[extropy-chat] Re: is spreading ones own genes relevant?

[oli suggy]

Hi @ all

Surely the point that has been missed here is that given the
optimistic nature of extropianism we should conclude that we are not
the sum of genetics in itself. In order to produce children who not
only carry on your genetic code but also carry on your beliefs and
philosophy, indeed the philosophy of extropianism and its
associations, then an active role in the childs life is called for.
This obviously limits the number of relationships to very few given
the human dynamic. To pass on not only our genes but our benevolent
and socially beneficial world view to our children is the goal of
imposing our consciousness on our natural urges - and it is only
through this process that humanity will free itself of its animal
past. If we allow our basic instincts to control us we are nothing but
those basic instincts.

suggy

On 24/08/05, extropy-chat-request at lists.extropy.org
<extropy-chat-request at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> Send extropy-chat mailing list submissions to
>         extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         extropy-chat-request at lists.extropy.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         extropy-chat-owner at lists.extropy.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of extropy-chat digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>    1. Re: is spreading ones own genes relevant, or just an
>       anachronism ? (Mike Lorrey)
>    2. Re: is spreading ones own genes relevant, or just an
>       anachronism ? (Russell Wallace)
>    3. Re: Politics: Transhumanist Social System (Adrian Tymes)
> 
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com>
> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 08:44:37 -0700 (PDT)
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] is spreading ones own genes relevant, or just an anachronism ?
> --- user <user at dhp.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, kevinfreels.com wrote:
> > > When you die, you lose. It doesn't matter if your genes persist.
> > Eh ... this sounds very selfish.
> 
> Genes are selfish. Why shouldn't you be too?
> 
> > If my genes contain:
> >
> > a) fitness
> > b) the ability to attract other mates of equal or greater fitness
> >
> > and if my most cherished _intellectual_ goal is the continuation and
> > enlargement of the human race, then it would seem that I lose if I do
> > not maximize the tools I have to push that goal along ...
> >
> > I would think a better definition of losing would refer to losing in
> > terms of the intellectual goal - which means you lose if your actions
> > produce a net drag, or loss, on the expansion and betterment of
> > humankind.
> 
> Your "intellectual goal" is nothing more than a rationalization for
> being a slave to your urges. You are like a house negroe quoting
> property law to justify his own enslavement.
> 
> >
> > And in the course of this topic, I am trying to hypothetically decide
> > what is a bigger net gain for humanity: my raising 2-3 kids hands on,
> > or fighting it out in the mate finding contest (against a fairly
> > strong tide of tradition, culture, and probably laws and finances)
> > to see if I am really as fit as I think I am.
> 
> Evolution for humans stopped being darwinian a long time ago, it is now
> Lamarckian in the arena of memetic evolution. If you want immortality,
> adopt lots of kids, teach them well to become titans in whatever fields
> they endeavor in, and your name will be immortalized as the father of
> giants. Many know who Erasmus Darwin was. Many can tell you who William
> Gates II was, who were the fathers of JFK, George HW Bush, Michael
> Douglas, John Quincy Adams, and Emilio Estevez.
> 
> 
> Mike Lorrey
> Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
> Founder, Constitution Park Foundation:
> http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com
> Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________
> Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Russell Wallace <russell.wallace at gmail.com>
> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 17:23:31 +0100
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] is spreading ones own genes relevant, or just an anachronism ?
> On 8/24/05, user <user at dhp.com> wrote:
> > My gut reaction this morning is that, if I had a crystal ball, 2-3 kids
> > raised hands on in a loving nuclear family probably produce more net gain
> > for mankind than 30 randomly sprouted, all else being equal.
> 
> Looked at on the large scale and in the long term, the current custom
> of having fewer children than bare numeric replacement (average 1-2,
> bare numeric replacement being necessarily more than 2) is certainly
> an aberration. On the other hand, it's clear that wandering around
> trying to randomly mate with as many women as will consent in the hope
> of producing "30 randomly sprouted" children has not usually been a
> winning strategy either.
> 
> The best strategy for passing on one's genes and contributing to the
> human capital of future generations, looking at what has worked in the
> past and what still works in the present, seems to be to find an
> attractive/fit mate with whom you can fall in love (quite apart from
> its intrinsic value, love and commitment are important for maintaining
> a stable relationship) and who is willing to have as many children as
> reasonably possible; in modern conditions it should be quite feasible
> for a couple to have say 7 or 8 children and raise them all to healthy
> and happy adulthood.
> 
> - Russell
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net>
> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 10:00:38 -0700 (PDT)
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Politics: Transhumanist Social System
> --- Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Democracy's great achievement is the carefully balanced institutions
> > which share power, thus preventing autocracy, but its great
