From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Sun Apr 21 2002 - 13:19:02 MDT
On Saturday, April 20, 2002, at 06:15 pm, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>>
>> I thought that the concept of "defense" required a clear attack to
>> defend against. I think you are talking about pre-emptive strikes by
>> killing Luddites because their movement will harm the future, but not
>> because the specific Luddite killed was currently initiating any
>> specific violence. In such a scenario, I would consider our side to be
>> the attacker or the initiator of force.
>
> Acceptable pre-emptive use of force:
> If you see someone point a gun at someone, you can shoot them before
> they actually pull the trigger.
> If you see or have evidence of someone conspiring to kill someone, and
> and they lay in wait to do so, killing them before they actually pull
> the trigger is acceptable.
> If you know someone has a nuclear weapon, or other stand-off destructive
> device, and threatens to use it against you for no reason you have
> created, killing them before they a) produce, b) deliver, c) set off,
> the weapon is acceptable preemption.
> Do you accept any of these circumstances as acceptable pre-emptive use
> of force?
Yes. You would be pre-empting actions of violence that are already
underway. These are not as strong cases as defending after an attack,
but are stronger than defending against unintentional harm. However, I
believe the Luddites present even a weaker case than this.
Luddites do not intend any violence toward anyone. Their plan is to
save lives that might be lost due to dangerous technology. How can we
kill them for such a lofty goal? Some lives undoubtedly will be lost in
accidents or side-effects. This means that we are contemplating
assassinating people who don't plan violence. Furthermore, it involved
killing people who are trying to save lives because their methods are
less efficient than ours!
> But we are also dealing with threshold points between population growth
> and technological development curves. If the tech curve is retarded to
> some degree, the population curve will swamp it.
This may be true, but it is not certain. These kinds of statistical
predictions are tenuous, as are population explosion theories, pollution
theories, and global warming theories. These theorists also probably
felt that they world was doomed if no one followed their
recommendations. I am glad that they didn't resort to violence to
enforce their beliefs.
> On that note, we do not have a cut-off date of 2020 or 2030 or 2040 to
> base a drop dead decision on. It is far closer than you think, more like
> 2005-2010, if not right now.
I think you overestimate the advancement of technology. Is nanotech
almost ready? Is a universal cancer drug passing clinical trials right
now? Has cryotechnology brought back a frozen rat? Has an AI announced
its presence? These things will take years to start saving millions of
lives after they arrive, and their arrival is not as eminent as you
predict. What specific scenario do you see killing off the population
any time soon?
> Well, the Luddites are already committing violence against us, on two
> fronts: they are using the martial force of government to ban cloning
> and other genetic engineering work on the human, animal, and plant
> genomes
So you consider bad legislation as an attack justifying deadly force in
retaliation? Why attack the Luddite lobbyists? Why not go directly
after congress? Or why not ignore them and go directly after any police
that try to enforce the ban?
Rather than killing people, I would propose countering the legislation.
If that fails, we can move to another country. If all countries follow
suit, we can move offshore or form our own country. If that fails, we
can work covertly. There is no way to kill everybody with an opposing
idea. If we start killing off elected officials for bad policy, we will
have to flee underground anyway. I rather hide scientific research
rather than be targeted as an assassin terrorist group.
(By the way, my definition of terrorism is when you aren't attacking the
direct target in self defense, but are instead hoping that terror of
your actions will scare other people into inaction.)
> By your criteria, it is now acceptable for us to a) lobby for laws
> against luddism and luddite tactics, and b) to engage in sabotage
> operations against luddite targets.
My criteria would only apply force to the specific eco-terrorists and
Luddites committing violence. We can't kill off all people who have
similar beliefs but were not involved in the violence.
> As a matter of fact, I do believe the claims of Palestinians have at
> least some legitimacy. Only their use of terrorist tactics against
> civilians delegitimizes their claims.
