From: John B (discwuzit@yahoo.com)
Date: Wed Mar 20 2002 - 10:18:00 MST
Quoth Hal Finney:
"A quick correction: when you asked whether the order
of improvements listed under "Self-Transformation" was
intentional, did you mean whether the various
improvements were listed in order of desirability? The
answer is no, I think there was no intention to rank,
say, moral above intellectual above physical
self-improvement, simply because that was the order in
which the words appeared."
Thank you for the clarification (and your
confirmation, Dr. More.) However, this brings up an
interesting point.
Improvements are, IMHO, something we need to seek out.
However, we're well ahead of the curve in some fields
of inquiry (notably technical/science) and well behind
the curve in others. The field I feel we are furthest
behind in is the adaption of people to technology.
As a case in point, television is a relatively-new
technology which has been sought after for several
hundred years. We Americans (and many other
nationalities - I'm American and prefer to speak to
what I know best) have spent the last seventy years or
so adapting and acclimatizing ourselves to deal with
it and its repercussions. I'd like to point out the
increase in 'couch-potatodom' and the rapidly blending
youth cultures as two examples of ongoing processes.
However, we're not trying to adapt to a static
baseline. The technology we're starting to add to the
situation (TIVO and the like) exacerbates the changes
we're making - in unpredictable ways.
The point of all this, is that as technology
increases, our grasp of it decreases - the singularity
approaches. And, rather than some mystical event
occurring where humanity suddenly understands
technology much faster (Ok, not mystical, but
potential IA or AI technology isn't something we can
do TODAY and which we have no real conception of its
limitations) we just keep falling further behind,
perhaps to the point where we can no longer adapt to
our technological changes.
Other systems which we're still adapting to include
(but by no means are limited to) cars,
internetworking, and digital recording, just as other
representative major technologies.
Sure, perpetual progress is a wonderful goal - but IMO
we need to worry about WHAT we're progressing on. Do
we have even the beginnings of an understanding on how
the technology will disrupt the social, political &
economic systems we currently depend on? Usually there
are hints which are quite visible in retrospection,
but quite difficult to pick out before they hit.
Do I say stop developing new tech? Understandable
interpretation, but it isn't my intention at all.
Rather, we need IMO to focus on the USE (and abuse) of
the technology as much as on developing it.
Mr Finney also stated,
"A question you might ask yourself in order to
determine whether you would want to pursue
Extropianism is this: Can you perceive an underlying
connection or common rationale behind the Principles?
Do you see how they fit together to form a unifying
whole, or do they instead seem to you to be a random
hodgepodge of ideas, some good and some bad?"
As with any large-scale philosopy, I do perceive
potential for both good and bad results derived from
it. It depends on the interpretation and emphasis
which are applied to the written words. This is why
I'm asking for input from the mail list regarding some
of the terminology and wording used - I see some areas
in the philosophy as written which worry me, and other
parts which I applaud. I'd LIKE to say I see the
worries totally disappearing and the applaudable
sections approaching unity, but I'd be lying if I said
I did.
As stated elsewhere in the posts in regards to my
example of a fundamentalist Islamic state, these
states are strongly repressive. However, the written
word which (supposedly) guides Islamic states - the
Quran/Koran - is quite a liberal document, strongly
supporting the rights of the individual and condemning
violence. It is the interpretation which the various
governments utilize which I see as 'bad'.
Yes, I personally do see a connecting thread between
the elements identified in the extropian philosophy.
However, most any self-coherant philosphy - be it
christianity, radical nazism, whatever - maintains a
connecting thread between the elements in the minds of
those who espouse the belief. I personally do not
espouse the extropian philosophy, but I am intrigued
by it. I am VERY glad that this is an 'open'
philosophy - that is, one which recognizes that there
may be other valid paths forward. There is much good
in the extropic movement, and I'd hate to loose access
to the minds who brought this about.
Thanks for your time,
-John Benner
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage
http://sports.yahoo.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:02 MST