[extropy-chat] ENOUGH already

[Matus]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Harvey Newstrom
> 
> Michael Dickey wrote,
> > My statement that sometimes war may be extropic is a strong
> > assertion? How so?  Seems like that absolute that war is
> > *always* anti-extropic is the strong assertion, since it
> > requires not only a clear definition of extropic but one of
> > war as well.
> 
> People who have been on this list generally know what the Extropian
> Principles are.  You can nit-pick on particular interpretations if you
> want,
> but you can't assume that nobody has defined them yet.
> 

Nor did I say they were not defined, but checking out the extropian
principles reveals many not accurately defined statements.  

>From - http://www.extropy.org/principles.htm

Extropy -  The extent of a living or organizational system's
intelligence, functional order, vitality, and capacity and drive for
improvement

Extropic - Actions, qualities, or outcomes that embody or further
extropy

So we have the extent of a systems intelligence, its order, its
'vitality', capacity for improvement, and its drive for improvement.  

Are these 'clearly' defined?  

E.g. what is the 'extent of a systems intelligence' the # of intelligent
beings?  (think of billions of couch potatoes or peasant agrarian
farmers, not very extropian) The speed of information storage and
retrieval (books vs computer databases) Speed of information exchange
between intelligent systems?  (snail mail vs. email) etc. etc. etc.

"Extropy" is not meant as a real entity or force, but only as a metaphor
representing all that contributes to our flourishing"

Ah, is it then a clearly defined metaphor?

Of course, I think it would be extraordinarily difficult to define
'extropic' since extropic progress requires intelligence, freedom to act
on intelligence, motivation to do something with intelligence, science
to collect knowledge, technology do extend and better our lives, etc.
etc.  

Which is of these is most important?  Which is least important?  Do you
care to quantify them?  Without having to, I will make the assertion
that a society which is statist (denies progress) luddite (despises
technology) oppressive (denies freedom) and mystic (denies science) is
far less extropic than one that embraces all those things.  And as such,
I would further assert that a war between these two societies, of
similar populations, where one person was killed on the less free
society (Brother number 1 say) and none were killed in the freer
society, and as a result the oppressive luddite mystic society was
turned into a dynamic, open, and technological progressive society.  

Such a 'war' I would certainly call extropic.  However, it would not be
as extropic as merely convincing Brother # 1 over a cup of tea that this
is what he should do, and him agreeing.

Even though, yeah, it would be pretty if the brother #1 decided to
resign and enact the changes himself, and it was 'bad' to have to resort
to a 'war', but the world is imperfect.  Lets add that brother # 1 was
killing 1,000 people per year in gulags for owning computers, thinking
independent thoughts, or writing poetry.  But, 10 people were killed in
the war, and 1 person on the freer side was killed.  Still extropic?
Make that 100 people, and 10 people, respectively, etc. etc.  Lets add
that Brother # 1 was funding revolutions in neighboring territories,
demanding killing quotas, and was intent on attacking said free nation.


Suffice to say, your idealistic extropic paradise where everyone
eventually sees reason and the bad guys are only people vilified by the
good guys is absurd in a world where 170 million people were killed by
very regressive, very mystic, and very oppressive societies.

Additionally, as I have been arguing *some* wars may be considered
extropic, certainly not ALL WARS.  But various methods of attaining
goals differ in levels of extropy, ranging from very extropic (merely
changing opponents mind with discussion) to very anti-extropic.

> People also generally know what war means.  You made your assertions
about
> war without having to create a more rigorous definition of the term.
If
> the
> term is generally good enough for you, it is generally good enough for
> other
> people.  You seem to be requiring a higher burden of proof for other
> people
> than for yourself.

Because other people are making absolutist statements, statement that
have no single fact that suggests they are wrong.  Saying 'ALL WARS ARE
ANTI-EXTROPIC' is absolute and definite.  *ALL WARS* (no doubt there)
*ARE* (again, pretty clear) *ANTI-EXTROPIC (again, no room for doubt is
left).  To make such a sweeping absolutist statement, one must be clear
about what we are talking about.  

I am not making an absolute assertion; I merely assert that surely, in
some cases, given specific circumstances, SOME wars (maybe only one,
maybe four) could be considered extropic.  As an example, I present the
case above.

> 
> > "To positively assert whether something was extropic or not,
> > you will have to define what criteria makes something
> > extropic, and how much of it was present before and how much
> > present afterward. This would probably be quite an
> > undertaking, yet you are all ready absolutely positive that
> > *all* wars are anti-extropic."
> 
> That is like saying that to avoid a car crash, you have to define
exactly
> what "avoidance" means, exactly what a "car crash" is,

No, its likes saying 'All car crashes are bad'  I don't know what you
area talking about.

