From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Sun Apr 21 2002 - 15:58:56 MDT
Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>
> Luddites do not intend any violence toward anyone. Their plan is to
> save lives that might be lost due to dangerous technology. How can we
> kill them for such a lofty goal? Some lives undoubtedly will be lost in
> accidents or side-effects. This means that we are contemplating
> assassinating people who don't plan violence. Furthermore, it involved
> killing people who are trying to save lives because their methods are
> less efficient than ours!
Luddites who lobby for laws outlawing cryonic suspension, assisted
suicide, nanomedicine, and cloning technologies are using the monopoly
force of government to permanently kill people. The French authorities,
for instance, who are attempting to have that French couple thawed, are
guilty of attempted murder, and intend to use the force of government to
do violence to that suspended couple and anyone who gets in their way.
I fail to see how preventing my eventual revival through laws against
development of revival technologies, coupled with legal actions intended
to bankrupt cryonics organizations holding people in suspension, is any
less a homicide than just shooting me.
Passing laws against the use of genetically engineered supercrops which
are needed to fight malnutrition as well as immunization, against the
genetic engineering and cloning of organs for medical therapy, against
the , and against the use of fuels needed for space migration are all
assaults on our lives. Death by pen is no different than death by bullet
(as the saying goes, the pen is the mightier weapon).
>
> > 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.
>
> This may be true, but it is not certain. These kinds of statistical
> predictions are tenuous, as are population explosion theories, pollution
> theories, and global warming theories. These theorists also probably
> felt that they world was doomed if no one followed their
> recommendations. I am glad that they didn't resort to violence to
> enforce their beliefs.
You think they aren't?
>
> > 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.
>
> I think you overestimate the advancement of technology. Is nanotech
> almost ready? Is a universal cancer drug passing clinical trials right
> now? Has cryotechnology brought back a frozen rat? Has an AI announced
> its presence? These things will take years to start saving millions of
> lives after they arrive, and their arrival is not as eminent as you
> predict. What specific scenario do you see killing off the population
> any time soon?
The die-off won't occur till mid to late 21st century, but the
conditions that determine whether or not it occurs then will be
determined this decade (study up on your exponential mathematics), as
reductions in innovation cascades brought about by legislation pushes
outward the potential singularity phase, while the repression required
to achieve this will result in a pervasive spread of ignorance (which
generally causes population increases).
>
> > 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
>
> So you consider bad legislation as an attack justifying deadly force in
> retaliation? Why attack the Luddite lobbyists? Why not go directly
> after congress? Or why not ignore them and go directly after any police
> that try to enforce the ban?
>
> Rather than killing people, I would propose countering the legislation.
> If that fails, we can move to another country. If all countries follow
> suit, we can move offshore or form our own country. If that fails, we
> can work covertly. There is no way to kill everybody with an opposing
> idea. If we start killing off elected officials for bad policy, we will
> have to flee underground anyway. I rather hide scientific research
> rather than be targeted as an assassin terrorist group.
So would I, and your ideas here are all good.
>
> (By the way, my definition of terrorism is when you aren't attacking the
> direct target in self defense, but are instead hoping that terror of
> your actions will scare other people into inaction.)
Yes, though thats still a rather loose definition. Terrorism is to
attack unarmed civilians who are not engaged in action against you, do
not provide sanctuary or support to those engaged in action against you.
This is its definition under the laws of war. Note that this leaves open
a rather wide segment of the civilians who are legitimate targets of
force: those who engage in violence against you, or provide sanctuary or
support to those who do.
>
> > 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.
>
> My criteria would only apply force to the specific eco-terrorists and
> Luddites committing violence. We can't kill off all people who have
> similar beliefs but were not involved in the violence.
Of course not.
>
> > 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.
>
> Some Palestinians are terrorists. They should be fought with violence
> if necessary. We should not support violence against all Palestinians
> because they are in the same race or neighborhood as the terrorists.
The problem with this is that the public acceptance of terrorist tactics
in the Palestinian population is generally or nearly unanimous. They've
been conditioned by the PA propaganda machine to beleive that terrorism
is their only option and that military action against terrorists is
itself terrorism, which it isn't.
