From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sat Aug 17 2002 - 13:28:08 MDT
Anders writes
> On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 02:56:24AM -0400, Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>
> > No, what you are doing is destroying the transhumanist movement from the
> > inside. ...[Our] rantings will be quoted as representative... of the
> > transhumanist movement. The are all in the archive. They get served
> > up by Google.
>
> Unfortunately, I have to agree with a 'me too' to this. Transhumanism as
> a movement hinges on the good ideas of its members. Stupid ideas kill it.
I think that this is pushing our self-consciousness to an extreme.
We're not so important as we think, and unless there was a steady
drum beat of really wacko stuff here---which would quickly drive
away all thoughtful posts---we are in no way going to *doom* the
Extropian or Transhumanist movements by our remarks.
> Radical thought experiments are often useful, and I think there is a
> merit in exploring what to do if a major city gets nuked - the threat is
> real, and we better examine options. But when suggesting responses they
> better be based in reality instead of the same kind of fantasy as was
> mentioned in the (excellent) article quoted by Carlos Gonzalia as
> driving the jihaddis.
Yes; but that may be easier said that done. Determining just
what is sensible and what is "criminally deranged" is what
these discussions are all about.
> I have noted that the quality of foreign policy ideas posted here
> generally tends to be notably low; while there are some quite advanced
> threads on science, people in general here does not seem to be well
> versed in political science, law or history (the fields most relevant to
> saying anything useful about this kind of issue).
While that's true---for example, in my own case I know vastly
more about history than about political science---I disagree
that this is the problem. For one could easily find a huge
number of bonafide experts (some in the Bush administration,
for example) that would take one side, and an equally impressive
number of experts that would take the other side. Were it only
a matter of expertise then one wouldn't expect these ideologically
tinged discussions to persist for decades No, the issues are
really deep, and relate to values.
> A good discussion makes people bring up arguments for various
> positions, and then they are tested and refined. In the end we
> will have learned something useful from it. But a debate of
> opinions is just about showing the passion of views and does
> seldom lead to any clarity.
That's for sure! I know several posters who merely rant, or
shrilly denounce their opposite numbers instead of trying to
understand them. (I myself am now denounced as a "troller"
in some quarters, and my contributions beneath notice.)
> Here is a suggestion to turn this thread into something useful: increase
> the abstraction level to cool things down. Instead of assuming the nuke
> to have been delivered by some specific Muslim countries (which anyway
> makes the issue far more trivial), assume it was delivered by a global
> ideological network of some kind. Let's ignore what their ideology is,
> the important factor is that these people exist in and are citizens of
> many countries (including the US) and they are not trivial to spot.
Very good. (But I'd add this as an *additional* scenario
to discuss. The shrill and extremely partisan may mellow
out over time as discussion quality goes up.)
> What policies would be reasonable then? What goals would we
> seek to accomplish? (especially the last question is interesting.
> An obvious goal would be no more nuked cities, but would that
> imply no more nuked cities in the US or anywhere?
You've lost me. Jumping to that level of analysis is much like
asking, "I know! Let's all just obey the Golden Rule. Q.E.D."
Yes, the "goal" for humanity is peace, prosperity, and benevolent
singularity for all. How nice.
But the hard question remains: What does a democratically elected
government do? For example, what should the UK have done when the
Argentines seized the Falklands? What should the US have done when
the Japs sank Pearl Harbor? What should Australia have done about
Communist aggression in Viet Nam (or, if you lean the other way,
about the US aggression in Viet Nam)? What should the US have done
if 15000 Soviet missiles were fired at it in 1983, enough to destroy
all human life in the Western Hemisphere (say)---fire back and
destroy all life the Eastern Hemisphere?
Okay. I'll do the best with your hypothesis that I can: A global
ideological network of some unspecified kind starts nuking cities.
Hmm. Sorry, but that's a bit too vague. We probably ought to
have a little more to go on here.
Well, I'll try anyway. Assuming (sorry) that the devices are set
off internally at the targeted countries, all suspects should be
immediately interned, even if this includes up to two or three
percent of the population. Martial law must be declared, and the
Transparent Society implemented at once. Telescreens everywhere
and privacy verboten (including government and corporate leaders).
So far as I can see, it's either that or else we shall have to
abandon the cities.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:11 MST