From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Thu Apr 18 2002 - 09:00:35 MDT
On Thursday, April 18, 2002, at 09:16 am, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> I suppose that its perfectly acceptable to some to let future genocidal
> fascists continue on until they kill half of the human race or more.
> It's not to me, and it shouldn't be to anyone who actually does give a
> damn about the future and human life.
You misunderstand my message. I have no intention of letting future
genocidal cascists continue on until they kill half of the human race or
more. You falsely assume that if I don't concede to your methods that I
am giving up. On the contrary, I am looking toward science, logic,
rationality and intellect to provide better solutions. I would consider
the act of murdering our opponents to be giving up on our Principles.
>
> My question, though, was to provoke thought. How much do you think an
> extropic future is important, is absolutely necessary to the human
> race's survival? Is passivity and pacifism an acceptable principle when
> it's consequences are counted in billions of lives? Sins of omission of
> such a scale are of far greater weight than sins of commission at an
> individual level.
You propose a false dichotomy. You assume that violence is the only
answer and that by rejecting assassination I am dooming humanity's
future and condemning billions of humans to die. I am sorry that you
have so little faith in the Extropian Principles that you think they
must be abandoned to save lives. I, on the other hand, believe that
only by following our Principles can humanity be saved.
Let me ask you a question, to provoke thought. Why do you consider
yourself to be an Extropian if you think the Principles will doom
humanity? Why do you espouse the Principles in our trivial daily lives,
and yet abandon them when it comes to the big important future? Is the
use of force really the best method that trumps all other human
endeavor? Can science, logic, rationality never triumph over basic
human instinct toward violence?
> If you knew in 1936 what you know now, would killing a few specific
> individuals be morally repugnant or not?
Bad analogy. We can never have magical knowledge of the future. We can
only go through life with what we know up to now. I cannot condone a
pre-emptive strike against Luddites on the theory that we "know" what
the future would be like if they are allowed to live. We do not know
the future. It is hubris to think that we are so infallable and that
they are so obviously wrong that we have the right to sentence them to
death right now. We must actually wait until a clear and present danger
is manifested before the use of deadly force. Eroding that prerequisite
down to the point the we simply kill those with alternate political
beliefs is unacceptable.
There are people on this list now who promote dangerous ideas. Some may
lead us down the road to involuntary uploading. Some have differing
political theories. Some want to turn the earth into computronium.
Should we start a star chamber to start assassinating our own membership
now? What about me? I obviously oppose your plan to assassinate our
enemies. If you feels so certain that this must be done, am I standing
in your way? Should you add me to your list and come and shoot me now?
When will it all end? Where do we draw the line for killing off people
with undesireable belief systems? What about the Pope or other
religious leaders? Are they on your list to be assassinated? What
about the next President if the election doesn't go your way? Our
current President seems determined to outlaw cloning. Is he on the list
now?
> At Extro last summer, when Robert Bradbury said about the luddites, "The
> blood of billions is on their hands", he was not making a rhetorical
> statement. What do YOU intend to do about it? To what ends are you
> willing to go to save billions of lives? What means are you willing to
> accept to achieve those ends?
I keep repeating: The ends does not justify the means. No matter how
vital the end result is, that does not mean I will stop looking for a
solution and take the easy way out. We have time. We don't have to
kill Luddites *before* they take action. We can try to counter their
movement with initiatives like Pro-Act. if that doesn't work, we can
move to a more reasonable country. If that doesn't work, we can move
into international waters or go underground (literally or
figuratively). Maybe eventually we can even move into space. I will
not resort to murder while their are other options available.
> Furthermore, your statements are hopelessly hyperbolic, automatically
> labelling everything I spoke of as 'proposing terrorism'. I did not and
> I demand an apology about that.
OK. I apologize for using the word "terrorism" to describe this
proposal. I really do not believe you are a terrorist. But I am afraid
that your ideas might eventually evolve into terrorism in the hands of
overzealous followers. I will try to use a different word. What do you
propose we call it when a groups kills off the "enemies of humanity"
because they have differing political beliefs and agendas for the future
that do not correspond to what is considered the Truth?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:35 MST