> > embarrasment is the professional politician. A 21st century democracy
> > should really be direct, with each citizen having his/her say on
> > issues as they care to.
> 
> While there is perhaps technical for people to represent themselves,
> it is also the case that many government issues are complex enough that
> few members of the public understand them well enough to effectively
> act on them - over and above the vast array of opinions.  It is also
> the case that, when a deliberating body gets too large, it essentially
> becomes unable to function: the sheer mechanics of allowing thousands
> (to say nothing of millions) of different opinions to be voiced about
> an issue, with each one seriously listened to, would bring most
> legislation to a halt.  (It's a separate issue whether that itself
> would be a good thing, but for sake of discussing something we might
> actually be able to bring about - small steps at a time, instead of
> large steps that would be completely rejected - let's put off bringing
> government a halt for some later phase, if that is ultimately desired.)
> 
> Thus we have specialist politicians, just like we have specialist
> farmers, specialist surgeons, specialist police, et cetera.  But unlike
> farming, where if someone takes responsibility for feeding visself,
> only that person is harmed upon failure, if we were to allow people to
> represent themselves in Congress or similar bodies, enough people would
> take up that offer as to flood Congress with a flurry of contradicting
> opinions.  The end result would cause "harm" to those people who want
> legislation on non-critical things passed or amended, even if those
> people are the majority on a given issue: the debate itself would
> essentially veto their desires.
> 
> However...perhaps there should be some mandated level of effect where,
> if a certain piece of legislation would be beyond it, it can be debated
> and refined by the legilsators but must be submitted to a vote of the
> people for approval.  This is kind of what happens in California now,
> without the automatic minimum (so as to make sure the people get
> consulted for the important issues).  Alternately, perhaps instead of
> an automatic minimum, laws would require two thirds of the legislators
> or a popular vote.
> 
> One possible extension, which cuts to the core of government: budgets.
> Perhaps, each year, when it comes to budget time, each line item could
> be proposed as a separate item in a special election.  Legally mandated
> expenses - which themselves had been previously approved by the voters
> (or legislators in legacy times) - would be the only thing not voted
> on.  Any item getting over 50% of the vote would be approved.  There
> might also be a question whether the balance should go up or down: if
> up, then the most popular revenue items (even if they got less than
> 50%) would be added until the budget was balanced; if down, then the
> least popular expenses (even if they got more than 50%) would be
> removed until the budget was balanced.  (Then again, on the principle
> of retaining everything that the majority approves, with the
> understanding that expenses will practically always be more popular
> than taxes and other revenue, perhaps the "up" option should simply be
> assumed.)
> 
> Specific items which could get more than one level of revenue, could
> submit multiple possible levels to the election: "must have", "really
> want", "would work better with", et cetera - although only the monetary
> amounts would really be needed.  If the lowest level got 50%, the
> lowest level would be granted.  If the lowest and the next lowest
> together got 50%, the next lowest would be granted, et cetera.  If even
> the lowest failed to get 50%, that line item would get nothing - so any
> agency that claimed it really absolutely needed way more than it really
> did, would be risking complete defunding (and beauraucratic suicide),
> which should encourage more realistic minimum estimates.
> 
> Putting just the budget in the hands of the people would technically be
> a small step - but it would also eliminate the biggest item of
> potential corruption.  It would also remove negotiation and non-popular
> pork (at least, where the pork is perceived as being separate from
> popular programs), especially if the "up" option was assumed so that
> people understood any expense they approved would likely raise their
> own taxes.  It would also go a long ways towards thwarting debacles
> like the recent US military funding: the Pentagon says it can only
> effectively spend a certain amount, but Congress and the President gave
> it more so they could look like they were supporting the troops (with
> no concern for things like spending down the debt instead).
> 
> > The great majority of corporations out there appear to still be
> > designed along strongly hierarchical military lines. Surely there are
> > better ways to organise corporations, which would more strongly
> > reflect the democratic/free ideals we take for granted in public
> > life?
> 
> There are, and more and more small businesses use them today.  There is
> usually one or two people in charge of the checkbook, and nominally
> "leading" for sake of interfacing with the funders, but below them
> there has been much talk of "flattening the hierarchy" and encouraging
> the people who work on projects to talk directly to each other.  There
> may be a project manager, who's charged with keeping everyone on track,
> and in large companies these may also act as filters to the higher-ups
> because the higher-ups literally don't have enough time to talk to
> everyone, but even here there are increasingly company-wide blogs or
> wikis for everyone to have their say.  Larger corporations don't use
> these as much - yet - because of corporate inertia and because these
> approaches are optimized for smaller businesses (but then, that's in
> part because smaller businesses have been using them more).
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 
> 
>