From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sun Apr 21 2002 - 00:47:05 MDT
Mike Lorrey wrote:
> Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>
>>
>
> 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.
Only sometimes and you may or may not be held blameless or
deserve to be depending on a whole stack of circumstances
> 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 they are conspiring they either are or are not serious. Your
evidence may or may not be adequate to be legally actionable.
> 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.
>
If you did this you would be in great danger of a larger nuclear
exchange. By this logic both the US and Russia should have
advocated first strike.
What do you mean by "for no reason". Not many are simply
psychotic enough to lob a nuke for literally no reason. Many
might consider it for what they believe are good reasons. You
might not agree with these reasons.
Without a declaration of war it is not ok to do preemptive
strikes on other sovereign countries.
> Do you accept any of these circumstances as acceptable pre-emptive use
> of force?
>
I often lean strongly toward non-violence myself but when I
don't I would see some of them as possible acceptable with the
serious caveats and matters of right and legality listed.
>
>>>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.
>
It is always retarded "to some degree". Does that means we
should consider killing those we perceive as in our way?
> 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.
Technological progress is one thing. We are already getting a
lot of technological progress. Progress sufficient for a
Singularity is something else again. Do you take the position
that Club of Rome predictions are true if we don't get to a
Singularity as quickly as possible? We already have more than
sufficient technology for me to think it unlikely that Club of
Rome scenarious are a likely worldwide catastrophe for some time.
>
> 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".
>
Why on earth would you predict it is as soon as 3 years that the
"drop dead" decision occurs? I don't get your logic. Which
"luddites"? Many simply say, "Hey, wait a minute. Can we think
about this more?" Only a handful actually wish to turn back
technology which I agree would likely be deadly. It is not at
all clear to me that the current battles over human cloning
(including all variants) and genetic engineered plants spell the
doom of us all so certainly that we need to consider termination
of the arguments with extreme prejudice.
What will give a major hiatus is if we don't stop some of our
war-like ways throwing us into unending conflict and
considerable loss of the freedom essential to scientific
innovation and technological advance. On that one you and I
appear often to be on opposite sides of the ideological fence.
With considerable respect, you quite often think like a soldier.
That is not good when armed conflict is not what is needed and
may actually be diametrically opposed to what is needed.
>
>>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.
>
One of the dangers of governments is that the machinery of the
State may be commanded by those opposed to our objectives. But
this if far from an instance of "committing violence" in any
rational political philosophy. Yes the State is in many ways
unjust and has usurped far too much power. But it is a
dangerous path to claim that passing laws is violence on our
person and that we should respond or are perfectly justified in
responding violently. Do you actually mean to say this?
> 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.
>
It is of course ok to use democratic means to fight
democratically sanctioned injustice. I don't see how Harvey or
anyone else said it was ok to practice sabotage, for "us" or
"them".
>
>>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
Means cannot delegitimize a legitimate complaint, ever. By your
logic all claims of the Israelis are also illegitimate by now.
Do you agree with that? And all claims of the US to be
impartial workers for peace in the area are illegitimate since
the Israelis are bearing American arms that we, including you
and I, subsidize to the tune of 3.6 billion dollars a year.
> 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.
>
What do you call them flying Apaches and Blackhawks around
civilian camps for days on end and firing endless machine gun
rounds and missles at the village at large? I certainly don't
call it lawful military action. It is not legal under any "laws
of war" that are worth the paper they are written on.
>>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.
>
Actually, we aren't at that point yet. And, if you read your
history, there are many incidents of non-violence triumphing
over the full power of even mad States.
>>>
>>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.
>
Or the government may track us and bug the hell out of us a lot
more thoroughly than they would otherwise because there is some
noise about us taking up arms to ensure we get to Singularity.
That puts us squarely on the possible terrorist list. If we get
a bit more on such lists then it is far more easy to discredit
extropianism and transhumanism than it would be otherwise. Do
you think the possible "deterrence" is greater than or justifies
the risks of the other possible consequences?
>>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.
>
I need to see more argument here. The current crops are
adequate to the best of my knowledge to avoid this that soon.
More than a few engineered crops are already in large scale
production.
> b) a lack of genetic engineering in medicine will result in worldwide
> epidemics in the same time frame.
>
There is no way you can say "will result" with that much
assurance about this subject in that time frame unless you know
something most of us don't.
> 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.
>
News Flash. There is no such thing at this time as an "extropic
leaning nation". Technology advocates are not seen as the
enemy. Greedy, heartless organizations that are raping many
countries of everything are seen as the enemy of said countries
and peoples. I don't consider such greed and short-sightedness
to be in the least "extropic". There is a large need to
distinquish a bit finer than whether a group or people believe
in high tech or not. Belief in high technology does not
automatically make anyone or any group trustworthy. I do not
believe for a second that Muslim vs. Western Democracy is the
likely big conflict.
> 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.
>
This is a paranoid fantasy. There is no reason that transhumans
should be anyone's target of choice.
> 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.
>
There are no real "luddite" restrictions on space migration and
for reasons that have been well presented here it is probably
not a very viable option for the time being anyway. There is no
law particularly against mind/comptuer interfacing. Uploading
is barely a gleam in some of our eyes so there is no serious
opposition to it yet. There are not so much laws against
cryonics AFAIK (in the US anyway) as there are laws that
sometimes make it difficult to do well because the issues are
not taken that seriously yet and pre-cyronics laws are still in
the way. Cloning has potential to save lives in many of its
forms and the battle is still on to get it past the evil memetic
imagery playing in many minds. This whole set of things is not
exactly an organized attempt to end all our dreams and again,
does not justify taking up arms as far as I can see.
>>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"
>
Hmmm. That didn't really answer the above point. Did it?
>
> 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.
>
You have not shown this unless you count the force of law. But
that kind of force doesn't count for your current argument
unless you wish to preach full revolution.
So what are you saying we should do about it? Use force? If
so, in what ways would you recommend?
>
> 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.
>
I would support this. Certainly with funds, with some time, and
with some writing/research efforts where needed.
>
> 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?
>
Please, drop the silly and unfruitful designations such as
"left" and "right". Both we and our world are a great deal more
complex than that.
I don't give a "broad free pass" to any such thing and neither
does anyone else of different opinion than you on the subject.
But I very much do understand why some of them would believe the
situation is desperate enought that they would resort to such
means. I understand that a lot better than I understand why the
Israelis would blast the hell out of a civilian camp using many
times over superior force for days on end and bulldoze the
rubble and many of the bodies of the dead civilians. I don't
understand why some of us apparently consider such atrocities to
be simply "just desserts". I don't understand is why some can
justify the actions of the Israelis almost totally but think
there is absolutely no justification for the rage and violence
of the Palestinians at all.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:36 MST