From: Alexander 'Sasha' Chislenko (sasha1@netcom.com)
Date: Sat Jan 16 1999 - 13:50:01 MST
At 14:33 01/16/99 , Forrest Bishop wrote:
>You can also argue reducio ad absurdum - lowering the limit to zero will
>'save' all the lives. I have never seen anyone do an analysis of this
>phenomenon like the one above; why do you suppose that is? Might it
>conflict with the kindergarten culture belief sysem?
I think people would tell you that they "have to drive" to "survive".
I have offered some reductio ad absurdum suggestions before that are
clear of this "have to" issue, for example:
- building overpasses instead of all crossings and concrete walls around
all streets should eliminate all accidents evolving pedestrians
(except that the pedestrians crazy from spending all their time on
building the overpasses and climbing up and down, may start jumping
off them, or smashing their heads at the walls)
- A great reduction in crime may be achieved by putting all non-productive
members of the society in solitary confinement with maximal security.
- making everybody carry 100lb concrete umbrellas when outdoors, to protect
them against possible meteorites, sudden huge hailings, and other falling
objects.
(of course, one can prohibit everything that is not absolutely necessary,
such as driving to movies or sports games, or any fun activities. But then,
people may find that the life itself is no longer really "important")
The apparent truth here is that people want not to optimize their safety
at any cost, but to find a reasonable compromise between risk factors,
efforts, quality of life, lifespan, etc. This is not a specifically extropian
opinion, it's plain common sense.
Now, why there is so little publicity for these suggestions, and support for
balanced approach, while the risk aversion suggestions receive millions of
dollars for "research", and billions - for implementation? How can we respond
to that publication now, so that everybody could see it? (Actually, it may
be possible to write an article for NYT or something - anybody interested to
work on it?)
The issue I think is that the distribution of ideas is propelled by power
interests more than by their truth value; this problem is apparently worst
with the centralized power, though a mechanism for distribution of critical
evaluations of non-coercive projects is also quite needed.
So they offer lop-sided arguments that sound convincing enough for the majority
of the population, who do not care to think of balanced social approaches or
philosophical foundations of the legal system. And that's enough to justify
further funding for "protective" projects, further expansion of the state, etc.
Who would pay millions of dollars for the study showing what kinds of risks
people are willing to bear in their pursuit of quality of life, freedom, and
happiness? Not the State, I think.
I would expect that some visionary journalistic efforts aimed at the Slow Zone
could make some difference here. But they, apparently, don't, with all those
civil libertarians and journalists out there. Or maybe, they couldn't find the
right meme?
An article on Concrete Umbrellas, anyone?
I actually strongly doubt that a well-chosen phrase can generally make much
difference, but since the illogical swamp of social ideas tends to swing
between polar states, and social policies keep being followed until they
become not just theoretically ungrounded, but hugely ridiculous and wasteful,
exposing problems at these critical points early may help swing both opinions
and policies. - Another task for the Institute of Memetic Engineering?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Chislenko <http://www.lucifer.com/~sasha/home.html>
<sasha1@netcom.com> <sasha@media.mit.edu>
---------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:02:51 MST