From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Thu Apr 18 2002 - 15:31:20 MDT
Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>
> 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.
And I dont. As you noted, "thou shalt not murder" is not in the
principles, nor is there anything in the principles that disavows the
use of rational, proportionate force in defense of human life and an
extropic future.
You falsely assume that using force is somehow 'giving up' on the
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.
And you set a false standard. You assume that a) the libertarian
principle of non-initiation of force means never using force under any
conditions, and b) that this libertarian principle is somehow in the
Extropian Principles. You are wrong on both counts.
>
> 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?
Why do you think that my rhetorical question a) assumes that the
Principles doom humanity, and b) that my question abandons them, and
that c) I think that force is the *best* method that trumps all other
human endeavor?
On the last question, I can say that when law prevents science, logic
and rationality from even attempting to try, those who propose,
advocate, and pass such laws do become genocidal fascists.
>
> > 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.
I never said that this would be the first strategy. I was merely asking
you (and the rest of the list) to ask yourself what acts you are
yourself willing to engage in, under what circumstances, to save the
human race from luddism.
I can say that if even 1/4 of our most general predictions come true
(especially those which the luddites agree will occur), then a luddite
control of the future will cause the deaths of half the human race to a
90%+ probability. Just as gun control caused 100 million deaths in the
20th century, technology control in the 21st will kill many times more.
What are you willing to do to prevent those deaths from occuring?
>
> 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?
Now you are just being silly.
>
> > 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.
Neither will I. However, I am rather disappointed in Pro-Act. It has
been a year since it's been allegedly founded, yet it has really
achieved absolutely nothing so far. I have offered my services on
multiple occasions with *absolutely no response*. As far as I can tell,
it has little or no budget, no fundraising apparatus, no publications or
press releases, position papers and outside of a minor mention in one
online article by the opposition, has attracted zero attention from the
enemy. It seems to me that all Pro-Act has accomplished is to help
perpetuate a hands-off lackadaisical attitude in the general
transhumanist community to defuse our just anger at the current
domination of the public technology agenda by the luddites.
>
> > 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?
You were improperly assuming that my rhetorical questions composed an
agenda.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:35 MST