[extropy-chat] ex-tropical

[Harvey Newstrom]

Kevin Freels wrote,
> Harvey...Out of curiosity, do you have an idea of how we can 
> cure this problem?

I have a lot of ideas, but no solutions that will satisfy everyone.

> It has always been my understanding that 
> most of this is caused by evil governments, political 
> instability, and/or stupid religious beliefs. Even when we 
> send money or food, it is taken by others. I am assuming that 
> the land that is occupied by these people is incapable of 
> supporting human populations.

I almost agree, except that most of these people aren't evil.  Some are, but
most really believe what they are doing is best.  This is not naïve on my
part to believe this.  This explanation actually is more depressing and
bodes worse for the world than a more simplistic explanation that evil
people are doing this.  Stupidity and confusion cause more harm in the world
than evil.

> Seriously, I am not messing with you here. Isn't this a 
> problem that could be cured? Maybe we could strike a deal 
> with some African natin where we get to make a huge area of 
> green land and fresh water into a 51st state. Then we offer 
> transportation to all that would like to go there. We lay 
> down the laws, explain the laws before they come in, and 
> enforce thos laws. No bullshit coups, wars, etc. It's our 
> state and we make and enforce the laws. We start with a 
> simple economy. Labor jobs for natural resources, and we 
> train people on the way.

Unfortunately, this won't work.  People won't agree on what laws to create.
Luddites would try to ban technology, while transhumanists would want a
high-tech future.  Religious groups would want to ban other religions.
Conservatives would want to ban gays and drug users.  Liberals would want
sexual and drug freedoms.  NRA-types would want to bring their guns, while
others would want to ban all weapons.

There are a million utopian desires, many of which are mutually exclusive.

> I know it sounds oversimplified, but my point is that noone 
> has seriously tried to "solve" the problem. I'm sure a lot of 
> people would not want to go there because they wouldn't want 
> to be subjected to our laws, or simply because they don;t 
> like us. But at least then it is their choice to die of hunger.

This is oversimplified.  Worse, you are wrong.  Many people have tried to
solve the problem.  I think almost everybody has a perfect world or final
solution in their mind.  These solutions are all incompatible with each
other.  We need a solution that allows everyone else to pursue their dreams
as well.  Libertarians claim to have this with maximum freedoms for
everybody, but libertarianism doesn't work either.  People disagree on what
actions on the part of other people constitutes risk or harm.

Does someone's guns pose a risk to me?  What about their weapons of mass
destruction?  Do a bunch of naked people having orgies in the street harm me
or my children?  Do gays pose a threat to heterosexual marriage?  People
really disagree on these issues.  No freedom can be given to one group
without another group feeling harmed by it.  There may be no answer besides
colonizing the Kuiper Belt and having a million separate little utopias that
are separated by large distances.

> This reminds me of a conversation a couple of weeks ago about 
> terraforming Earth. Big projects that are way out of the box 
> of current political thinking. But that doesn;t mean they 
> can;t be done.

Here again, many people would object.  We can't find an ultimate goal for
terraforming Earth that would please everyone.  Luddites would want restful
parks everywhere.  Naturists would want the natural tundra, deserts, and
wetlands left alone.  Urbanites might want solid urban sprawl over the whole
planet.  Hunters would want shooting areas, while hikers don't want people
shooting around them.  Some transhumanists would want to preserve earth for
history, while some would want to totally transform it into a perfect
habitat, while still others want to disassemble it for resources.  Even with
the capability, we won't be able to reach a consensus.

> So have you put any thought to this?

I have put too much thought into this, and am about ready to give up on the
human race.

And to repeat myself again, I would say the problem is not deciding what to
do.  The problem is coming up with a plan that pleases everyone.  Even the
"obvious" perfect plan for one group totally ruins the "obvious" perfect
plans for another group.  Libertarians think their plans allow everyone to
do what is best, while other political groups disagree.  People who want to
upload everyone into simulations think that obviously would give everyone
what they want, except that many people don't want to be uploaded.

We have to not only come up with the ultimate solution, we have to allow
other people to also simultaneously have their ultimate solution as well.

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS GIAC Certified GSEC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com>