[extropy-chat] ENOUGH already

[Paul Grant]

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Matus
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 7:31 AM
To: 'ExI chat list'
Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] ENOUGH already




> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- 
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Paul Grant
>
>
> > As u can see, I have to agree with Charlie :)
> >
> 
> >I think you should refer to the rest of the discussion.  Are you
> claiming, absolutely, that not only have all wars that have ever 
> occurred but all wars that could possibly occur are definitely 
> anti-extropic?  Quite a strong assertion.  This of course requires you

> to define extropic exactly, and war exactly.  My point, as was evident

> from the discussion was that whether war is extropic is a much more 
> complicated question.  In that discussion Charlie even presented an 
> example of overthrowing the US government to get rid of the drug laws.
> 
> -To me, war is a question of relevance;  are they (whoever) really 
> relevant to your own extropic efforts?

So, do you disagree with the statement then that in all possible cases
all wars are definitely anti-extropic?  And would you thus agree that
under certain relevant circumstances some may be?

-
Put another way, do think that for *every* case a war is fought, 
is their a less costly pathway to achieving the same end?  I
would have no problem stating yes; ergo, war is anti-extropic
insofar as it is a tremendously more costly way of doing business,
and thus, a less-desireable solution.   This is all academic anyway,
since really, I don't even think of extropic/anti-extropic as a boolean
quality (with a few noteable exceptions, in the process of definining 
extropy)... Its a sliding scale, something to judge the quality of state
versus another state.
 
> Besides, really, think about it... wouldn't you rather bring your 
> aggressor to your viewpoints of things and have him join his resources

> to yours, as opposed to beating him,

]Those who do not subscribe to reason can not be conquered by it.  

Having dealt with many delusional people, skip reason...figure out how 
their delusion can be warped to your own ends.  You're a state machine,
with a utility table. Period.  Very effective, btw.

]What do you do when your enemy can not be enlightened?  

Simple.  Make him irrelevant.

]What would you do when you can not convince an armed assailant that he
shouldn’t be holding you up or about to murder a loved one?  

Aaaah, the age old question.  Give him the cash.  Steal the same amount
back from society [upgrade!].
Stall for time.  Die.  There are tons of options besides killing him.
Personally I prefer maiming :)
Much more effective :)  Of course, the last time I was assaulted was
like 10 years ago or so.  I've
become far more skillful in avoiding physical combat.

]Of course I would prefer my enemy to 'see the light' but I am not so
naïve to think that everyone always will.  There is way too much pain
and suffering all ready occurring to believe as such.

So why not add to it, eh? :)

> then spending all that effort
> to keep "unruly" portions of your population in line?  And no matter 
> what anyone says, if extropians succeed in their quest, it will be 
> something worth its weight in gold (read:
of
> intrinsic value to anyone alive)

]If one person stood in the way of a singularity, and you could not
convince him through reason to let a singularity occur, what would you
do?

Invent a way to negate their influence, or barring that, invent a way to
harness their resistence to my own ends.
I've always been a fan of the perverse :)

]When members of this list continue to extol the virtues of extropianism
while at the same time deriding violence or spreading extropy through
any means other than polite conversation, it should come of no surprise
that the logical conclusions of these two statements occur as difficult
ethical questions.

Your young, aren't you? :) <chuckles> 
Perhaps it is a respect for all life that drives us, eh?
A reasoning that one cannot know the future, and that possibility
(though it may take longer), offers a greater chance of success.
It is a short hop from extending one's own life, to that of others,
and perhaps incorporating it as a principle.

> >My example of a less extropic government being overthrown by a more
> extropic one was merely a quick example, it was not meant to imply
that
> ANY more extropic government had the right to overthrow any less 
> extropic one no matter the cost in lives or property.  That is of
course
> ridiculous.
> 
> Well it's a direct consequence of your statement :) I only extended it

> to illustrate it.

]I hoped that the apparent relevance of 'less extropic' and 'more
extropic' would be obvious, and that the statement would not be taken so
literally.  

I always take things literally.  No offense intended, I find it
difficult to read people's minds, and so I find it is convenient to
assume that what they say mirrors what they are thinking.  As I said, no
offense intended; for future reference, I always reply to what is said,
or barring my being able to make sense of it, probe, or ask for
clarification.

]I would not endorse one society that merely taxes computer purchases
being overthrown, quite violently, by a nearly identical group whose
only difference is that they would not tax computers.  

That is just a question of degree friend :)

> >A more reasonable question (if one can call such questions
> reasonable) would be how many lives are worth an increase in extropy, 
> and how much of an increase?  Debates of that sort have been tossed 
> around on this list all ready.
> 
> No doubt. I dunno, what do you think? Do you think extropy is measured

> in number of human lives? Personally I tend to think of it as a 
> codified survivor instinct
without
> regard to any of the current mental/spiritual/economic/political 
> blocks in place :)
> 

Certainly not, as I said in the discussion with Charlie, I attempted to
start a thread suggesting we clearly define extropic goals, of course
many are all ready listed on extropy sites principles page.  A million
survivor watching automaton couch potatoes are not extropic at all
compared to a handful of productive motivated scientists, so # of lives
is not the only extropic consideration.

]aaaah :) but if people are educated, and curious (with the proviso of a
survivor instinct above), 
certes the conclusion becames inescapable; want to live life on your
terms (excluding death, disease
and sundry other annoying conclusions), better start molding your
environment to suit your needs.
Want proof, everyone on this list, I'm sure, is engaged in some attempt
to achieve said goals.
And they all arrived at it independently (supposition on my part, but I
think its reasonable).

I would suggest that the principles of extropy are primarily based off
what drives each of us
to adopt a common set of methods, and operating principles (posits,
assumptions etc).  I'ld be happy
to start a discussion with you on said topic, and offering my current
viewset as a starting point.
It'll sound a little simplistic, I fear, but I tend to write fairly
dense statements, preferring
a minimal basis, from which the rest can be extrapolated.

> >I also noted in that discussion that freedoms are not directly
> synonymous with extropy, as the freedom to sit on ones ass all day and

> watch TV isn't gonna bring about a singularity, nor would being
stoned,
> drunk, or visiting strip clubs all day, nor chattering on discussion 
> board for that matter.  In fact a paternalistic big brother esque 
> society where each person was assigned an area of technological
pursuit
> and had immortality and extropianism drilled into their head from the 
> time they were children would probably be the most 'extropic' yet it 
> would not be very free.
> 
> I would agree with that sentiment (not the big brother), but that 
> freedom and extropy need not be irrevocably related...  I would
suggest
> though, that life without freedom (and health) would lose its flavor 
> rather quickly, so perhaps it is highly correlated...

]Certainly, and I highly value both freedom AND extropy!

Hehehehe.  Me too. :)


Michael Dickey


_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat