From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Sun May 26 2002 - 06:15:02 MDT
On Sunday, May 26, 2002, at 04:30 am, Reason wrote:
> --> Samantha Atkins
>> Reason wrote:
>>> ---> Samantha Atkins
>>>> Reason wrote:
>>> [Civilized = something that Samantha agrees with or feels comfortable
>>> with], apparently.
>>>
>> If you believe that, that it is all relative or subjective, then
>> it is no wonder we are having a difficult time communicating.
>
> Well yes, of course it's relative and subjective; it's defined by
> humans and
> by consensus in our society. One person's civilization is another
> person's
> abomination. I asked you in a previous post to produce an argument
> demonstrating that there is a single preferential civilized frame of
> reference, as it were.
But Extropians aren't seeking a relative or subjective consensus toward
civilization. Why would anybody want that. We seek absolute or
objective consensus toward civilization. We seek hard provable
increases in extropy (system's intelligence, information, order,
vitality, and capacity for improvement). Our basic goals of perpetual
progress and intelligent technology need to be measurable and sure. Our
basic goals for self-transformation, open society, and self-direction
are for everybody, not just a chosen subset.
> I think that memes of that sort are essential, but from a perspective of
> extreme memetic diversity = good for the future of intelligent life,
> arrived
> at by scientific thinking. Since we can't (yet) in advance accurately
> predict which memes lead intelligence to better survive all
> eventualities,
> any and all memes are welcome in the pool. Even ones we as individuals
> may
> feel have to defend ourselves against.
This is an odd interpretation. Memetic diversity is good, but that does
not mean that all idea are valid or true. The fact that we can
accurately predict all eventualities does not imply that we shouldn't
predict anything. Some memes can be pursued as more useful, and other
memes can be discarded as less useful. If one really thinks we can't
evaluate ideas at all, I'm not sure how we could pursue or advocate
anything.
>>> With regards to your first paragraph there, equating infants to
>>> animals
>>> using some set of criteria is a factual discussion, or a conclusion
>>> arrived
>>> at by a society by consensus. Either you subscribe to this
>>> fact/opinion and
>>> its justifications or you don't.
I think this is just plain wrong. We don't vote on facts by societal
convention. We don't merely choose to equate infants with animals or
not. Claims require evidence and extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence. We have all seen these unfounded claims that
infants = animals = OK to kill, but it is time for people to provide
some evidence for this position or let it drop. Repeatedly asserting it
or even considering it without evidence is wasting our time.
>> The fact (an infant is an animal) does not let to the conclusion (it is
>> alright to kill them if you wish and have ownership rights).
>
> Well, yes, that's what I was saying. All those other things are derived
> by
> societal consensus. But it's pretty arbitrary, based on historical
> record,
> as to which consensus is arrived at.
>
>> I draw my line well before the point of saying that killing
>> infants is ok and trying to claim that they are not even human
>> or claims they are relatively valueless.
>
> Which is all opinion, which is kind of my point.
Again, these kinds of things are not just opinions or voted consensus.
Extropians actually believe in things or hold certain principles. We
are not relativists to the point that nothing is true and we can vote
anything into reality. If anyone proposes infanticide, groupism, or
violence, they need to argue their position with evidence. Claiming
that everything is arbitrary anyway is not a defensive position.
>>> Whether or not you find it pleasant to think about, many similar
>>> things
>>> (value of people, value of infants, value of races) have been settled
>>> on in
>>> a consensus manner in radically different ways in different times and
>>> societies. Many "civilized" and complex societies have declared whole
>>> segments of what is currently considered humanity to be objects of
>>> little value.
This is the human history we wish to transcend by being transhumans. We
wish to avoid the atrocities of the past and become something better.
The argument that we have always done it this way is not acceptable
evidence that it should be so.
>> We consider setting one race as of more value as the worse kind
>> of bigotry. We consider setting some people as more valuable
>> generally (rather than in some particular context or in relation
>> to certain capabilities) as very questionable. The question is
>> not whether different societies have decided certain questions
>> in different ways. The burning question is how we will decide
>> and whether we will decide in terms of the kind of world we wish
>> to build and inhabit or will use our much vaunted brains to
>> effectively dissect our own hearts and thoroughly miss the point.
>
> Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. If we
> don't
> look back in an attempt to understand, we're not going to do all that
> well
> when things get really complex.
Then do so! We have been seeing a lot of talk of history supporting
racism and bigotry or infanticide or violence. Somebody should present
the evidence. Show that these things are useful or required for our
future society. I have not see such evidence yet. The main problem
with these recent discussions is that they seem to assume such things
without evidence. The above counter argument implies that Samantha's
position ignores history and that racial arguments consider history.
Now present some evidence for this claim.
>
>>> This whole thing originally came about as a result of querying where
>>> to draw
>>> the line between human and non-human, and assigning a value to
>>> potential
>>> humans. This is an eminently valid discussion. If human societies
>>> can't deal
I don't see anyone saying not to draw the line. I only see people
asking for evidence for drawing it along racial or age lines. The claim
that infants aren't humans or races aren't equally human is pretty
extraordinary. It has far reaching implications and must be
demonstrated before potentially murderous action can be considered. You
are arguing that you have a right to consider this and use evidence to
come to a conclusion. Nobody disputes that. What we want to see is the
evidence that infants aren't human or that races are not equally
valuable humans.
>> No problem with that in some aspects. There is a problem in
>> other aspects where you believe things below the line can/should
>> be treated in any arbitrary manner you might see fit.
>
> Which is an ethical/moral question to be decided on by societal
> consensus.
> And the answer could be any old thing.
This is definitely not acceptable under most societies or extropian
prinicples. We can't "decide" to murder infants or certain races
arbitrarily. The answer can't be "any old thing." If this is the
evidence for infanticide or racism (or other violence), it does not meet
any civilized society's standards for death sentences or mass genocide.
It is not sufficient evidence.
> Well yes and no. Map is the territory. Perceived value is pretty much
> the
> same as value.
No rational philosophy believes this. The map is NOT the territory.
Perception is NOT the same as objective reality. There is an objective
reality. Our actions have real consequences in the real world.
>> If we do not think proactively rather than reactively
>> about these questions and project what we wish to live in,
These kinds of statements contain no meaning. Everybody considers their
own position to be correct, proactive, best-practices, etc. This line
of reasoning is providing no information about what you believe, why you
believe it, and what evidence you have to convince others of your
belief. You are merely asserting over and over that you are right, but
you aren't even clearly stating what or why you believe.
> One of my earlier points: whether it is ok or not within any given
> society
> is a function of what the members of that society agree upon, no matter
> how
> horrid other people may find it. As pointed out earlier, I believe in
> absolute relativism, you don't.
Again, do you have any evidence for these infanticide, racial or violent
views, or is it just that you have a right to hold them? You won't win
many converts without further evidence.
-- 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 - 09:14:22 MST