Some Palestinians are terrorists. They should be fought with violence
if necessary. We should not support violence against all Palestinians
because they are in the same race or neighborhood as the terrorists.
> I don't think it's the only option, or even the first or second option.
> My questions are to ask what options are you willing to resort to *in
> the end*, if *all else fails*.
This is a trick question that can never be anwered. Your trigger of
"all else fails" will never occur. Only if all nonviolent means fail
and only violence can succeed will we get to this point. Your question
is a self-fulfilling prophesy and a circular loop of logic. It makes an
assumption, uses it as the basis of the question, such that the only
answer possible is the one it assumes. You might as well ask if I have
quit beating my wife yet. Just as the answer to that question is that I
have never beat my wife, the answer to your question is we will reach
the point when all else fails.
Note that I am not defending terrorists or direct violence. Violence
can be used in direct self-defense. However, when the situation gets so
contrived that there is no clear direct attempt at violence, I don't
think it can be so clear that there is no other option. Misguided
notions can be corrected. Public opinion can be changed. Governments
can be lobbied. I cannot conceive a situation where the whole world
turns against us, there is no country left for retreat, and there is no
chance for further dialog.
>> If we decide that violence may be the answer
>> in certain cases, then people will be primed and ready to use violence
>> when those cases occur. This concerns me because I disagree that
>> violence is the answer, and do not think those cases will ever actually
>> occur.
>
> Yet if it is publicly known by the luddites to what ends we are willing
> to go, they may be deterred from engaging in confrontation and more
> willing to engage in discussion and compromise.
This is getting extremely close to my definition of terrorism. You hope
to scare people into suppressing their own opinions and into supporting
your opinions under threat of violence if they oppose you. That sounds
like terrorism to me. Your reasoning that this is a last resort when no
other options are available is the exact line of reasoning that all
terrorists use. Even if you claim this isn't terrorism, can you
conceive that all the civilized countries that outlawed us would
perceive this as terrorism. Do you really think we can fight all the
militaries in the world, and still save more lives than would be lost?
>>> I can say that if even 1/4 of our most general predictions come true
>>> (especially those which the luddites agree will occur), then a luddite
>>> control of the future will cause the deaths of half the human race
>>> to a
>>> 90%+ probability.
This gets even worse as we go down this slippery slope. You aren't 100%
sure, but only 90% sure. You would put people to death because of
something that might not happen?
>>> Just as gun control caused 100 million deaths in the
>>> 20th century, technology control in the 21st will kill many times
>>> more.
So do you think this justifies assassinating anyone? If so, who? The
Liberals who supported this idea? The Lobbyists who caused it? The
Congress who passed it? The President for enforcing it? This is a
perfect example of your theory. If gun control laws caused 100 million
deaths, are you claiming that you are now justified to assassinate
someone? This is not a theoretical example, because you claim it has
already happened. Anything preventing you from responding with violence
to this current example should also apply to your future examples.
Otherwise, you are coming close to condoning assassinations right now
for events that have already happened.
> a) a lack of agriculture based on genetic engineering will result in
> worldwide famine by the middle of the 21st century.
>
> b) a lack of genetic engineering in medicine will result in worldwide
> epidemics in the same time frame.
>
> c) a lack of martially superior technology in the hands of extropic
> leaning nations will result in "Holy War" type pogroms against
> technology advocates, producers, and users, resulting in wars of
> genocide, primarily between the muslim world and the western
> democracies.
>
> d) a lack of martially superior technology in the hands of individual
> transhumans will result in them becoming targeted by witch hunt type
> inquisitions. Elimination of transhumans will result in the death of
> humanity.
Firstly, I thought you discounted theories of population explosions and
doom predictions. The population is slowing. Agriculture is getting
better. Medicine is getting better. It is hard to justify violence
against things that are getting better just because they aren't getting
better fast enough.
