From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Fri Apr 19 2002 - 00:52:41 MDT
On Thursday, April 18, 2002, at 05:31 pm, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>
> 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.
I thought that the concept of "defense" required a clear attack to
defend against. I think you are talking about pre-emptive strikes by
killing Luddites because their movement will harm the future, but not
because the specific Luddite killed was currently initiating any
specific violence. In such a scenario, I would consider our side to be
the attacker or the initiator of force.
> You falsely assume that using force is somehow 'giving up' on the
> Principles.
I believe that you agree that violence is to be used as a last resort.
By resorting to violence, I believe you are giving up hope that any
other methods will succeed. I think each of the Extropian Principles
must be determined to be a nonviable solution before the final resort of
violence is used. Thus, I consider this last resort to be equivalent of
giving up on the other 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.
No, it means never initiating force. Until the Luddites specifically do
violence to us, I don't think we can do violence in return. If we do
violence first, we would be initiating force where none had been used
before. I do believe that this would run counter to the Principles of
Libertarianism.
I do agree that your argument of no other recourse is compelling.
However, I do not believe that this will actually happen. I am not sure
it is even theoretically possible to know or prove that all possible
options have been tried and failed. In any case, I am pretty sure that
we have not reached that point yet.
Again, I concede that given your premise, this might be an acceptable
response. But to be more specific, I do not think your trigger scenario
will happen or is even possible. I believe that there will always be
further options without resorting to violence.
Just as a thought experiment, don't you think that your line of
reasoning is exactly what the suicide bombers are claiming? I am sure
that you do not agree with them, nor do I think you are like them. But
train of thought leading up to the violence seems to be the same
argument that every violent person uses. They claim there is no other
way and that they had to do what they did. What would be different in
our case versus theirs? Is it just the knowledge that we are "right"
while they were "wrong", or is there a different logic or criteria at
work here?
>> 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.
I am assuming that your only resort to violence as a last resort.
Therefore, if you propose such violence, I am assuming that you think
nonviolence will fail.
I probably shouldn't have implied that you thought violence was the
"best" method. What I meant to say is that your "best" or "preferred"
methods are predicted to fail such that the "non-best" method of
violence becomes the lesser of two evils. I do understand that you
don't prefer violence or consider it best, just that you think it is the
only option that will work in such extreme cases.
> 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.
OK. I think I have answered. And I do understand that this is a
thought provoking question. I don't really think you are proposing this
(yet). But the discussion may lead to ground-setting precedence in the
future. Future actions are based on past philosophies. Most religious
conflicts bear this out. If we decide that violence may be the answer
in certain cases, then people will be primed and ready to use violence
when those cases occur. This concerns me because I disagree that
violence is the answer, and do not think those cases will ever actually
occur.
> 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.
Let's clarify here. Are you talking about new deaths, or more deaths
than are occuring now? If so, exactly how does this come about in your
scenario? Or are you talking about not extending current lives or not
saving more lives than are saved now? There is a difference between
killing someone who would not have otherwise died, and merely not saving
someone who would have died under most normal circumstances. For
example, are you calling lack of cloning the same as deaths, or lack of
life extension the same as premature deaths, or lack of uploads as
deaths? This becomes a lighter argument, in my opinion, because we are
talking about the loss of theoretical extra lives or extra years that
aren't available yet. There is a chance that they never could become
available.
If this argument is about a lack of life saving as opposed to actual
killing or additional deaths or shortening of natural lifespan, I think
it is even more unreasonable to use violence to counter a theoretical
lack of gain. It is like trying to sue for lost wages at a business
that never really made money. Or suing for sterility over the loss of
children that never existed. Or even more provocatively, this is like
considering abortion murder for the loss of a being that might have been
but never was. Are these the "deaths" you are referencing, the
theoretical life-extensionists, the uploads, the clones, or the new
miraculously saved humans? Or is there expected to be killing or
premature deaths or a shortening of normal life-span that I am missing
here?
