[extropy-chat] Politics: As if your life depended on it

Robert Bradbury robert.bradbury at gmail.com
Wed Dec 28 06:10:33 UTC 2005


I'll cut to the chase... At least one fundamental problem with the
discussion of political preferences is that one does not engage in it "as if
your life depended upon it". Sure, there are positions that would claim that
but they are really not valid when you take them apart.  In the discussion
of U.S. vs. war in Iraq I have seen lots of debate about "international
law".  Get this -- International law has *NO* meaning when ones life is on
the line.  "National" law has *NO* meaning when ones life is on the line.
"Law" is something that might be a good idea on top of "how do we survive?".

The question of "how do we survive?" has not been disected by those on the
extropian list or in the public discussion forums to a sufficient extent.
Otherwise we would be engaged in a discussion of whether we really want an
AGI to shove us into a "Matrix" style existance .

The Bush vs. non-Bush debate is a no starter here.  In terms of a productive
discussion you have to start from Thomas Friedman's POV.  What are the
population trends, what are the education trends, what are the *rational*
vs. *irrational* discussion trends?

Friedman's perspective (given my abstractions) is that Rumsfeld is "evil"
(acting in his own self-interest) and Bush was "duped".  These are my best
impressions of the "read" of the U.S. media.  Yet, in spite of his
opposition to the politics, he was still in favor of an invasion of Iraq --
*if* one can win the conflict.   As Friedman put it, "winning would be hard,
perhaps impossible" but essential -- in contrast to the general poltical
perspective that "winning would be easy".  I have seen little or no
discussion as to why the establishment of a "real" democracy in the Middle
East is essential to offset the western developed countries (this includes
the U.S., Europe and AU) .

Given my impression of Friedman's background I would say that anyone *not*
citing him as an authoritative source doesn't know what they are talking
about.  (I particularly stress this point to liberal U.S. commentators as
well as off-shore commentators)

Stretching this still further... If extropian principal #7 is "rational
thought" -- how does suicide bombing support that?

Bottom line: if you are going to debate "politics" on the extropian list --
please do your homework first. Failure to present a "transhumanistic" or
"extropic" perspective will tend to be viewed as limited.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20051228/fc0c98e5/attachment.html>


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list