From: Chris Fedeli (fedeli@email.msn.com)
Date: Wed Sep 01 1999 - 19:58:37 MDT
My two cents (for anyone who's really addicted to this
thread):
A more or less libertarian political program happens to be
well suited to the goals of transhumanism today. Free
markets and open societies are great for the spread of
scientific knowledge and the development of technology. But
I don't value libertarianism because I find it morally
superior to state intervention.
Robert Bradbury wrote:
>I don't consider it a "wimp-out" to want to
>find the *most* effective strategy for getting
>nanotech, surviving the singularity, promoting
>the increase in diversity necessary to avoid
>"clone wars" and *balance* the desire for
>freedom with the risks and benefits of very
>open societies.
I hope that none of us would call it "wimping out" to take
the surest, safest path to these goals, even if that means
taking advantage of the current political climate. If a
little well-placed state interevention in some areas will
help more then it hurts, I'll favor state intervention.
The Extropian Principles is a pragmatic document, advocating
a willingness to change and evolve and explicilty eschewing
ideological commitments. When push comes to shove, wouldn't
we all rather be pragmatists than worm food?
Chris Fedeli
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:59 MST