From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Fri Apr 19 2002 - 15:01:47 MDT
Mike Lorrey wrote:
> Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>
>>"What sort of luddites would be moral to kill?" Are you kidding? We
>>can't just kill people because they believe differently than us.
>>
>
> 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.
>
Well, several groups I consider fascists or worse are usually
defended by you so I am not sure if I understand exactly what
you "are on" about. Those who don't mind large groups of people
dying or who think it is just come in many different stripes but
they are all a danger imho.
> 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.
>
I think what is most necessary to human survival is to get over
our apish attitudes and learn to thing in larger terms than our
own group. Higher technology, especially that leading to
intelligence augmentation and fuller abundance, will certainly
help IF enough of us grow a bit in time. Even among extropians
I don't see unambiquous evidence that such growth is forthcoming
or its importance even understood.
Is hawkishness acceptable when its outcome is possibly millions
if not billions of lives? Loaded questions can be asked from
both directions. The greatest sin of omission is a bit of
compassion and living according to what one really believes to
be right.
> 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 intend to do what I can to get through to them about happier
alternatives than they envision. What do *you* intend to do
about it? Wipe them off the deserving to live list? Do you
really believe that most of those who you or even I consider
relatively luddite understand what the alternatives are? If
not do you plan to portray the ignorant as monsters and
therefore perhaps ok to kill?
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:35 MST