From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Sat Nov 23 2002 - 19:56:06 MST
Reason wrote:
>---> Brett Paatsch
> >
> > 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).
>
> > 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.
>
> Of course it's something you can tackle *alone*. There are a
> million plans that one individual can attempt. The best plan is to
> convince other people to do something about it.
Apparently I have communicated less clearly than I had
hoped. Reason's in this reply and Avatar Polymorph in his
post to this thread made use of the term "you" ambiguously
(eg. Reason: "Of course its something 'you' can tackle alone";
and "Throwing up "your" hands because....". Avatar: (beneath
comments made by Robert Bradbury I transferred into this
thread says) "You" can easily see about genocides at
www.genocidewatch.com.). These could be references to me
personally or they could be references to "one". I sought
clarification from Reason in an offlist post and he was kind
enough to clarify what he meant.
In using myself as an example (always risky but in this case I
thought worth the risk) and talking in terms of I, instead of "one"
I have opened the gate for people to quite validly and fairly ask
about my personal motives as well as to address the far more
important general problem to which I was trying to bring context
and make more real. I was trying to do this because Robert
Bradbury, whom I respect, seemed to me to be of the view
that the sorts of philosophical discussions that have recently
gone on about ethics, rights, absolutes and the groundabilty of
ethical systems were far removed from the real world. And I
think others who have seen these sorts of discussions many
times (perhaps on this list) but certainly in the wider universe
of discourse will be of the view that they accomplish little and
are unpleasant to boot.
Well how unpleasant they are probably varies from person
to person. I can try and put myself in the mind of cold war
planners and not find it eerie or even characters like Hitler
and Mengele and not be too daunted. I can imagine myself in
dialog with some of history fiends and trying to work on the
social as well as the rational parts in them to try and dissuade
them without being too revolted by their actions and personas
to continue to function. I would like to have more compelling
arguments to put them and more teachable memes like "tit for
tat" to cut down the number of persons choosing such courses
of action before they embark on them.
As to whether they accomplish anything, I suspect they do,
but success in preventing potential fiends going down the
fiend career path is much harder to detect, but easier and
to be preferred, in my view, than bringing them to account
once they have achieved power, momentum and a track
record of choices and a reputation from which they cannot
easily escape.
I think (or others like me willing to try it) would have had
far better luck reasoning with Hitler in the 20's than in the late
30's and early '40's. But if I'd succeeding in changing his
perception of what was in his own best interest towards
less damaging activities who would have known? Indeed
most people hearing me engage with him, especially if they
caught only catches of the conversation might think both
those characters are pretty morbid and distasteful and better
off avoided.
If the memes available for preventing "unethical" anti-social
choices and the defining of humans by humans as out-group
and exploitable were better. If there were more teachable
memes like tit for tat it would be easier to head off some of
the choices potential "fiends" make early in their career path
when they are not so committed to dangerous (to us) courses
of action.
I also made the point that Nazi Germany is seems an excelent
proof in principle that "we" can't always rely on "us" the
current in-group as "we" perceive it staying the same. Those
Jewish German's who had considered their Jewishness
far less significant to their self-image than their German-ness
were not spared. I suspect that once Hitler had acquired
sufficient momentum, friendly neighbours and "intellectuals"
were by that stage too poorly placed to help their Jewish
countrymen and too poorly equipped with dissuasive memes
to stop the damage.
For me although "evil" is never far away, indeed it can be as
close as the next choice, I am not particularly uncomfortable
about that because I know where I stand and I know that
in the main I am and am percieved at least by those that
know me well as "one of the good guys".
> That's why we even have this list -- a couple of
> people all *did something* and are in the process of
> *doing something*. That's why I maintain
And if it wasn't clear to anybody that I am glad they did, let
me say again that I am. I appreciate the efforts of all those
who have battled on the field before me, some who have
now died in previous generations and some who I am glad
are still living contempories.
>
> Throwing up your hands because you can't build a future
> all by yourself is a lame cop-out.
I agree that "one" should not throw up ones hands and that
individuals can and do make a difference.
Indeed it would make it very hard to, amongst other things,
type emails to this list.
But if you think I am personally copping out I *know* you
are mistaken. I suspect you are responding to my posts
which do have a gloomy aspect to them, by concluding I
am a gloomy person and by trying to buck me up. This is
not so. A "bucking up" is neither necessary nor appropriate.
Any "gloom" is situational not dispositional. It arises from
active and continuing consideration of a difficult and I
percieve important problem.
> Neither can Drexler, Kurzweil, Max More, etc, etc, but it's
> not stopping them from contributing.
>
> > 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.
>
> Yes indeed; so get out there, grab one of those tiny little
> plastic spoons, and help shift the course of the river.
With respect to the sentiment I feel certain that I am personally
further along that route already than you realise. I may even have
a plastic spoon somewhere : )
But what I am doing offlist to increase extropy would be less
interesting and less relevant I suspect to most people than the
general problem of "avoiding reality check mate" (ie. dying at
the hands of others because the effective prohibitions again
that possibility remain relatively small in comparison with say the
technological developments we have seen since 1945. Unless it
bares on this thread I prefer to keep what I am doing offlist out
of this thread. If it does, by all mean's ask me anything, I did
open the door.
I've used myself as an example in this thread, despite the risks
in doing so, not because I am particularly special but because
I think the additional context helps to make the problem more
real.
Regards,
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:20 MST