From: Julio R. Vaquer (jvaquer@primenet.com)
Date: Mon Oct 13 1997 - 02:03:32 MDT
Dan Clemmensen wrote:
(snip)
> Since this is true, debate makes little progress. Therefore
> we (humanity) should spend our time on technical progress.
> This will generate the tools we need to develop more intelligence.
> We (or our successors) can then figure out the appropriate
> underlying theories for what are now the fuzzy sciences.
>
> There are two types of political commentary that are IMO
> appropriate to this list. The first relates to short-term
> political activities that affect the short-term rate of
> technical progress. For example, an attempt to ban research
> on faster computers, or to outlaw strong cryptography, may
> qualify. The second type depends on a belief that the nature
> of our successors may depend on our current non-technical
> beliefs or actions. If you feel that individualism is
> important and you want our successor civilization to include
> individuals, you may wish to discuss how to bring this about.
> Note, an "individualism is good" post is IMO useless. A post
> discussing ways to guide the nacent cizilization toward
> individualism may be useful.
>
> This post has been an attempt to explain my own thoughts.
> I'm not attempting to demand any change in style by other
> list participants.
I believe that, generally speaking, postings to the list should be about
extropianism and technological progress - not on the basics of
economics/libertarianism. I am only referring here to the function of
the list.However, I disagree about not conversing with others (apart
from the list) on the value of freedom. I do not disagree with you,
Dan, on the pending singularity. I may even agree with you and Eliezer
that, once reached, the Singularity may make today's economic
discussions moot. My disagreement is on discussion of economics *prior*
to reaching the Singularity.
Extropianism has not had any serious enemies. There is currently no
organized effort to avoid the S because those would-be antagonists do
not believe in it and extropian predictions (taken as a whole) are
ignored, believed to be false, or belittled. We might see anti-cloning,
anti-encryption, and other single-issue prohibitions. But an outright
organized opposition to the future has not yet been erected.
As our ideas become spread more and more into the mainstream, we will
suddenly find people who believe extropian technological predictions and
will organize against them. If this happens only after the S then, yes,
it is no use contemplating opposition at this point in time. It is my
speculative guess that the S won't be reached until the next century.
It is my worry, unlike many of my fellow Extropians, that organized use
of force will be used to stop or rapidly decelerated all applicable
research and technologies related to Transhumanism. Many will not mind
throwing us into a dark age in order to avoid this. I am not predicting
this but I am not discounting (yet).
Discussing economic, ethical, social and other philosophical aspects of
Extropianism with friends, family and peers may help expand our support
base.
I await responses to this post... whether you think I may have a point
or whether you think I'm doom-and-glooming this issue without rational
basis.
Julio Vaquer
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:45:02 MST