[extropy-chat] RE: POLITICS: terrorism and strategies

[Robert J. Bradbury]

Jef,

> It seems we have something of a precedent, with the bombing of Hiroshima
> and Nagasaki, and it is interesting that I can assume some who react in
> disgust to your proposal have come to terms with those mass killings of
> Japanese as being an effective utilitarian solution that saved a
> significant number of American lives.  It is also interesting to note
> that the lives of the Other were heavily discounted in relation to the
> value of the lives of the Self-group.

I do not believe this is completely accurate.  I do believe that in
the debates as to whether or not to drop the bombs there was at least
some if not extensive discussion with regard to the Japanese casualties
in both the bomb approach vs. a conventional sea/land (and conventional
bombing) approach.  I suspect there are books written on this topic.

In short, I think there was at least some consideration of the self-group
vs. the other-group and possible best solutions.  It should be kept in
mind that the "other" group had already implemented "Kamakazi" pilots.
So at least for some of the population it was acceptable to sacrifice
ones life in the hope of victory.

> But even the most detached utilitarian argument rests ultimately upon a
> value system.

Yes...

> But we are not reptiles.  We are social mammals that generally feel
> revulsion at the thought of killing anyone that we see as similar to
> ourselves.  And we've recently gotten to the point where we can easily
> see other tribes (even other species) as similar to ourselves, and
> worthy of respect, except, for example, when overridden by fear.

No debate.  *But* I'm trying to deal with the strategy of how one
best promotes extropian or transhumanistic perspectives....

> The generally accepted correct answer, of course, is that it would be
> wrong to do what you propose, because we would not like what we had
> become by doing such a thing.  But this answer is easily overcome by the
> extropian viewpoint that we must go beyond the limitations of our
> evolved nature.
>
> So let's try a more enlightened approach to the question.

Good.  At least it may ultimately provide us with walls
in which to exercise our thoughts.

> Framed as an absolutely utilitarian question, just as in the iterated
> prisoner's dilemma, the obvious rational answer would be to defect and
> drop the bombs.  But just as in that game-theoretical situation,
> something seems amiss, because both sides lose when such harsh logic is
> evaluated in such a limited context.

Yes -- but I am seeking cost vs. benefit tradeoffs.  And for the most part
extropians and/or transhumanists fail to recognize the "present value"
of their expertise/knowledge base/steering framework/etc.

> We could point to a likely counter-example:  The Cold-War posed the same
> question as you raise, and there were leaders who argued strongly for
> the same "solution" of catastrophic destruction of the Other while we
> could.  Wiser (in my opinion) voices prevailed and argued that while
> risky, we could expect the enemy structure to collapse under the weight
> of its internal contradictions.  It did, and looking back, this seems to
> have been a positive course of events.

Valid points.  Can you point to a structure of internal contradictions
that will doom religious hierarchies (in particular those with violent
orientations) to self-destruction?  (I would rather not take pro-active
action against something which is doomed to self-destruct within a
reasonable timeframe...)

I will not comment on your remaining comments.  I will simply say that
I hope they may be accurate and that you may have opportunity to expand
on them in the future as you view is reasonable.

Robert