From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sat May 25 2002 - 03:54:46 MDT
Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> Why is infanticide a useful discussion? For the same reason that
> triage is discussed in medical school (we don't have an infinite
> amount of resources) and the fact that the existance of world
> hunger makes passive (or active) infanticide a reality. The NY Times,
> I think, yesterday mentioned that perhaps as many as 5 million
> people in South Africa are facing starvation. Mothers have to make
> choices about whom to feed and people may die as a result of those
> decisions. That is the reality of the world we live in today.
It is a reality mainly generated by political and economic
impediments and not any current inability to grow or distribute
enough food. It is hardly an example of infanticide being a
"useful discussion" that I see.
>
> Why is infanticide -- perhaps -- a poor topic for the Extropian list?
> Because the intelligence and resources of the people on the list
> could be better devoted to the extropic topic of how to solve world
> hunger rather than spending many hours debating the fine points of
> whether people should have the freedom to create societies or even
> think about creating societies where infanticide is acceptable.
>
Yes. I very much agree. I would also point out that our ability
to coalesce into meaningful numbers and abilities and especially
or ability to spread our most important memes is critically
dependent on finding the points that we agree on, are most
important and will most attract and influence others. A long
discussion on infanticide or claiming the lesser value of women
(!?) is *extremely* counter productive. We are hear to lay the
foundations of the future, not to shoot off our mouths endlessly
with no or little caring for the consequences.
> Infanticide is perhaps a reasonable thing to discuss but it would
> be more useful perhaps on one of the Usenet groups, e.g. soc.culture.*,
> soc.rights.* or sci.environment groups.
>
Yes.
> For Amara and Gina, I would offer up the question of whether or
> not, in Greg Stock's posthuman world, you feel it should be legal to
> allow other posthumans to turn their empathic feelings down to zero?
>
It is certainly "legal" and "allowable" but I do not think I
would want to be too close to those who chose to.
> The really sticky point behind the Joy, Fukuyama, et al camp is
> "What are we when "we", or some subset of "us", when ve view
> there as being little difference between recycling our old cars
> and recycling 5 year old children?". If we say "*that* must never
> come to pass", then we have doomed the civilization --
> there can be no space colonization, there must be a police
> state everywhere, etc. I think that may be part of the
> perspective that Lee is coming from.
>
There is no way you can support a contention that setting any
limits at all on what is an is not allowable behavior will "doom
the civilization". "Recycling" 5 year olds doesn't have
anything to do with space colonization or police states. I have
no idea why you are implying it does.
> If you don't "have" your emotions, then they "have" you.
>
Glib, but please elaborate.
> But for the people who want to spend time creating a world with
> more freedom, I'd suggest a little less emphasis on theoretical
> discussions and a little more emphasis on solutions that would
> allow mothers in South Africa to avoid being forced into decisions
> about which of their children survive would be a pretty extropic
> thread.
Definitely and one I would enjoy.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:21 MST