[extropy-chat] ENOUGH already

Samantha Atkins samantha at objectent.com
Fri Dec 26 06:30:08 UTC 2003


On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 20:03:45 -0800 (PST)
Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:

> 
> --- Damien Broderick <thespike at earthlink.net> wrote:
> > McKibben draws upon the wisdom of the extropian list thus:
> > 
> > `On the bulletin boards of the Web, you can find zealous
> > "transhumanists"
> > not just explaining how the world will evolve past our species, but
> > also debating questions like whether it's morally necessary to kill
> > "Luddites" who stand in the way of such progress:
> 
> snip a quote of what was probably one of my posts....

It was floated as at least a "discussion point" by a few people at different times.
> 
> > I recall pointing out at the time how this would come back to bite
> > us on the arse.
> 
> And I seem to recall saying, and if I didn't, I'll say it now: Only a
> freakin luddite would consider *saving* billions of human lives to be
> 'violence'... (of course, because those billions of humans would wind
> up doing violence to the pretty trees and fuzzy animals...)
> 

Violence is violence.  That violence is sometimes necessary does not make not so. History is painted with the blood of those killed for the sake of a "noble ideal".  It behooves us to be very vigilant in not falling into this pattern <again>.   What is required is that those with the vision to create a worthwhile future have the freedom to do so.  That freedom sometimes have to resort to force.  But it is not true, never has been true and never works to kill of a large enough number of those who do not think like you in order to supposedly make the world a better place.   Would it not be a lot more fruitful to concentrate on what you wish to build, sell the hell out of it, and only last of all insist on the right to pursue your dreams, defendable if need by by arms?  Why start out planning to kill off the "luddites"?   How the hell do you expect to keep even those of dream of similar world much less convert anyone to the cause if you lead with death to everyone you judge to !
be in your way?  This loses big.



> I seem to recall that there have been people killed by luddite violence
> and not a one of the perps, I am sure, ever debated the issue, or
> thought to think of it as an ethical issue worthy of debate. Nobody
> here did public protest against these deaths.
>

I have no idea what this blurry accusation has to do with the question at hand.
 
> And while I've been trying to raise the warnings, people round these
> parts have been mighty complacent while the gummint goes about enacting
> the luddite agenda and people like McKibben gain popular renown without
> answer from our side.
>

It is true that people are overly complacent.  But threatening luddites in general or specific ones with death directly or by implications is not the way.
 
> If any sort of violence is not warranted, then what is the excuse for
> the complete and total inaction of the people on this list??? There is
> a broad range of possible reponses between apathy and violence. Nobody
> here has taken a one.
> 


No one?  Nothing at all?  Or nothing you are aware of or that meets your approval?

What actions short of violence do you advocate?

-s



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list