>
> > 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*.
>
> This is a trick question that can never be anwered. Your trigger of
> "all else fails" will never occur. Only if all nonviolent means fail
> and only violence can succeed will we get to this point. Your question
> is a self-fulfilling prophesy and a circular loop of logic. It makes an
> assumption, uses it as the basis of the question, such that the only
> answer possible is the one it assumes. You might as well ask if I have
> quit beating my wife yet. Just as the answer to that question is that I
> have never beat my wife, the answer to your question is we will reach
> the point when all else fails.
I don't see how this is that sort of question at all.
>
> Note that I am not defending terrorists or direct violence. Violence
> can be used in direct self-defense. However, when the situation gets so
> contrived that there is no clear direct attempt at violence, I don't
> think it can be so clear that there is no other option. Misguided
> notions can be corrected. Public opinion can be changed. Governments
> can be lobbied. I cannot conceive a situation where the whole world
> turns against us, there is no country left for retreat, and there is no
> chance for further dialog.
Wake up and smell the napalm. There is a near global ban on cloning
already. The world is turning against us.
>
> This is getting extremely close to my definition of terrorism.
If so, then all violence to you is terrorism.
> You hope
> to scare people into suppressing their own opinions and into supporting
> your opinions under threat of violence if they oppose you. That sounds
> like terrorism to me. Your reasoning that this is a last resort when no
> other options are available is the exact line of reasoning that all
> terrorists use. Even if you claim this isn't terrorism, can you
> conceive that all the civilized countries that outlawed us would
> perceive this as terrorism. Do you really think we can fight all the
> militaries in the world, and still save more lives than would be lost?
Are you willing to accept a world that outlaws us?
>
> >>> 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.
>
> This gets even worse as we go down this slippery slope. You aren't 100%
> sure, but only 90% sure. You would put people to death because of
> something that might not happen?
This isn't a court of law, this is cultural warfare. Beyond reasonable
doubt is not required here. Self defense lives on preponderance of
evidence. You never know for 100% sure if the guy with a gun pointed at
you is actually going to shoot. Experience says its more likely than
not, and you defend yourself.
>
> >>> Just as gun control caused 100 million deaths in the
> >>> 20th century, technology control in the 21st will kill many times
> >>> more.
>
> So do you think this justifies assassinating anyone? If so, who? The
> Liberals who supported this idea? The Lobbyists who caused it? The
> Congress who passed it? The President for enforcing it? This is a
> perfect example of your theory. If gun control laws caused 100 million
> deaths, are you claiming that you are now justified to assassinate
> someone? This is not a theoretical example, because you claim it has
> already happened. Anything preventing you from responding with violence
> to this current example should also apply to your future examples.
> Otherwise, you are coming close to condoning assassinations right now
> for events that have already happened.
It is my belief that there are past and present members of congress (and
past presidents) who have committed treason by violating their oaths of
office to defend the Constitution (the ENTIRE Constitution) against all
foreign and domestic enemies, but also acting against the Constitution
themselves, and thus becoming enemies of the Constitution. Treason IS a
capital offense. There are supposed to be legal remedies for these
violations, but the government judicial system has been derelict in its
duty to prosecute such crimes due to subversion by party politics. That
private citizens have not yet sought to remedy this failing themselves
is only testament to how slowly the enemy is pursuing its campaign of
gun control, using the lobster cooking technique of a slow boil.
>
> > 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.
>
> Firstly, I thought you discounted theories of population explosions and
> doom predictions. The population is slowing. Agriculture is getting
> better. Medicine is getting better. It is hard to justify violence
> against things that are getting better just because they aren't getting
> better fast enough.
The population is slowing in countries where education, especially
education of women, is occuring. The education of women is not occuring
fast enough in the muslim world, where the education system teaches
ignorance and superstition, paranoia and propaganda.
In Africa, however, we are already seeing the effects of Malthusian
feedback. While AIDS has decimated, and continues to decimate the
educated class, population continues to explode. Other epidemic diseases
are appearing with increasing frequency and resistance to anti-biotics
and immunization.
