From: Hal Finney (hal@finney.org)
Date: Thu May 23 2002 - 18:35:10 MDT
Wei writes:
> Here are my current thoughts. It's irrational to discard information while
> making decisions, unless that information triggers some systematic error
> in our thought processes. So according to Rational Thinking, if there is
> no better way to correct the errors, we should identify which group
> memberships trigger systematic errors in ourselves and try to disregard
> those. Self Direction says we should respect other people's choices. So
> unless belonging to a group makes a significant difference to other
> people's lives, it should also be ignored. In the interest of rational
> thinking, all other group membership information should be considered. The
> voluntary/involuntary distinction does not make too much sense to me.
I'm not sure how you go from Self Direction and respecting other people's
choices to the conclusion that group membership should be ignored unless
it makes a signficant difference to other people's lives. You seem
to be saying that you should ignore groups that make a significant
difference to someone's life, but take into consider all the others
(that don't matter much?). Could you clarify that part?
I agree that it makes sense to be cautious about using group membership
information because of the danger of over-generalizaing.
> Even today, not many group memberships are completely involuntary. For
> example you can change your sex or skin color using existing technology.
> You can do plastic surgery to make yourself look like the member of a
> different nationality, etc. Yes, there are enormous costs associated with
> those operations, but I'm not sure the distinction should be based on
> cost. Otherwise it would be acceptable to discriminate on the basis of sex
> or race once it becomes cheap enough to change one's sex or race.
Eventually, assuming that people retain something of their present form,
such issues as sex or racial appearance should become relatively cheap to
change and so be entirely voluntary. At that time I do think it would be
reasonable to discriminate on the basis of appearance, since appearance
will be a matter of personal choice. In choosing your appearance you
are sending a message. It will be a form of communication. And as such,
it is appropriate for the recipient of the message to use the information
which is presented.
> > Given that we do not yet have such complete control over our appearance,
> > perhaps a reasonable approach today is to aim to approximate the ideal
> > situation which we hope to move towards. Try to respond to people on
> > the basis of those aspects of their appearance which they have adopted
> > voluntarily, and less on those aspects which they have no control over.
>
> Consider someone who has a low level of education because his parents were
> too poor to pay for more education. He had no choice over his parents, but
> I don't think I am morally obligated to ignore his level of education.
I agree, but this is blurring the distinction between group membership and
individual characteristics. By definition we can create a group which is
composed of those individuals who share any particular characteristic,
for example, talented artists. Clearly we do not want to say that in
ignoring group membership, we must therefore also ignore all individual
differences between people.
I think we need to distinguish between groups defined in terms of a
salient characteristic, like someone who does not have enough education
for a given job, and groups which are defined in other terms, like race.
It's legitimate not to hire someone if he doesn't have the education
needed. But refusing to consider someone because he is a member of a
race which usually does not have sufficient education is another matter.
It is hard to know exactly where is the right place to draw the line in
today's world. I prefer to take a long term perspective and to try to see
how these issues are changing over time. IMO the key insight offered by
the Extropian perspective is that the superficial and often misleading
physical characteristics by which so many people are judged today will
become malleable in the future. The debates and rants here on women vs
men take on an entirely different flavor once sex becomes a matter of
choice and not birth. Already we have this communications medium in
which we have active and vital interactions without knowing much more
about other people than what they choose to reveal. In time I believe
the physical world will provide people with similar flexibility in how
they present themselves.
One way to approach the idea of ignoring group information, irrational
though it may seem today, is as practice for what the world will be
like tomorrow. By refusing to rely on this source of information now, we
may become better equipped to deal with a future world where superficial
cues are less meaningful. If on the other hand we cling to using group
information for making decisions, we may find ourselves wedded to the past
and opposing social changes which would remove this source of information
that we have become so adept at exploiting. Adopting social attitudes
today which are oriented towards our expectations of a future world will
help us move into that world more easily.
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:18 MST