From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sat Aug 17 2002 - 15:32:45 MDT
Lee Corbin wrote:
> 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.
While I see some real benefit to not overly inflating importance
the downside of not taking oneself and one's actions with
enough seriousness to actually care or self-monitor is also a
possible consequence. When people are attempting to understand
a way of thought, a "movememnt" or groups they have heard about
it is not at all uncommon to go to the archives and prime
discussion lists and sample for a while in addition to looking
at stated "Principles" and such.
<many excellent points skipped..>
>
>>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.
>
You've lost me. An obvious goal to the analysis is to avoid as
much destruction, especially of the mass variety and as much
loss of live as possible. Are you saying you don't consider
that a valid goal-state in the discussion? I don't see how this
goal can be considered to be merely "nice". As much peace,
prosperity and benevolent singularity for all as possible is
something that I have assumed is a shared ideal for everyone
here. Is that presumptive?
> 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?
>
I don't see what "democratically elected" really has to do with
the question of what the most rational/effective response
leading more toward true goals (such as possibly the above)
would be. Perhaps we first need a discussion about the goals,
the outcomes, we consider important in this and other scenarios.
That might help clarify disagreements and provide focus for
discussions.
What some country would have done is again not necessarily
useful for determining what we, hopefully as
Extropians/Transhumanists/Singularitarians and generally
intelligent thoughtful people, would advise doing. Posing tons
of other scenarios right now doesn't seem real helpful,
especially as, for a given state of goals (including survival),
the different scenarios are likely to have quite different answers.
> 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.
>
It is not vague at all as I see it. We are more likely to face
the most complex problems of detection, avoidance of serious
destruction, formulating policies exactly when it comes to these
extra-national organizations and small non-state group threats.
Most of your examples above are concerning nations rather than
concerning a non-national group out to cause mass-destruction.
> 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.
>
What suspects? How would massive arrest and internment
satisfying your goals and be balanced against your steady-state
and desired future state goals? Arresting 3 percent of the
population and suspending their rights because you don't know
what else to do seems pretty weak and likely to lead to very
nasty consequences. It certainly has the direct implication
that you can turn any "democracy" into its opposite immediately
with one act of mass-destruction. This is quite unacceptable.
If you have a full transparent society there is absolutely no
need of martial law or of mass-internment. Both of those are
superseded when you know exactly who did or is doing what when.
I thought of such transparency as a possibility. However, it
could only work in the context of my goals and ideal IF the
lawmakers and enforcers are extremely rational and liberal.
Otherwise it leads all to easily to unlimited State power and
the end of individual freedom. The end of individual freedom,
please note, includes the end of the ability to choose one's own
course outside the accepted norms. This includes the end of the
ability to innovate and invent a new and quite different future
such as presumably part of the goal of all of us. So this also
is unacceptable.
It just might be that the possibility of some such acts of mass
destruction and their occasional occurrence is not avoidable
within the parameters of our full goals and values. I would be
happy to find otherwise.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:11 MST