From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Thu May 23 2002 - 23:42:47 MDT
On Thursday, May 23, 2002, at 08:54 pm, Samantha Atkins wrote:
> Phil Osborn wrote:
>> It's rather fascinating how many off-post emails of
>> support I've gotten - all from men so far who wish to
>> remain unnamed. This has happened in previous
>> discussions of a similar nature on the extropy list.
>
> I find that quite discouraging.
Me too. I thought people supported the Extropian Principles and the
general increase of extropy. But apparently there is a small but
insistent faction that does not support eh Extropian Principles and
suggests certain actions that generally decrease extropy.
Don't we believe in Perpetual Progress -- Seeking more intelligence,
wisdom, and effectiveness, an indefinite lifespan, and the removal of
political, cultural, biological, and psychological limits to
self-actualization and self-realization?
How can extropians assume that an infant will never progress to amount
to anything? How can extropians deny an infant the ability to seek more
intelligence, wisdom and effectiveness when we demand these things for
ourselves? How can extropians cut short the life of an infant while we
ourselves demand immortality?
Don't we believe in Self-Transformation -- Affirming continual moral,
intellectual, and physical self-improvement, through critical and
creative thinking, personal responsibility, and experimentation. Seeking
biological and neurological augmentation along with emotional and
psychological refinement?
How can extropians assume that an infant won't self-transform into
something better, or prevent it from augmenting itself with emotional
and psychological refinement when we demand these for ourselves?
Don't we believe in Practical Optimism -- Fueling action with positive
expectations. Adopting a rational, action-based optimism, in place of
both blind faith and stagnant pessimism.
How can we be so un-optimistic about the value of an infant?
Don't we believe in Intelligent Technology -- Applying science and
technology creatively to transcend "natural" limits imposed by our
biological heritage, culture, and environment. Seeing technology not as
an end in itself but as an effective means towards the improvement of
life?
Doesn't this raise the possible future value of infants even more than
before? Shouldn't extropians be even more convinced that a human
potential can be improved beyond its current natural limitations?
Shouldn't we be improving its life rather than ending it?
Don't we believe in Self-Direction -- Seeking independent thinking,
individual freedom, personal responsibility, self-direction,
self-esteem, and respect for others?
How can extropians abort the independent thinking, individual freedom,
personal responsibility and self-direction for an infant when we demand
these things for ourselves? How can we claim to respect others while
terminating infants because we have no use for them?
In summary, I don't see how these "ideas" can even be contemplated
without rejecting most if not all of the Extropian Principles and
various ideals supporting them. I don't see how extropians, especially,
can ignore the future potential for improvement, or worse yet, actively
work to prevent any future improvement from being realized. These are
definitely not Extropian ideas.
People can feel free to believe in whatever they want, but at least get
the definitions right. Extropic is to increase a system's intelligence,
information, order, vitality, and capacity for improvement. Entropic is
to decrease or destroy a system's intelligence, information, order,
vitality, and capacity for improvement. Does killing an infant increase
or decrease it's intelligence, information, order, vitality, and
capacity for improvement? It seems obvious that this is entropic and
not extropic, Anti-Extropian and not Extropian.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:19 MST