[extropy-chat] re: embedded in open hearts (Meta/EP)

[Samantha Atkins]

Nice answer.  More comments embedded below.

On Apr 12, 2005, at 7:45 AM, spike wrote:

>> On Apr 10, 2005, at 6:17 PM, spike wrote:
>>>
>>> I may disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the
>>> point of non-life-threatening injury your right to say
>>> it.  After all, anything you or I say is completely
>>> irrelevant to me should I perish.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Is there any level of evil that you would stand up against even if to
>> do so would quite likely put your life in jeopardy?  Sometimes I 
>> wonder
>> if we are not at a distinct disadvantage against those who may
>> willingly put themselves in harm's way for what they believe is
>> sufficiently important.
>>
>> -s
>
>
> I have no doubt that transhumanist memes reproduce at a huge 
> disadvantage
> with respect to religious memes.  If one is able to convince others
> to risk their lives, with a promise of some eternal reward, 72 virgins
> etc, those memes reproduce with great force.  Surely this explains
> why religion incorporated has such a strong grip on humanity.
>
>

So basically those who believe such things would tend to escalate all 
the way up to mortal combat more quickly and sometime operate in 
fearless mode generally.   Such folks also may more readily and without 
reservation push their agendas.

> As for putting myself in harm's way, this would be the logical
> course of action if one is already in harm's way.  If one is
> being threatened directly, one must react in such a way as to
> defend oneself, thereby reducing the total risk.


Yes.  What about one's loved ones, cherished values and so on?  Life 
may not be seen as worth living without some of those or especially at 
the price of them.

>
> Regarding those who willingly put themselves in harm's way
> to take away my rights and freedoms, the right way to fight
> back must surely be thru advanced technology.  Someone posted
> an article yesterday on remote control of flies.  If we
> were able to penetrate such things as organized crime and
> terrorist sleeper cells with fly-borne microphones, for instance,
> then convince every one of them that there is a mole in their
> midst, perhaps they would beat each other beyond recognition,
> leaving the rest of us safe to pursue ever more advanced
> techniques.
>
>

Of course we fight back using whatever means are the most effective and 
the least destructive of our values including our irreplaceable self.  
But how many things do we just let slide assuming perhaps that we 
brainy ones will invent some out before the consequences chew up our 
life?

- samantha