From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Fri Nov 22 2002 - 22:11:03 MST
Robert Bradbury wrote:
> So extropes -- how can you justify these nice la-de-da philosophical
> discussions while the bodies are piled higher and higher around
> us each day? (This isn't directed at any recent ExI list conversants
> specifically -- it is intended largely as a rhetorical question).
>
> Somedays I just wonder (a lot) about the gap between "our" reality
> and that which pervades much of the world.
I can speak only for myself, but I'd like to answer at least
that part of your question that wasn't rhetorical.
I participate in discussions like this because I am a member
of the species homo *sapiens* and because all my extropic
aspirations and plans not withstanding I am "dying" (in the
sense that *all* of us *are*). And I *want* to live. Or a
least to have the choice.
I hold this "selfish" audacious aspiration despite perceiving
that several thousands of generations of my ancestors, have
had similar aspirations "check mated" by their inability to
achieve the requisite level of cooperation and organisation.
The bodies have always piled up. That they continue to do
so, I *hope* is an indicator that there is work still to do, but
I *know* it is not a new development and it is certainly not
something I could tackle *alone* if I wanted to. And as I'm
"dying" myself I'm not sure I'm *that* generous. And I'm
doubtful that others are either. But if I *was* I'd need help.
And there would need to be one hell of a plan. And before
the plan could become concrete there would need to be
brainstorming amongst those *able* to make a contribution.
Members of groups like this.
Whilst humans are social creatures our sociability has not as
a general phenomenon ever extended to *all* members of
"our" species. Historically, quite possibly, more of the members
of "my/our" species have succumbed due to the actions of
each other than of any other cause. And in the year 2002,
this is still something that I perceive I must factor in
to my plans for personal radical life extension.
Perhaps the naked heart of my concerns about ethical
systems is the question given the lessons of history how
much can I rely on "we". Who can I trust? Who can I work
with? Who can I plan and build with? How can I convince
those that are capable that they can trust me? And perhaps
even, how do I know they actually should?
As I am asking these questions I presume others are too.
It is not to science fiction novels however pleasing they
are to read or however valuable the ideas they throw up
that I look to for my "reality checks" in relation to what
"modern", "educated", "sophisticated", technologically
advanced groups of people are able to do to each other
in a universe where it is widely held, accurately or otherwise,
that values are a matter of taste and rights don't really
exist. I look to recent history and Nazi Germany and I get
a sense of the measure of the menace.
I also consider my own frustrations at the rate at which
I can see technologies like stem cells moving (or plodding)
and I can recognize in myself the temptation to put aside
what a majority of folk seem to consider to be the ethics
of the day in order to accelerate the rate of change.
What would a modern Mengele, backed by the resourcing
of a powerful cabal be able to discover to the benefit of his
"in-group" if he could put aside such "arbitrary" qualms
about experimenting on "mere" humans to become "post"
human.
And then I think, if I can think like this so can others. And I
recall that Nazi Germany (tapping into motivations possibly
even less than that of mine to avoid dying) emerged amidst
a people and a culture rich enough to include, Kant, Goethe,
Beethoven ...the list goes on . Many Germans Jews found to
their dismay that there was no "we". Or at least that who
was in the in-group and who was in the out-group could change
surprisingly quickly and no doubt to many of them amazingly
arbitrarily.
So why should "we" talk philosophically about ethics and right
and wrong? Because "we" don't want to die (at least
prematurely) and because "we" don't have the luxury of
assuming that the greatest or only impediments to our
aspirations are technological. And because "we" shape "our"
realities in part by what we discuss.
There may be some who would hold that view that the "darker"
side of "human nature" should not be aired, that scenarios and
rationales for acting in a way that is perceived as ignoble or
anti-social or immoral should not be discussed because to do
so adds rather than subtracts from the likelihood of negative
futures emerging. They may be right.
But I am a member of the species homo *sapiens* and at least
to some extent social and I (and I think "we") have to work with
what "we" have. Our brains.
In raising the possibility of negative futures where possible
cabals of "post"humans slug it out against themselves, or seek
to exploit "mere" humans for research, perhaps "we" are better
immunized against that particular potential reality.
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:19 MST