> Eric (is that how I should address you?)
Yes, that would do very well.
> >To do otherwise [ie than financing our own society] would mean having to
> >row the boat of science against the strong current of oppositon
>
> I'm not sure we could raise the money to finance our own society, however.
> My wife and I have struggled enough just to get the point where we *may* be
> able to finance ourselves. I doubt that many others are much better off.
> We'd need a big corporate backer who thought what we were doing was of
> sufficient value to it to fork out money for the idea. In any event, we have
> no consensus on the political structure of such a society.
Yes, I understand very well the difficulties involved in financing such an operation. Perhaps we can stick to a land-based micronation-colony and wait until 30 years later for technology to advance sufficiently that it will bring down the cost of such a space-based colony from impossible to perhaps a few hundred million or even less than a hundred million of today's dollars.
However, the problem with finding other people to finance the operation would face tremendous problems in the *long run*. Most likely this person or group of people would want control over the colony operations, and perhaps to further their agenda which may cause conflicts of interest. If you can find someone willing to provide us with the freedom, and make no conditions except obtain a percentage of the colony profits or simply provide a loan to us, then I think we can find it acceptable. Otherwise, beware of the risk.
> This I disagree with. We are entitled to argue against bans on technologies
> such as cloning, strong AI or whatever. Such argument violates no one's
> rights (as libertarians say); it in no way impinged in an ethically
> impermssible manner on other people's freedom to live their own lives (as
> I'd prefer to say). Sure, a society in which these things are not banned
> will develop differently from a society in which they are banned, but that
> does not mean that any "extropian value" has been violated.
I happen to believe in the Libertarian philisophy of non-interference too. I had came to a perculiar conclusion: "The Paradox of Rationality vs. Integration", which you can read in one of my previous mails.
This means that if you really want to fulfill the Libertarian philosophy in an irrational society, then you would find it problematic at best. Only a rational society can allow Libertarian philosophy to develop to its fullest, but then it would AUTOMATICALLY implement free speech and free thought. BTW, bans on research constitute some kind of censorship because it prevents the dissemination of selectively of certain types of information.
As for the principle I mean:
"Since self-direction applies to everyone, this principle requires that we respect the self-direction of others. This means trade not domination, rational discussion not coercion or manipulation, and cooperation rather than conflict wherever possible. In appreciating that other persons have their own lives, purposes, and values, we seek win-win cooperative solutions rather than trying to force our interests at the expense of others. We respect the autonomy and rationality of others by learning to communicate effectively and working towards mutually beneficial solutions."
- http://www.extropy.org/extprn3.htm
> Perhaps you could tell us a little more about it. I'm sure there are people
> here (I'm not saying I'd be one of them) who could make some sort of
> intelligent comment at the lay person's level or even at the professional
> level.
I think the best way to find out more about it would simply mean reading the paper and posting comments or clarifications here or at the Sociologistics Discussion site.
Contrary to what some of you may think, I am merely an 18 year old student who happened to figure out some ideas to make a better society, and who took the effort to consolidate and write down *some* of these ideas into a paper. I had not (and did not have the opportunity yet) to go to a university, and I also have problems understanding highly abstract maths like quite a number of us.
I don't study any social science subjects full-time, in fact, this subject does not yet exist under the social science catagory. I had created it as a subject in its own right and now wants to expand on it. I understand that I need to know a lot of subjects, which may take more than a lifetime to acquire, to succeed to developing this theory. Hence, most of all of us, regardless of our abilities and qualifications, can still contribute to this endeavor.
> Obviously there are limits to how much time anyone would have to get
> deeply involved but it sounds like stuff that many transhumanists would
> think very relevant to their concerns. You'll appreciate that my own
> comments were more about helping each other with activism/advocacy in favour
> of freedom and science, but I'd be surprised if your project didn't attract
> some interest here.
I think that anything concerned about the future of both ourselves and of the entire Humanity would definitely like to learn about new alternatives and possible solutions to the problems we face today and into the future. I hope everyone will find enough time to invest in thinking and learning about the future.
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:01 MDT