From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Mon May 27 2002 - 13:58:07 MDT
Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> You are perfectly clear, but inaccurate. The Extropian Principles are
> NOT an arbitrary list of desired goals reached by consensus. They are
> objective realities, repeatably observed, scientifically measurable, and
> statistically provable. demonstrably good. They can be objectively
> defended. They are NOT a consensus document of group opinion.
>
Pardon me but I do not see how the principles, much as I admire
and hold them, are themselves "objective realities". It is a
pretty rarified argument that can turn a principle, principally
as statement of goal and or conduct, into an "objective
reality". They are certainly not qua principles, repeatably
observerable and scientifically measurable. Their application
is. If they can be objectively defended then proceed to do so.
> - Perpetual Progress is an objective fact indicated by history.
> Specific trends really are progressing faster and faster toward the future.
>
Actually waves of progress and regression are obseverable in all
civilizations. Some trends (for ill as well as good
unfortunately) are progressing faster. Others, such as our
holding to liberty in the US, seem to be frankly regressing.
> - Self-Transformation is an objective result of today's technology.
> Humans really are being changed and modified by technology.
>
Yes, they are. It is not altogether clear that the modification
is all for the good in some areas. It is also not clear what
the goals of our self-transformation are.
> - Practical Optimism is a position that is statistical more likely to be
> correct than pessimism, given perpetual progress. If things are really
> getting better, than we really should be optimistic and understand that
> fact.
>
This is a very weak argument for optimism. Optimism as a more
successful strategy overall does not require perpetual progress.
I do not believe that things are getting better universally.
Some things appear to be getting worse, like the level of
civility and liberty in our societies.
> - Intelligent technology really exists and is really making a
> difference. This is not a subjective valuation of technology, but an
> objective measurable trend in technology.
>
Technology is certainly making a difference. No argument there.
But is this really what you would consider a principle?
> - Open Society has been demonstrated by history to be the most effective
> political framework for growth. Most of the above advances have been
> developed in an open society. Competition theory, evolutionary theory,
> game theory and market economics all support this system of society for
> the free exchange of ideas as being the most efficient to date.
>
Growth and beneficial growth can be quite different things. At
the momemnt our economy seems to be a bit cancerous eating the
savings and wealth of the people and throwing many out of work,
out of the medical safety net and out of real participation in
many areas. I do not support the notion that our current
competition theory and market economics have led to anywhere
near the amount of universal benefit that the theory says should
have occurred. Something is wrong.
I utterly support the free exchange of ideas but that is not
what we have in this society and in the developed world. We
have a level of patents and IP retentiveness that is smothering
and perverting progress.
> - Self-Direction has been exemplified by great thinkers throughout
> history. Most advances have come from self-directed thinkers who
> exceeded their environments, rather than state-controlled thinkers who
> worked within the system. Like Open Society, this is a testable
> theorem, and results of analysis are positive.
>
No problem there except most of the citizens are not great
thinkers and are not necessarily very benefitted by
self-direction in all aspects. The "theorem" has not been
adequately tested. The results are not uniformly positive.
> - Rational Thinking has been the basis of the modern technological
> explosion. The scientific method produced repeatable results and can
> predict future observations. Mathematics and logic have allowed
> engineering design to explode exponentially. Methodical thought has
> lead to the systematic search for laws of physics, physical exploration
> of reality, and the development of technology. This method had beaten
> out other methods of non rational thought.
>
Many things have been the basis, but science and technology
based on rational thinking have certainly been key. The methods
are wonderful for those things that can be solved and dealt with
by those methods alone. I am not convinced that covers
everything of value and the conclusion that it does is not
scientifically proven or provable. It is not an inevitable
conclusion.
> None of these concepts are guesses, wishes, or desired consensus goals.
> None of them are subjective or change from culture to culture. Extropy
> is not just an opinion or a position. The Extropian Principles are
> objective trends that actually shape objective reality. These trends
> can be measured, analyzed, proven, and predicted. There is nothing
> subjective or unprovable about these trends.
>
Some of them most certainly are goals and statements of intent.
Extropianism is a position. The interpretation of the trends,
the measurement of their effects (good or ill) and the use of
the principles in life are certainly not all objective. They
are living principles.
> The Extropian Principles literally exist and are objectively
> measurable. I do not see how anybody can argue that they are subjective
> or unsupportable.
The meaning and implications obvious are in part subjective.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:25 MST