From: Hal Finney (hal@finney.org)
Date: Mon May 27 2002 - 13:35:23 MDT
Harvey writes:
> It may be that anybody who proposes more action would be branded as a
> radical. Anybody who proposes more caution would be branded a Luddite.
> Anybody who proposes more development would be branded a destroyer of
> the environment. Anybody who proposes less development would be branded
> an ecoterrorist. Anybody who proposes self-help would be branded an
> unsympathetic anarchist. Anybody who proposes outside help would be
> branded a pro-government socialist. Maybe we only have superficial
> agreements, like computers and freedom, with no agreement about what we
> are going to do with our computers and freedom.
If you look for differences, you can find them. But if you look for
points of common agreement, you can find those as well. It is natural in
any group for the differences to be visible; our perceptions are optimized
for seeing differences, because that is where the information lies.
But imagine how this list would be if a random sampling of people from
the world were present, or if we invited followers of Fukuyama to engage
in debate here. Clearly the differences among Extropians would shrink
to insignificance compared to the gulf that separates us from others.
We should work to engage one another in a constructive mode rather than
always looking for commentary which we disagree with. Unfortunately the
mailing list format tends to reward conflict. If you criticize someone
you are more likely to get a response than if you embrace what they say
and extend it or offer new ideas.
A mailing list thread is something like a memetic lifeform.
It successfully reproduces when it triggers a response. The mailing
list archives fill up with organisms which are the most prolific at
reproducing. But we can control this if we post thoughtfully and help
with the reproduction of those messages which are worth reading.
Our recent discussions have been highly contentious. It might be
good to step back and review what this activity has accomplished.
Did anyone learn something positive from it? Were minds changed, were
people enlightened? I suspect it was on balance a negative influence,
leading to angry argument, polarization and resentment.
We don't have to engage in constant exchanges of refutation and
rebuttal. There are other forms of discourse which can be productive
and informative. I'd like to see more brainstorming, more creativity,
more practical ideas on how to improve our lives and our prospects for
the future. That would be a better use of our time than argumentation
and debate.
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:25 MST