>From: James Rogers <jamesr@best.com>
>I've been wading through the posts on this list for the last week,
>most filled with the heady opinions of armchair warriors (dove and
>hawk alike), while keeping my opinions on the matters of the world
>to myself. But instead of offering my opinion on the terrorism
>incident, I'm going to give my opinion of this list's opinions in
>a general sort of way.
Many of us are former soldiers, and as is well known there is no
such thing as an EX-Marine only former Marines.
>This list has totally lost its perspective. As extropians, who
>*do* have a long-term agenda last I checked, there are two ways to
>address this particular threat, a threat that is far more
>complicated than any simple analysis will solve anyway. The first
>way is to eliminate it in an offensive fashion, actively
>destroying it so that it has minimal ability to damage us. The
>second is a defensive mode, minimizing the ability of the threat
>to harm us if it chooses to engage us. But like in so many
>things, reality decides these things for us by and large.
We have to insure a short term future in order to have a long term
agenda.
So first your opinion is that there is no simple analysis, then you
proceed to give us one.
Here's mine, first we neutralize the immediate threat, find and
destroy the perpetrators, then we look at long term prevention.
>The reality is that extropians have no real business discussing
>offensive measures because, quite frankly, extropians have
>negligible impact on the massive engine of inertia that is
>government policy, particularly with issues like this. The world
>turns as the world turns. Offering platitudes as to
>who/what/when/where should be attacked in the Middle East is
>nothing more than emotional masturbation, and offers nothing
>constructive that could be construed as defending an extropian
>future. I could get this on a dozen other sites, and the quality
>would be better in some cases. There *is* some causality at work
>here; if extropians actually had something of substantial
>value to add in this regard then they might also be in a position
>to influence it. But from where I sit, we are often
>indistinguishable from a high-rise yuppie or a trailer park yokel,
>value-wise.
Again you complain against platitudes then begin issuing your own.
As extropians everything that goes on in the world is of interest
to us and therefore subject to discussion. Especially something of
this magnitude which could affect our very existence.
Society is a non-linear dynamic, the action of individuals can
dramatically affect the whole. What greater proof do you need then
what has occurred.
>Which leads me to my second point: hunkering down and spending our
>time on things that matter. If we can agree that as individuals
>and as a group we can not effectively and rationally attack this
>particular threat to an extropian future, then it is imperative
>that we think of how to accomplish our goals in the shadow of
>great threats (and the forces that counter them) for which we have
>limited preemptive offensive capabilities. And by "rationally",
>I mean taking a long-term view with your ultimate goals in
>mind. This is a far more constructive approach for a number of
>reasons. First of all, it is relatively easy for an individual to
>ensure their survival and the perpetuation of their goals.
>Second, the passive nature of these measures take little focus
>away from our primary goals. Third, security and safety is a
>network effect; the people around you are safer for your
>individual effort and may reciprocate.
Again immediate concerns must be addressed if there are to be long
term goals. The rest of this paragraph seems to back this point.
>My last and most important point is that extropians are in the
>business of creating the ultimate trump cards, technologies that
>can permanently render the threats we are facing obsolete. There
>are escalating issues and competing forces today which threaten to
>severely blunt our goals, thereby rendering us helpless to stop
>even greater threats than those which most people think about.
>The endgame is upon us, and we are in a race against those that
>would stop us; if we fail or even slow down too much, we will die
>eventually. My goal in surviving isn't to survive another day,
>but to win the game. Destroying terrorism isn't a win, but merely
>a draw; spending effort doing so in no way ensures my long-term
>survival and may indeed hamper it. It is therefore imperative
>that energy be devoted to actual solving the problems that we can
>solve rather than pissing in the wind over short-term issues that
>are largely beyond our control. In the long run, maximizing
>productivity towards our goals is the winning strategy, not
>engaging in brush fires, even big ones, that would be cheaper to
>avoid. Even if we can solve some problems it doesn't mean doing so
>is an effective use of effort and resources given a particular set
>of goals and a very finite quantity of time.
This isn't a brush fire, it's a war, and the reason it happened is
because the government previously took your advice and ignored the
brush fire that is now a raging inferno.
Terrorism is one of the ultimate forces of entropy and therefore a
fitting target for extropians.
>If I die, it will be of precious little comfort to me that
>everyone else died first.
Agreed, I want as few to die as possible, limiting it to all of
those responsible is sufficient.
Brian
Member:
Extropy Institute, www.extropy.org
National Rifle Association, www.nra.org, 1.800.672.3888
SBC/Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W
Disclosure notice: currently "plonked"
"Joe Dees" <joedees@addall.com>
"Party of Citizens"<citizens@vcn.bc.ca>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:52 MDT