>
> Secondly, we can't condone violence against inaction. Your "violence"
> is really inaction and failing to save lives. Can we actually kill
> people because technology isn't implemented?
Jeremy Rifkin and his ilk are not succeeding by being inactive. They are
actively preventing constructive action.
>
> Thirdly, these technologies are already being investigated to some
> extent, and aren't ready for saving the planet yet. You are suggesting
> violence to save technologies that don't exist yet, or might not pan
> out. We hope that all your predictions of great salvation are true, but
> we can't be sure of the specific breakthroughs. What if we use violence
> and then later find out that the breakthroughs take 20 years longer than
> expected? What if something else comes along and saves the planet, and
> our actions were premature?
Because innovation accelerates with cascade effects. As ideas increase,
they spawn an acceleration in the the increase. This is the nature of
singularities. Whether one idea doesnt quite pan out is irrelevant. It
will spawn ten more, which will spawn 100 more, then 1000, etc. such
that one idea prevented by law from being investigated for a decade
results in the loss of 1000-100,000 new ideas in that decade. This is
the guts of how technological singularities are created.
All of the technologies that will be key to our predictions of the
singularity between 2020-2030 are slated for regulation and restriction
on the two-year election cycle plans of luddite groups. Perpetuation of
ignorance by statute also perpetuates higher population growth rates.
This pushes technological singularities outward and malthusian
thresholds forward.
>
> You are predicting non-specific deaths by non-specific people.
When dealing with such large numbers it is hard to be specific in the
span of one email message. As the saying goes, one death is a tragedy, a
million is a statistic. Its hard to be specific when we are just
discussing in general terms. Give me ten grand and four months and I'll
write a white paper on it.
> You
> can't kill people for having a dangerous idea just because somebody
> somewhere might cause harm with that idea.
Talk about not being specific. I would like to be very specific. If
extensive research and intelligence gathering identifies individuals x,
y, and z as instrumental to the luddite cause, I would focus my efforts
first to educating them, buying them off, warning them off, then to
ruining them politically, economically, and personally.
> You can't kill everybody
> with that idea, because this would be mass extermination. Without a
> specific person to target to prevent a specific act, your "enemy" is too
> vague and widespread to target. Who exactly would be targeted if we did
> move against the Luddites?
For example, Jeremy Rifkin, Jerry Mander, and a handful of others have
been instrumental in the funding and organizing of the luddite cause.
Developing some sort of tactics to divert them from the trajectories
they are on (preferably non-violent) would help our cause immeasurably.
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> None of these technologies are ready yet. It is not clear when if ever
> they could start saving lives. I think we have to wait at least until a
> technology works and could save lives before we take lives to defend
> it. Right now, the legislation and politics is still at the discussion
> stage. It is too early for violence. I don't know of any major
> research that has been halted or destroyed because of these actions.
Take the ongoing media bias against cryonics. This doesn't come from
nowhere.
The EU has a ban on cloning, and the US has a ban on stem cell research.
>
> >> 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.
>
> Very tenuous theory. There is no clear way to tell how many lives were
> saved versus how many were lost due to various political theories. This
> is not a clear and present danger, but a vague political clash of
> ideas. I don't think we should take definitive violent actions against
> people for their ideas.
The Warsaw Ghetto wasn't a 'clash of ideas'.
>
> > 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.
>
> We should fight their campaigns with our campaigns. We should counter
> their goals with our goals. We should escalate our side when they
> escalate their side. We should not jump straight to violence against
> people who have not committed violence (yet).
Of course not.
>
> > 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.
>
> This is a wonderful offer, but unfortunately ExI does not have a seed
> fund of $75,000 to $100,000. Unfortunately, money is the real limiting
> factor here, not time.
Yes, it is the limiting factor, and is why I'm throwing down the
gauntlet. ExI membership can't entirely be broke unemployed dot com
workers. There are members who have resources in money, equipment,
office space, bandwidth, etc that they can contribute to the cause.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:36 MST