From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sat Aug 17 2002 - 17:41:08 MDT
Samantha writes
> [Lee wrote]
> > 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 [one's]
> 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. [Yes.] When people are attempting to
> understand a way of thought, a "movement" 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.
Thanks for laying out the mechanism clearly so that we can
examine it. If this is the major mechanism, then you've caused
me to see that we should avoid incendiary Subject Lines, such
as "Nuke The Saudis!!!", no matter what the content of the post
is. So your last sentence appears to describe the bad that
would happen in a single person's mind---he or she (if highly
unlucky) could get a non-representative small sample and come
away thinking "the Extropians" are all a lot of super-aggressive
violent wackos. Okay, now since this would be just one person,
and the typical viewer would get a typical cross-section, then
that doesn't sound dangerous.
However, perhaps you're thinking that this particular person
*might* then loudly echo these sentiments elsewhere, decrying
the Extropian movement or the Transhumanist movement, and
using that post as evidence. While more dangerous, won't
most people understand that virtually anyone can post anything
to a list like this? And that there are thousands of lists?
What can you add here to clarify?
> >[Anders wrote]
> >>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 [network].
> >>[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.
> >
> >>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?
No, sorry for the confusion. I mean that *of course* it would
be praiseworthy to have as a goal "no more nuked cities". I
just meant that that is a superfluous and impractical place
to start the analysis. Even one of Adolph Hitler's goals was
"no more bombed cities". He just had a different means of
getting to that goal than Curtis LeMay. (Well, okay, they
both wanted to win a war in order to stop the death and
destruction.)
> 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?
No, and that's very constructive to simply ask. Like you,
I can't imagine that anyone here doesn't want that. So, in
the same way, it's going to be necessary to focus on the
means and ways, rather than the ends. But I shouldn't
criticize you and Anders for simply stating the laudable
goals---I guess I'm just too impatient and want to get to
the meat.
> > 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.
Good point. Yes, I guess an undercurrent in my thinking was
"the next step" (i.e., So after one *decides* what would be
the proper course of action, then one ought to meme it and
then (in a democratically elected society) try to get the
message to the elected leaders). But imagine that the U.S.
was an autocratic tyranny, or that Hitler's lieutenant Herr
XXXXXX now ruled the world's only superpower---he'd face
exactly the same question, I guess.
> 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.
Yes, perhaps. If so, you've taken the first step!
(BTW, am I the first person to use the word "meme" as
a verb!?)
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:12 MST