From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Sun May 26 2002 - 18:04:21 MDT
On Sunday, May 26, 2002, at 01:30 pm, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> Thank you. My posts were meant to ask you, and others to consider which
> is more moral and better for extropy. The moral arguments I've seen you
> and others make in the past on the list seem to deny any sort of Natural
> Law basis for morality, instead relying, it seems, on a more utilitarian
> argument of what does the least harm.
I do believe that people have to be judged on their actions, and not on
any genetic inferiority that is believed to exist in them. Even if such
inferiorities are passed through to some groups, there are so many other
genetic factors that we cannot fully calculate, that it is still
impossible to get a measure of a man solely by his genetic heritage.
> In the rhetorical questions I've
> posed, what is more moral, based on your apparent 'least harm' standard:
> killing someone who is causing or is intending to cause millions or
> billions of deaths, or passively allowing millions or billions of people
> to be killed while only taking whatever measures you see fit to save
> your own person?
To quote Admiral Kirk, "I don't believe in the no-win scenario." You
are basically inventing an imaginary scenario where your way is right
and does more good, and my way is wrong and does more harm. In effect
you are asking me to imagine a world where I am wrong and then you try
to get me to defend my the wrong position you imagine instead of the
real-world right position that I perceive.
However, despite all that, I will try to answer you questions.
> If you think taking the interventionist stance is wrong, why, if it is
> in actuality the proper 'least harm' choice, do you think so?
I think it is impossible to predict people's future actions or the
future result of ideas accurately enough to sentence people to death for
consequences of things they haven't done yet. I believe it would be
much easier to fight their position in the public forum than to wage a
secret assassination war, eliminating all our opponents without getting
caught. Even if we never get caught, the backlash against the
assassinations would only galvanize their side and make things worse.
> Is it so
> important to take no action just because a person has not actually
> committed an overt, direct act of violence? Why? At what point do you
> think we will pass a threshold condition where an interventionist stance
> is justified, and is this condition before or after a point where it is
> too late to really do anything about it?
You are confusing my refusal to kill an innocent man with taking no
action. If a Luddite publishes a paper, we publish a dozen counter
papers. If a Luddite gets press, we flood the press with opposing
viewpoints. If a Luddite runs for office, we campaign against them. We
do not have a binary choice between murder and inaction. There are many
valid and ethical choices that can be made. There is no reason to limit
our response to either extreme.
> We are, of course, dealing with a scheduling problem. Resource planners
> looking at world resources and human population see a consumption peak
> around 2050 or thereabouts. This peak period I see as being the last
> possible date at which we can expect to see a technological singularity
> with any possible positive outcome, and the closer to it that the
> Singularity occurs, the less extropic I see the Singularity becoming
> (i.e. more and more like the Borg or the Matrix). We think the
> Singularity will occur sometime between 2020 and 2030 at current rates
> of technological change and acceleration. this means that we can
> theoretically afford a legalistic interregnum of somewhere between 10-30
> years where luddites could control the political landscape and restrict
> technological development by statutory means, thus delaying the
> Singularity from occuring. If the interregnum lasts any longer, this
> will result in a future where the worst prophesies of the luddites will
> be fulfilled, or else mankind will be forced by lack of resources to
> devolve and depopulate to pre-Industrial Age levels.
So? Fight against it. Argue logic. Argue reality. If the governments
of the world are supported by the peoples of the world who choose
Luddite rule over us, so be it. Let them have the consequences of their
actions. I do not believe that we should assassinate Luddites and
impose our values onto others "for their own good" against their will.
If they choose Luddism and clearly do not want our help, why should we
force it on them? Sure, they may make bad choices, but that's what
freedom is all about. We can't override every election or every act of
congress with violence to achieve our means. The resulting terrorism
and counter-terrorism violence and loss of freedoms would probably do
more harm than good. For example, if we assassinate a Luddite for
office, is this really likely to give us a better candidate? Or will
the Luddites just stick the next Luddite in line on the nomination
block? I don't see how killing individuals can stop an idea. There is
no way to kill an idea by killing everybody who thinks it.
> If the Luddite movement gains control of all of the most industrialized
> polities, then there will be no real sanctuary for technophilia in the
> world, and it would spell the end of modern civilization and no
> Singularity at all, merely the creation of a new Atlantis legend in a
> newly pastoralized world.
If the Luddite movement gains control of politics, we move underground.
We hide from them and defend ourselves from oppressive governments. If
we start assassinating Luddites, it just gives them more fodder for
trying to stop the murderous scientists. I though history had shown
that freedom of ideas will eventually win out. Suppression of ideas and
murder of incorrect thinkers doesn't work. I don't know how you can
propose such things and seriously think they have a chance of working.
Even if you insist on finding a cause for counter-revolutionary tactics,
we can do so without terrorism. Hack into government websites and
display the truth. Spy on government facilities and reveal the truth.
Sneak in government facilities and destroy their resources and
propaganda machines. If you really insist on trying to destroy and
idea, then go directly after the idea. Run your own disinformation
campaign. Destroy information if you want to suppress it. Killing
every person is not an effective means to suppress an idea. Haven't you
heard that the pen is mightier than the sword? This is a million times
more true as technology increases our information processing and network
communications abilities. Old methods of violence won't be able to
compete with new information technologies.
-- 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 - 09:14:23 MST