Secondly, we can't condone violence against inaction. Your "violence"
is really inaction and failing to save lives. Can we actually kill
people because technology isn't implemented?
Thirdly, these technologies are already being investigated to some
extent, and aren't ready for saving the planet yet. You are suggesting
violence to save technologies that don't exist yet, or might not pan
out. We hope that all your predictions of great salvation are true, but
we can't be sure of the specific breakthroughs. What if we use violence
and then later find out that the breakthroughs take 20 years longer than
expected? What if something else comes along and saves the planet, and
our actions were premature?
You are predicting non-specific deaths by non-specific people. You
can't kill people for having a dangerous idea just because somebody
somewhere might cause harm with that idea. You can't kill everybody
with that idea, because this would be mass extermination. Without a
specific person to target to prevent a specific act, your "enemy" is too
vague and widespread to target. Who exactly would be targeted if we did
move against the Luddites?
>
> Add to this the permanent deaths caused by laws against cryonics,
> cloning, and mind/computer interfacing/uploading, the lives prevented by
> bans on cloning and designer offspring, as well as the added risk of
> species destruction caused by restrictions on human migration into
> space.
None of these technologies are ready yet. It is not clear when if ever
they could start saving lives. I think we have to wait at least until a
technology works and could save lives before we take lives to defend
it. Right now, the legislation and politics is still at the discussion
stage. It is too early for violence. I don't know of any major
research that has been halted or destroyed because of these actions.
>> Your gun control example is a perfect example of what I am talking
>> about. I think it is debatable to say that gun control has caused 100
>> million deaths.
>
> Every genocide of the 20th century was preceded by bans on gun ownership
> by the groups that became victims of genocide. It isn't debatable.
Very tenuous theory. There is no clear way to tell how many lives were
saved versus how many were lost due to various political theories. This
is not a clear and present danger, but a vague political clash of
ideas. I don't think we should take definitive violent actions against
people for their ideas.
> I agree, and I don't think that is what I've said. It can be
> convincingly shown that the luddites are already engaged in both overt
> and subvert campaigns of force against transhumanist goals. As we sit
> around debating whether it exists, not even what to do about it, they
> continue to escalate the conflict.
We should fight their campaigns with our campaigns. We should counter
their goals with our goals. We should escalate our side when they
escalate their side. We should not jump straight to violence against
people who have not committed violence (yet).
> Well, I'd like to throw down the gauntlet:
> I am willing to dedicate my full time and attention to a peaceful,
> non-violent political/PR campaign. As I've said before, I have extensive
> experience in mass mail based fund raising campaigns, in advertising
> design, and as you will probably agree, provocative political writing.
> Based on a seed fund of $75,000 to $100,000, I could raise $1 million or
> more for Pro-Act. I could build a grassroots political machine in the
> engineering and computer science departments of universities around the
> country and internationally, as well as in high tech businesses and
> through freelance information workers.
This is a wonderful offer, but unfortunately ExI does not have a seed
fund of $75,000 to $100,000. Unfortunately, money is the real limiting
factor here, not time.
> Now, heres another question to answer: if violence in our cause is so
> abhorrently unacceptable to you and others on the left side of things,
> why do you, and others on the left side of things, give such a broad
> free pass to the 'violence as a first resort' tactics of the
> Palestinians?
I don't, nor do I know any Liberals who do. Palestinian suicide bombers
are evil. Palestinian civilians are good. Israeli soldiers shooting at
terrorists are good. Israeli soldiers shooting at unarmed civilians or
reporters are evil. The fact that Arafat directed terrorists in the
past is probably true. The claim that no terrorist ever strikes without
Arafat's direction is probably false. The insistence that Arafat
condemn terrorism is helpful. The rejection of his condemnation as
being too little too late is not helpful. There is good and bad on both
sides. Both sides want peace. Both sides have legitimate grievances
against the other. Both sides have committed unjustified violence
against the other. Neither seems willing to end it now.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:36 MST