Your gun control example is a perfect example of what I am talking
about. I think it is debatable to say that gun control has caused 100
million deaths. If you decided to assassinate congress members who
support gun control as "self-defense" of 100 million people in the
future, I would think that this was a spurious claim. The debatable
number of theoretical deaths that may or may not really occur at some
time in the future are not enough justification of violence toward a
congress person who believes in gun control and has never initiated
violence against anyone. The cause and effect is too theoretical and
too distant to count as self-defense in my book.
> Now you are just being silly.
Yes, but I think I was pointing out the slippery slope problem when we
start killing people for their ideas instead of their direct actions.
Many people have very dangerous ideas that could destroy all of humanity
if they were to be implemented. But I think we must wait until the
threat of imminent violence before we can respond with violence. A
pre-emptive strike to kill an idea just in case it might take over
public opinion is too premature.
> 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.
I agree with this 100%. I have been very discouraged at our general
ineffectiveness on a number of fronts. I think this difficulty is our
biggest problem. Almost all of our activities boil down to
spin-doctoring, in the form of web sites and mailing lists, PR releases
and interviews. I think this topic needs a whole other discussion about
what we should do and how we should do it. I am sure that no one
deliberately ignored your offers to help out of a desire to make Pro-Act
ineffectual. The problems are as you describe. Everyone is overworked,
underpaid, too busy, and have no time or resources to make a real
impact. Little bursts of activity here and there look promising and
generate great ideas, but we don't have the resources to sustain them.
This is nobody's particular fault. But I do think something has to
change somehow, but I don't know what. I don't know if we need to
pursue better funding, clearer goals, better organization and planning,
different agendas, public support, or what.
>>> 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.
I apologize. I do get overzealous and excited on certain topics. I
think I have responded too literally to your suppositions, and I think
you probably have responded too defensively to my critiques. Besides
the ineffectual progress problem mentioned before, I think the
difficulty of debate over e-mail is our second biggest problem. It may
be our monkey genes, or it may be the medium of e-mail, or it may be
inevitable. Humans get emotional when the argue and disagree. It gets
worse when basic core assumptions are challenged or opposed. It is even
worse in our case where very intelligent and creative individuals
deserving of respect in all sorts of different areas oppose such issues
that seem obvious to our own personal beliefs. We can't just ignore
such differences, since we want to work together and plan an extended
future of cooperation and accomplishment. This makes it ever more vital
and more frustrating to disagree. So we try harder, and we keep trying,
and we just won't quit trying to rehash the same issue indefinitely,
trying to find some common ground or at least some understanding.
I think it is like a love-hate relationship. The more we respect the
person, and the more we dislike the idea, the greater the discontinuity
appears, and the more emotional our response is, as is our desire to
figure out some resolution. My past arguments with you about gun
control have not been because I seek out gun issues to oppose. This
never comes up elsewhere in my life. It is more because I do respect
you and see you as creative and intelligent. It therefore is even more
surprising that my knee-jerk reaction to an issue does not match yours.
I challenge your statements, not so much to attack you, but to test the
solidity of your data, to further explore the reasoning behind the
positions, and better understand the opposing viewpoint. These kinds of
discussion should be learning experiences and attempts to build
cooperation between different viewpoints. Unfortunately, human nature
makes them quickly degenerate into emotional battles where
communications is the first casualty.
As an example, I have learned a lot from this exchange with you. I
don't really think you are a trigger-happy assassin looking for an
excuse to start blowing Luddites away. Your rhetorical question of
where to draw the line was intriguing and thought-provoking. Although
we each have different ideas, and may never agree, I think we have both
express our reasonings and have laid out a whole strategy or scenario
for our positions. I fully understand your position, and it is
reasonable and logical within its framework. I think I have isolated
the specific key difference, which would be when we can decide that we
have tried every nonviolent action and that only violence remains. This
could be an area for further research to determine that answer. We
currently have our inexact gut-feelings giving us different answers.
But we both are hopefully better at understanding alternate viewpoints,
or at least can anticipate future objections to such a scenario when
they occur again.
Sorry for such a long post. As you can tell, I have been thinking a lot
about our movement's ineffectiveness and our difficulties in
communications. I waver between frustration and discouragement, and
between bitching and philosophising. Sometimes I don't know whether to
give up or strive harder. Giving up seems easier, but in the end
striving harder always wins out. I don't know why.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:36 MST