Car crash = two cars unintentionally run into each other, or a car
unintentionally hits a fixed object

Bad = Someone is hurt

There, as simple as that, I proved my assertion that all car crashes are
bad.  Of course, one could imagine getting hit by some wealthy negligent
fello who needed to be taught a life lesson about responsibility, and
victim, getting minor injuries, receives monetary compensation from
negligent rich fella, and rich fella learns valuable lesson.  Or
Habitual drunken driver hits fixed object, a rock say, receives minor
injuries, but realizes he could have killed someone, and changes his
ways.  Might either of these crashes be considered good?  Good to whom?
Good as a net whole for everyone?  Or good for the victim or
perpetrator?

> We do NOT need exact quantitative analysis to make a qualitative
judgment.
> I think there is more evidence and experience showing that "war is
bad"
> than
> "war is good".  Only warmongers and terrorists think that we should
> inflict
> some war on "them" to get greater results for "us".

I did not disagree that all war is bad, I disagreed that all war is
absolutely anti-extropic.  If you fail to see the difference we are
certainly having a problem communicating.  All war is bad, make no
mistake, I believe as much, all killing is bad as well.  But just as the
car crash examples above, some good can come of 'bad' things.  I am
hesitant to repeat such phrases as all encompassing and as sweeping
generalizations as 'war is bad' because that statement implies too many
different things to too many different people.  

Harvey, do you consider me a warmonger or a terrorist?

> 
> > What do we do when their proponents will not listen to reason?
> 
> This is a key requirement for war.  You must dehumanize your enemy to
the
> point that it is not possible to negotiate or reason with them.

You did not answer the question.  What do we do when they do not listen
to reason?  When they insist on continuing to kill vast portions of
their populations, when they insist on remaining closed, oppressive and
totalitarian.  Shall we just keep hoping they see reason?  For how long?
How many people must die before you give up your idealistic fancifull
pacifist utopia and realize that there are some people who are bad.
Maybe an OPT god can convince them to see the light, but how many people
must we watch them murder while debate rages on?

  They will
> never agree to anything else, so we must kill them.  We have to
eliminate
> all other possible options before the "final solution" becomes the
only
> one
> left.
> 

And what if the 'final solution' is the only one left?

> As Extropians, we should be seeing more and more options all the time,
not
> less and less.  War should be less likely and less useful as we
progress
> into the future.

And it has become less and less likely, and less and less needed,
thankfully.

>  War is the opposite of extropy.  War means that there
> are
> no possible solutions, we give up, we can't oppose the other side, so
we
> will just kill them.

Or we are sick of seeing them killing other people, or it becomes clear
that they threaten our way of life, or they are crazy and just want to
kill as many people as possible, or they want to thrust all of humanity
into darker ages then we have ever known.  Again, I feel you simplify
complex subjects too much.

> 
> > To suggest, as I did, that
> > maybe some wars are indeed extropic requires me to present
> > merely one single example of a war that would reasonably be
> > considered extropic.  To do this, and prove it to you,
> > Charlie, and Paul would likely require a lengthy discussion
> > just to define extropic and to define war.  But are you so
> > sure that ANY possible war is definitely NOT extropic?
> 
> Typical losing-position approach.  You want to assert it, but it would
> take
> too long to explain why.

Its an unproductive waste of time.

  You want to push the burden of proof to the
> other
> side.  You want them to prove a negative (that no war could ever be
> extropic),

Proving all wars are anti-extropic is proving a positive.

> while you refuse to prove a positive (just give one example).

Or you could be asking me to prove a negative (all wars are not
anti-extropic) 

Of course, I never said "ALL" you conveniently added that, I said "some"
All is absolute and all inclusive, some is not.  I need only make a
reasonable case the some hypothetical example exists that is counter to
whatever all encompassing statement is made.  All red heads are male is
absolute.  Some redheads are female is not, I need only demonstrate one
female red head to prove my point, you need to prove that all read heads
are male.

> You also claim that your position hasn't been disproved yet, nobody
has
> proved that all war is always entropic and never can be, so your
argument
> still stands undefeated.  A lack of defeat (yet) does not equal proof.

Again, Harvey, I never said "ALL" you added that.  Charlie et al
however, did say "ALL"  Oddly enough, the fact that he and Paul Grant
said "ALL" is the primary point I hold in contention, yet it is the
single thing you get wrong in my argument.

> 
> > If you wanted to try to
> > convince Hitler and Stalin that War was bad, I'm all for it,
> > but once tanks start rolling over us, I'm defending myself.
> > We could say that 'killing is bad' as well, but in saying
> > that am I giving up my right to self defense?
> 
> There is a big difference between defending yourself from violence and
> initiating violence.  The libertarians and older extropians on this
board
> used to understand that.  This idea of pre-emptive strikes and
initiating
> force on people who haven't attacked us is definitely not extropian.
It
> never has been and never will be.

So says you.  I guess everyone who disagrees with you isn't extropian!

I would ask you to answer the ethical questions I have proposed before
on this list then

You are standing in line, side by side, with ten other people.  A man is
walking down the line shooting each person in the head, starting at the
other end of the line.  BAM BAM BAM BAM hes coming closer to you, BAM
BAM BAM BAM BAM .....  What can you do?  You have a gun.  He has not
threatened you yet, he has not pointed the gun at your head, or even in
your general direction.  

