From: hal@finney.org
Date: Fri Jun 11 1999 - 15:48:04 MDT
J. R. Molloy, <jr@shasta.com>, wrote:
> Paul Hughes wrote,
> >Extropy is about exceeding limits, not accepting them.
>
> Can you think of any limits that extropic Homo sapiens ought to accept
> rather than exceed?
It's fine to wish to exceed limits, and to think about whether there are
ways to exceed limits. But "if wishes were horses, beggars would ride."
We have to distinguish our wishes from reality.
If we want to make our lives as fulfilling and interesting and exciting
as they can possibly be, we must distinguish between what is possible and
what is not. And that means recognizing limits and working within them.
Partially it comes down to the time frame of what you are trying to do.
I don't have nanotechnology to help me today, and I won't tomorrow.
That is a limit which I must accept in my plans. I am not immortal today.
That is another limit which I must take into consideration, for example
by signing up for cryonic suspension. Ultimately that will no longer
be necessary, hopefully, for we will have better means of extending life.
Right now, limitations like the speed of light are not very relevant.
100 years from now this will no longer be the case. Suppose at that time
that it still looks like FTL travel is impossible. Should we proceed
to figure out how to extend our influence under this limit, or should
we determine to exceed that limitation? I think we would agree that
maximizing our possibilities in the context of the constraints imposed
by the universe can be a satisfactory and fulfilling goal.
I might mention, BTW, that some of the greatest art is produced by
imposing limits, rather than removing them. Take a great artist and
force him to use a child's box of Crayola crayons to make a drawing, and
he will produce something breathtaking, something you would never have
thought possible. The limitation itself acts as a spur to creativity.
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:08 MST