From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Tue Mar 19 2002 - 14:56:04 MST
John B wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> I hope I'm not going to step on anyone's toes, but
> I've a few questions on transhumanism.
snip..
>
> The aforementioned philosophy is summarised in several
> points, which I have taken the liberty of quoting
> below.
>
> "1. Perpetual Progress - snip"
>
> At what cost? Every path you take means you're not
> going down a different path. What paths have
> been/are/will be passed over instead of going down the
> path of perpetual progress?
The point is that each individual should be free to determine their own
path, no matter what that path may be, so long as it doesn't harm
others. We want all paths to be available for all, not just for one.
>
> That sounds negative, which is NOT my intent - merely,
> there's a purpose for stability, for progress, even
> (perhaps especially) for backsliding/entropy/etc. When
> you choose one, the other(s) suffer. Not saying that
> this is a bad thing, but I do wonder what other goals
> have been sidelined in place of perpetual growth.
So long as it is left to the individual to choose their path, they can
choose to live in stasis, progress, regress, etc.
>
> "2. Self-Transformation - Affirming continual moral,
> intellectual, and physical self- improvement, through
> critical and creative thinking, personal
> responsibility, and experimentation. Seeking
> biological and neurological augmentation along with
> emotional and psychological refinement."
>
> Is the order of self-improvements intentional?
> Least-important to most-important, or vice versa, or
> all important? What if they conflict - which takes
> precedence?
No order intended. Priority is left to the individual to decide.
>
> "3. Practical Optimism - Fueling action with positive
> expectations. Adopting a rational, action- based
> optimism, in place of both blind faith and stagnant
> pessimism."
>
> What about faith in the general goodness of humanity -
> which everything I've yet seen in transhumanism seems
> to implicitly include.
>
> What about cautious pessimism, that keeps you from
> destroying a top-rate mind with a poorly understood
> experiment?
>
> My point is, is that this is a shades-of-grey
> spectrum, not black & white. Practical optimism's a
> great concept, IMHO, even if I may be seen as
> pessimistic.
That is why its practical rather than pollyannish. Practical optimism
takes into account that while most people try to be good most of the
time, there are and will always be exceptions. We just don't think that
everyone should be dunned all the time because of the occasional bad
acts of a few.
We think that the world should be structured in a way that trusts people
to be innocent until they do something bad, to use technology safely
until they, as individuals, do not do so.
>
> "4. Intelligent Technology - Applying science and
> technology creatively to transcend "natural" limits
> imposed by our biological heritage, culture, and
> environment. Seeing technology not as an end in itself
> but as an effective means towards the improvement of
> life."
>
> *nod* & *applause*. Tool USE, not becoming tools. This
> is a wonderful statement, IMHO.
Yes, and it seriously delineates extropians from the more BORG-oriented
types.
>
> "5. Open Society - Supporting social orders that
> foster freedom of speech, freedom of action, and
> experimentation. Opposing authoritarian social control
> and favoring the rule of law and decentralization of
> power. Preferring bargaining over battling, and
> exchange over compulsion. Openness to improvement
> rather than a static utopia."
>
> The previous comment about the faith in the goodness
> inherent in the human beast applies here, IMHO.
>
> Also - a general question when I start seeing the word
> 'freedom' tossed around - what about your
> RESPONSIBILITIES? Are you responsible for your
> neighbor's action? No? Then who helps you when your
> other neighbor's "freedom of action" starts to be
> applied to your nose, or dog, or daughter?
I am assuming that you are an American (please correct me if I am
wrong). In the US, at least, it has always been your own responsibility
to defend yourself against the offenses of others (numerous Supreme
Court decisions can be cited). The alleged police motto of 'to protect
and serve' is untruth, propaganda, without substance. Outside of this,
under the UN UDoHR, the right of self defense is a recognised human
right.
We as extropians 'supporting social orders' that promote open society
therefore support the right (and concommittant responsibility) for the
individual to defend themselves against the improper initiation of
coersion.
>
> As for experimentation, that goes literally without
> saying. The trick is experimentation without
> inappropriate repercussion. Example - a woman walking
> around without a veil/purdah in a fundamentalist
> Islamic state: Should she be beaten? Is that an
> appropriate response to her experimentation? I'm
> pretty sure that one dose of the cane prevents most
> further experimentation along those lines! However,
> you can stop experimentation by the human creature by
> either 1) complete and utter control, or 2) death. We
> question, and in questioning experiment, and in
> experimenting, learn.
Fundamentalist islamist societies have been a bane on the individual for
many centuries, and on this list there has been regular comment against
the sort of coersion that occurs in such societies for a number of
years.
However, IF an individual chooses to belong to such a society, to
believe in such a society, they are consenting to the above described
repression. If they are trapped, unable to leave, that is certainly the
case with a large number of the women in the muslim world, that is
another case. However I find it rather interesting that so many Afghan
women are freely choosing to continue to wear the burkha. Makes you
wonder who it is that is actually feeling repressed.
>
> "6. Self-Direction - Seeking independent thinking,
> individual freedom, personal responsibility,
> self-direction, self-esteem, and respect for others."
>
> OK, throw out the old mores that brought us this far
> and start fresh. *wry grin* I know, not quite what is
> meant - more like, throw out the parts we don't like
> and keep going. Question - WHO DECIDES? And again,
> what happens when your neighbor's choice(s) threaten
> you, either directly or through your loved ones?
We generally follow the small 'l' libertarian principle of
non-initiation of violence. This is not an absolutist pacifism. You are
free to use proportionate force against one who initiates force against
you. Your neighbor's right to swing his fist ends at your nose.
I, and many others here, are generally opposed to the idea that freedom
means that a strict moralist should be free to impose their morals on
others. A landlord who engages publicly in commerce shouldn't be able to
grant or deny housing to those who engage in activities they disagree
with (though whether such activities are legal is another point
entirely), any more than you should be able to refuse service to someone
who is black, or female, or foreign, etc. if you engage in public
commerce. Private commerce is something else entirely, and generally,
obviously, it can at times be difficult to delineate between the two.
You may be free to deny service to others, but if so, then those others
are free to tell the world about it, and if the rest of the world denies
service to you as a result, well, then, that is your problem, isn't it?
>
> "7. Rational Thinking - Favoring reason over blind
> faith and questioning over dogma. Remaining open to
> challenges to our beliefs and practices in pursuit of
> perpetual improvement. Welcoming criticism of our
> existing beliefs while being open to new ideas."
>
> In general I strongly agree with this point.
>
> I hope that the members of this list will not take
> this as an attack on their beliefs - such is not the
> intent. Rather, these are concerns I have regarding
> the aforementioned document, and I'd like some help
> resolving them.
I generally don't see this as any sort of attack, merely questions about
finer points of interpretation.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:02 MST