Your society is a progressive, open, technology friendly society.  On
the other side of the world, is a closed, repressive, totalitarian
society.  Your two countries are of equal power, the repressive society
begins an active campaign of expansion.  Turning all neighboring
societies, one by one, into societies ruled by proxy just like the
parent country.  Eventually, half of the worlds countries are consumed,
and the power of that country has quadrupled.  Reports of mass democide
and horrific conditions are prevalent. The leaders of that country
insist they will not bother you. The NCP Libertarians, pacifists, and
idealists in your society insist that if you leave them alone, they wont
bother you.  That it is wrong to initiate force unless you are attacked
directly.  The hawks and warmongers insist that this country is bent on
taking over the entire world, and that if you wait too long, you will
not even be able to oppose them.

> 
> (And for the record, no I don't believe that Iraq was part of the 9/11
> attacks or had weapons of mass destruction.  I do believe that we
> pre-emptively attacked a country that neither attacked us nor were
capable
> of attacking us.  No, I don't think the Iraq war is extropic.)

For the record, I, tentatively, do think it was extropic.  But whatever
we think will not change whether it ends up being extropic or not.

> 
> > > > 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?
> > >
> > > No we can not call such questions reasonable.  I don't know why it
> > > keeps coming up on this list.
> >
> > Yet if one is to assert that all wars are anti-extropic, then
> > this is a question that MUST be answered before making that
> > determination.  All wars include loss of life.  How extropic
> > is a single life?  What do we mean when we say 'extropic' in
> > the first place?
> 
> Sorry if I haven't made myself clear.  ZERO LOSS OF LIFE is extropic.
ANY
> LOSS OF LIFE is entropic.

Ah, so Pol Pots death was entropic?  Is # of lives the only thing with
which you gauge extropy on?  For the record, I agree with you, I think
any loss of life is entropic as well, but there are many components to
extropy, # of lives only being one of them.  Also, all my ethical
judgments are NOT based solely on what is extropic and entropic, as I
have argued, many freedoms I love and enjoy (and still others I value
but do not partake in) could probably not be considered extropic.

>  Now I know that the world isn't perfect, and we
> can't prevent all loss of life.  But I certainly don't want anybody
> planning
> loss of life as part of their master plan.  Especially any final
solution
> where the loss of life is directed at one group while a different
group
> benefits.

Nor do I, is that what you think I am doing?  I fear your impression of
me is prejudiced by what you think I am trying to say, instead of what I
am actually saying.  Merely that some wars, under some conditions (note,
'SOME' not 'ALL) could be considered extropic (that is, creating a more
progressive, open, technological and science friendly world)

> 
> > > It almost seems as if there is a subgroup of people who
> > > keep trying to justify committing violence as part of
> > > the extropian agenda.
> >
> > And it seems that there is a subgroup of people content to
> > let us be overrun by murderous oppressive regimes for fear of
> > taking a single like to defend our very extropic (thought not
> > extropic enough) society.
> 
> Only people who cannot conceive of any answer besides murder,
terrorism
> and
> war would make such a statement. 

Ah, so if I made such a statement, than I can not conceive of any answer
besides murder, terrorism, and war.  What was that you were saying about
vilifying the enemy?

'Only a murderer would say such a thing!!!'  

Can we keep this discussion a little more intelligent?  Its one thing to
disagree with me, its another entirely to call me a warmongering
murdering terrorist.  And I of course disagree with your premise that
'only people who can not conceive...would make such a statement'

 If there are other options, then it is
> perfectly possible to pursue them without resorting to murder,
terrorism
> and
> war.

Of course!!!  But what if there ARE NO OTHER OPTIONS!!  This is a point
I have yet to see you address.

>  The refusal to initiate force does not equal a lack of self-defense.
> Every libertarian knows that.

Do they?  I think they confuse the NCP sometimes and self defense.  I
have had some discussions on my mailing list about that very subject.
For example, what is self defense?  Does someone merely need to wave a
gun at you in a threatening manner (what is a threatening manner?) do
they actually need to shoot at you (after all, maybe they never intended
on shooting you or even pulling the trigger) What if they shoot everyone
in a line (consider my above ethical question)  There are many scenarios
where self defense and the NCP have no clear answers. 

> 
> > Yes, War is bad, and killing is also bad.  So is lying,
> > stealing, cheating, etc.  But the real world is cold,
> > complex, and unforgiving, and sometimes things must be done
> > that we prefer not to do in order to ensure the continuation
> > of the things we value.  I may steal bread to feed my
> > starving self or family, I may lie to protect the feelings of
> > someone I care about, I may kill someone in self defense, and
> > my country may go to war when threatened by a clearly and
> > significantly less extropic, less free, murderous and
> > oppressive government.
> 
> This is my point exactly.  As extropians, we are supposed to be
> intelligent
> people with optimism, smart technology and future solutions.  Can't we
> think
> up something besides guns, murder, lying and war?

Of course, but what if...

  As long as you think
> these things are bad and work to avoid them, then we are in agreement.
> But

They are unavoidable?

Regards

Michael Dickey