From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Wed May 15 2002 - 01:48:22 MDT
Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2002, natashavita@earthlink.net wrote:
>
>
>>*&%+ #% !!
>>
> [snip]
>
>>Zeeezzz.
>>
>
> Ditto. As Bradbury's Ninth(*) Law states, "All moral debates
> will be made highly relative in light of the progress of the
> Singularity".
>
> A sufficiently advanced intelligence successfully (rationally)
> argues that its pseudo-copies (children) or forbears (parents)
> share of material/energy resources (e.g. CPU time-slices) are
> suboptimal and they should willingly (extropically) sacrifice
> any natural allocations of such resources to purposes that
> result in the maximization of the overall extropic vector.
>
If that is what we have to look forward to you can count me out.
I will fight such by all means possible.
> The entire children's rights debate we have in our current
> society is an artifact of the way humans reproduce and the
> maturation process we must undergo. If you had the choice
> of designing "human" offspring, why would anyone in their
> right mind choose to expose other humans to such a difficult
> and risky process? Wouldn't children be "born" with the
> experience of as many adults as you could find willing to
> contribute to the process?
>
That is not what the discussion is about. It about the status
of children and their rights or lack of them NOW.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:05 MST