From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Thu Oct 17 2002 - 00:50:51 MDT
Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
> (re: my interpretation of Samantha's comments -- we seem to be
> on the same side of the fence -- no less than twice in
> one week [the other interpretation was offlist]). This
> is clear evidence IMO that the extropian list can pull
> itself up by its bootstraps and make a reasonable contribution
> to the evolution of humanity. We can differ but we can find
> common ground. Something to strive for.)
Indeed. Or does this mean we are similarly biased? :-)
>
> Comments follow:
>
>
>>Actually, their are memesets, religious and otherwise, that
>>promote the view that the world will not be "right" until those
>>holding different viewers are overpowered and/or destroyed. It
>>is not simply a matter of fundamental human character traits.
>>It is not simply an individual phenomenon.
>
>
> Yes, but the question is whether "individual" phenomena tend to
> promote or retard such trends. We know about Hitler, Stalin and
> Sadaam -- would you argue that it is better to destroy the societies
> that support such megalomaniacs -- or better to destroy the megalomaniacs
> themselves?
>
Whenver I see "whether - or" I look think of the excluded middle
fallacy. Individual phenomena have a dynamic relationship with
group phenomenon but it is syngerstic, neither is precisely the
cause of the other. Putting Hitler, Stalin and Sadaam in the
sam list is itself questionable and biased. Humanity itself
supports the possibility of dictators and various monstrous
types. Would you destroy all of humanity to avoid the
possibility of such? That these types pop up in one or the
other society may say as little or much about that particular
soeciety or people than one person contracting a deadly flu and
another not contracting it. The "germ" is about and under the
right conditions will work its mischief. Generally speaking it
is somewhat superstituous to blame the particular "patient" it
gains a foothold in. That is of course not to deny that there
are certain societal/governmental poor health practices that
make it easier for such diseases to take hold.
It would be best to diffuse the megalomania and that which makes
it possible in human beings and human societies without
destroying anyone. It is best to defeat the illness without
throwing the living sufferer[s] into the furnace!
> Where is the core problem -- in the individual or in the society?
>
>
>>Classic imperialism of all stripes, including Islamic, does not
>>seem to be primarily concerned with "uplifting" in physical or
>>economic ways.
>
>
> Agreed. Imperialistic activities seem to be conducted in the
> interests of those conducting them. Is there a question as to
> whether Sadaam was *not* interested in controlling the oil resources
> of Iran or Kuwait when he invaded those countries?
>
Yes, there is a very large question there. But that is a
different and more specialized subject.
>
>>>Does the problem lie in the quest for power by the leaders instead of
>>>the seeking of economic uplifting for the masses?
>>>
>>
>>Excluded middle error?
>
>
> Quite possibly perhaps.
>
> The slow evolution of Iran over the last decade seems to suggest
> that the "excluded middle" may indeed prevail.
>
Iran is just beginning to pull away from the modern equivalent
of the Inquisition and a long drawn out war with Iraq that
decimated parts of the population. I would be very surprised by
them moving much faster than they are. Wouldn't you?
>
>>In the face of an imperalistic and exclusive group memeset the
>>particular leaders of the moment are not terribly relevant. The
>>memeset needs to be rendered harmless or contained.
>
>
> This seems to suggest that a bio-nano-tech enabled populus will
> trump any power seeker (to me). So they can never succeed in the
> long term and they might as well give it up now.
>
Well, perhaps assuming the "populus" controls the bio-nano-tech.
Otherwise the power seeker gains almost absolute control and
is next to impossible to escape from or overcome. If
government/industry/military controls these technologies and
prohibits them from the people then we can be fully controlled
and exploited by such powerful interests.
> *So* debates about the elimination of Osama or Sadaam do not become
> explorations of whether their removal is right or wrong but whether
> the timing and means of their removal is the most efficient (or extropic).
>
Concentrating so heavily on them at all is actually missing,
imho, the most important questions and issues of the day. Pay
enough attention to contain and if absolutely necessary, remove
them (not convinced this is the case for Sadaam) but don't
ignore everything else or risk everything else on such a
relatively minor "symptom".
> I want to be clear about this -- they have cast their vote (and made
> it very public) -- at that point I strongly question whether others
> should grant them the benefit of the doubt.
>
I assume this "they" is the people of Iraq? Didn't you notice
thre was no alternative and that not voting can be real
dangerous? How on earth can such a "vote" be indicative of
anything - much less lead to an attitude that the people of Iraq
are expendable or part of the disease? Careful flinging victims
in the furnace. We could overbalance and fall in ourselves.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:38 MST