOREWARNED! I will assert that unless an individual is at
the core of their being attempting to *ELIMINATE* their "job"
they are not being extropic. Anders should be attempting to
develop agents that utilize a much smaller allocation of
matter/energy to do everything he currently does -- so he can
move onto much more difficult problems. The Extropian motto
should be "Do more with less". When you can devote fewer
resources towards the things that one "must" do -- then you
can devote more resources towards the things that one would
"like" to do (evolving greater complexity).
> The Extropy game is *supposed* to be about keeping our precious
> brain matter from the ravages of Entropy....
Randy, if you *really* believe this then you misunderstand
extropianism. Extropianism cannot coexist with extreme
survivalism. The above argument is the same as saying
"No, no, don't eat that ear of corn -- it is an expression
of nature creating the organized complexity of an ear
of corn, you should not destroy it to create something
potentially more complex (e.g. organized thoughts within a human
brain)."
There may be a pseudo-extropian perspective in which rational
debate says "I am complex" therefore "I should survive".
But everything is relative. If you fail to keep up with
the singularity then you face the "weakest link" scenario.
I am looking at you Randy, staring you straight in the eye,
saying "*Are* you the *most* complex expression of the matter
and energy used to sustain a complex instantation?"
If you cannot lay claim that you are the *most* complex
instantiation with the fewest resources then people may turn
to look at you and say "YOU *ARE* THE WEAKEST LINK -- GOODBYE".
It isn't *really* an important discussion now since we are not
anywhere close to a resource constrained environment. Discussions
of how one values or devalues immigrants are currently rather
unimportant in terms of how significant the discussions should
be with regard to determining whether or not such individuals
are over the long term "trustable". It becomes a question of
what complexification benefit one derives from trustable
individuals vis-a-vis untrustable individuals. Using a very
*gross* estimate I would say one would have to base this
roughly on the number of immigrants in the U.S. vs. the
number who were involved in the recent attacks. I would
guess that "most" are trustable and a few are not. Our emphasis
should be devoted towards determining the characteristics
of those who are not trustable.
I'm going to end this comment for now because it is late.
But for Randy and people who think similarly, I would
ask you to consider --
"You must give up everything you are for what you might become".
If you are grasping at straws now -- its likely to only get
worse in the future.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:11:28 MST