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

[Dirk Bruere]

On 12/28/05, Robert Bradbury <robert.bradbury at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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?".
>


Law is somnething that is supposed to be applied by disinterested parties
for the common good.


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 .


Probably because we do not know how to survive.
There seem to be obvious things we should do in order not to die, but far
less (in social terms) of what needs to be done to ensure survival.

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) .


The 'why' is simple. The ME is a festering sore that will continue to export
its problems in our direction if we do not do something to heal it. Todays
bombers are tomorrows carriers of GE plagues and nukes. The question is
'how'.

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 liberalU.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?


If it works, it is by some definition a rational strategy. In fact, one
might argue that success is the ultimate test of rationality.

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.


Agreed.

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20051228/231edb23/attachment.html>