From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Sat Apr 20 2002 - 16:15:27 MDT
Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>
> 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.
Acceptable pre-emptive use of force:
If you see someone point a gun at someone, you can shoot them before
they actually pull the trigger.
If you see or have evidence of someone conspiring to kill someone, and
and they lay in wait to do so, killing them before they actually pull
the trigger is acceptable.
If you know someone has a nuclear weapon, or other stand-off destructive
device, and threatens to use it against you for no reason you have
created, killing them before they a) produce, b) deliver, c) set off,
the weapon is acceptable preemption.
Do you accept any of these circumstances as acceptable pre-emptive use
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.
But we are also dealing with threshold points between population growth
and technological development curves. If the tech curve is retarded to
some degree, the population curve will swamp it.
To respond to Samantha's chiding me for subscribing to the Club of Rome
predictions: If not for technological progress, EVERYTHING that Malthus
and the Club of Rome predicted WOULD come true. Not *might* come true,
WOULD. Technological advancement is the one factor they found impossible
to predict, or did not even consider. Exponential growth of technologies
was never even thought possible by them to the extent it is already
occuring.
On that note, we do not have a cut-off date of 2020 or 2030 or 2040 to
base a drop dead decision on. It is far closer than you think, more like
2005-2010, if not right now. If the Luddites are allowed to retard
technological development even to a fraction of what they want, this
WILL result in a devastation of the human race at least on the scale
predicted by Vernor Vinge in "The Peace War".
Now,
>
> >>> 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.
Well, the Luddites are already committing violence against us, on two
fronts: they are using the martial force of government to ban cloning
and other genetic engineering work on the human, animal, and plant
genomes, as well as the illegal use of terrorism in insurgent action
against specific targets. The second strategy has resulted already in
over $100 million in damage and the deaths of thousands of animals.
By your criteria, it is now acceptable for us to a) lobby for laws
against luddism and luddite tactics, and b) to engage in sabotage
operations against luddite targets.
>
> 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?
As a matter of fact, I do believe the claims of Palestinians have at
least some legitimacy. Only their use of terrorist tactics against
civilians delegitimizes their claims. Their 'first use' of such tactics
is where they are wrong, and you and I agree on such a standard. Nor do
I think that selective, targeted assasination is an unlegitimate tactic,
nor is it terrorism. Note that Israel has pursued a martial strategy of
specifically targeting militants in the ranks of the PA and its
terrorist organs, not against civilians in general. Those who engage in
terrorism make themselves legitimate targets of punitive termination.
This is *entirely* legal under the Laws of War.
> >
> > 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.
When the opposition is using the martial force of government,
non-violence is guaranteed to fail under more circumstances than not.
>
> 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 don't think it's the only option, or even the first or second option.
My questions are to ask what options are you willing to resort to *in
the end*, if *all else fails*.
>
> > 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.
Yet if it is publicly known by the luddites to what ends we are willing
to go, they may be deterred from engaging in confrontation and more
willing to engage in discussion and compromise.
>
> > 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.
a) a lack of agriculture based on genetic engineering will result in
worldwide famine by the middle of the 21st century.
b) a lack of genetic engineering in medicine will result in worldwide
epidemics in the same time frame.
c) a lack of martially superior technology in the hands of extropic
leaning nations will result in "Holy War" type pogroms against
technology advocates, producers, and users, resulting in wars of
genocide, primarily between the muslim world and the western
democracies.
d) a lack of martially superior technology in the hands of individual
transhumans will result in them becoming targeted by witch hunt type
inquisitions. Elimination of transhumans will result in the death of
humanity.
Add to this the permanent deaths caused by laws against cryonics,
cloning, and mind/computer interfacing/uploading, the lives prevented by
bans on cloning and designer offspring, as well as the added risk of
species destruction caused by restrictions on human migration into
space.
>
> 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.
Every genocide of the 20th century was preceded by bans on gun ownership
by the groups that became victims of genocide. It isn't debatable.
> 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.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
"the capitalist will sell us the rope we hang him with"
>
> > 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.
I agree, and I don't think that is what I've said. It can be
convincingly shown that the luddites are already engaged in both overt
and subvert campaigns of force against transhumanist goals. As we sit
around debating whether it exists, not even what to do about it, they
continue to escalate the conflict.
>
> > 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.
Well, I'd like to throw down the gauntlet:
I am willing to dedicate my full time and attention to a peaceful,
non-violent political/PR campaign. As I've said before, I have extensive
experience in mass mail based fund raising campaigns, in advertising
design, and as you will probably agree, provocative political writing.
Based on a seed fund of $75,000 to $100,000, I could raise $1 million or
more for Pro-Act. I could build a grassroots political machine in the
engineering and computer science departments of universities around the
country and internationally, as well as in high tech businesses and
through freelance information workers.
I don't have the money to fund this effort, but I do have the time, and
there are other extropes who do as well. There are also
transhumanist-leaning people on this list and elsewhere who do have the
funds to pledge to this effort. If just the extropians list alone
averaged $300 per person, this campaign could be bootstrapped. It's time
for people to put their money where their mouths are.
To the list:
What can you contribute? Printer time? Envelope licking time? Fine.
The big ticket items are:
a) list rentals
not just any lists. You've got to pick markets where the strongest
support is: engineers, scientists, computer people, libertarians,
political moderates who dislike religious conservatism and dogmatic
environmentalism. Find magazines that cater to these, especially high
income/networth individuals, and rent lists of their subscribers. Find
direct marketers that cater to these: The Edge, Sharper Image, Dell,
Gateway, etc and rent lists of their customers sorted on big customers.
b) printing costs
I, as well as others here, have experience in the printing business and
know 'where the bodies are buried'.
c) mailing costs
Need a non-profit mass mailing permit from the USPS, need to run any
final mail list through a postal pre-sort software application to
generate labels,
d) fulfillment processing
This should be outsourced to fulfillment houses that do this
professionally. They can apply the labels to the promo materials, deal
with mailing, as well as provide call center services for people to
respond by phone, etc...
>
> 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.
Now, heres another question to answer: if violence in our cause is so
abhorrently unacceptable to you and others on the left side of things,
why do you, and others on the left side of things, give such a broad
free pass to the 'violence as a first resort' tactics of the
Palestinians?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:36 MST