[extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution

[Samantha Atkins]

On Sep 5, 2005, at 3:40 AM, Alfio Puglisi wrote:

> On Mon, 5 Sep 2005, Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sep 5, 2005, at 1:34 AM, BillK wrote:
>>
>>
>>> If you are not as smart. well-educated, healthy, fit and capable  
>>> as a
>>> Lib then '**ck you, you're on your own'.
>>>
>>
>> The strength of your argument stands alone.  No further comment is  
>> needed.
>>
>
> Actually, further comments are needed, because I often have the  
> same doubts as Bill. For example, how would cope someone with an IQ  
> of 80 or less and no education worth its name, when the available  
> grunt jobs are automated away, and his market value is less and  
> less? How can he afford a private health insurance?

I myself have made the same argument.  But an irrational attack on  
libertarians on the basis of a near complete straw man will not  
answer such questions,
>
> Charitable organizations would probably exists in a libertarian  
> environment like they exist in the current, mostly socialist one,  
> but relying on those for everything not profitable isn't a good  
> strategy.

Long term the fix requires moving to an abundance economy not just  
economically but psycohologically and  sociologicically as well.  I  
don't know yet out to get there.  But technically we should arrive at  
a world, at least post MNT, where it is trivial to supply everyone  
with the necessities of life at nearly no cost.    Medical nanotech  
could conceivably make much of the health insurance question moot.    
There are possible technological and social solutions that are  
possible without big government or government violating the rights of  
the people.

>
> Pure libertarian free-market environments to my eyes resemble too  
> much an evolution-like "survival of the fittest" game, where you'll  
> do great if you are good (or better, if you have marketable skills/ 
> assets), and suffer a lot if you aren't.

This has been exploded so many times that I haven't the patience to  
deal with it again.

- samantha