[extropy-chat] The Cassini Division

[Hal Finney]

Dirk quotes a character in The Cassini Division:
> Life is a process of breaking down and using other matter, and if 
> need be, other life.

That would be true mostly of animals.  Plants generally do not do this,
they only use minerals and already-dead organic matter.

> Therefore life is aggression and successful life 
> is successful aggression.

According to http://www.icsu-scope.org/downloadpubs/scope13/chapter06.html
plants make up 99% of earth's biomass, and animals make up only a
tenth of a percent.  The overwhelming majority of successful life is
non-aggressive.  Aggressive life accounts for such a tiny percentage
that it is almost inconsiderable, based on biomass.  Nonaggression is
actually a far more successful strategy for life to adopt, on the average.

> Life is the scum of matter, and people are 
> the scum of life.

That seems meaningless.  In what sense are people the scum of life?
Are people worthless refuse?

> There is nothing but matter, forces, space and time 
> which together make power.

Is this physics or politics?  Power in physics is based on force, space
and time (force*space/time).  But then we see a shift to political power,
which is just rhetorical manipulation.

> Nothing matters, except what matters to 
> you.

Where does this come from?

> Might makes right and power makes freedom.

Why?

> You are free to do 
> whatever is in your power and if you want to survive and thrive you 
> had better do whatever is in your interests.

Again this is a rhetorical trick.  At one level this is a tautology,
a mere restatement of definitions.  By definition, the things you are
free to do equal the things that are in your power.  By definition,
the things that are in your interests are the things that help you to
survive and thrive.  But the wording implies a shortsighted focus on
immediate interests at the expense of others, without consideration of
the long-term benefits of coordination and cooperation.

> If your interests 
> conflict with those of others, let the others pit their power against 
> yours, everyone for themselves.

The rhetorical trap closes.  The slippery definitions and language lead to
this mistaken conclusion.  Only a fool would foreclose the many options
available to him and accept that violent conflict is the only way to
resolve disagreements.

> If your interests coincide with those 
> of others, let them work together with you, and against the rest.

Again, a simplistic, black and white view that is of little use in
dealing with the real world.  In practice, all relationships have
attributes of cooperation and competition.

> We 
> are what we eat, and we eat everything.  - Ken Macleod, The Cassini 
> Division

Of course this is not properly attributed to Maclead, but to one of
his characters.  I'm sure that Maclead harbors no such foolish beliefs.
His society is based on cooperation and if anything errs too far in
the opposite direction, refusing to accept the utility of competition.
I don't have the book handy but I imagine he put these words into the
mouth of a character who is presented as a bad example of the old ways
of thinking.

Hal