[extropy-chat] Hate

Anna Taylor femmechakra at yahoo.ca
Fri Dec 15 07:38:07 UTC 2006

I apologize.  This is a long post and I know that's
not well accepted.
If you haven't read my posts you will think this
pompus but it's really not my intention.
My intention is solely curiosity, understanding and 

Happy Holidays and a Happy New Year to everybody on
the Extropy Chat list.

Lee thinks that gangs should be put into concentrated
camps and killed because they are a threat to his
civilization. He hates them enough to do it. (or
like it:)

I find this to be a rational idea.  If they are
threatening my way of life then, tit for tat, right
back at you.  
I do on the other hand think this is immoral and not
very logical.
I value human life and therefore naturally try and
find other alternatives to killing. 
I believe that gang members are people that are
brought up with little values, intelligence, money
and/or hope.
Their actions are based on survival such as the same
as you are portraying regarding the bully example. 
It's not fun being bullied but it's not fun being poor
or feeling hopeless.
The government has an obligation to take away both
those fears.
(I think this is what Stuart was getting at.)
I think it was Samantha that brought up the point
regarding the goverment meddling with drug affairs.

An alternative could be to take the gangs "off the
Legalizing marijuana would be a good start.  I don't
think i've read too many articles that deal with
violence in Amsterdam:)  Until alcohol was legalized,
you had the same problem.  Mafia became legalized. 
The gangs disappeared pretty quickly.  It's not the
most moral answer to the problem but it is a logical

Keith says that due to hunterer/gatherer ages, "hate" 
was a naturel response threw genes to ward off other
humans that where threatening their way of being.

"What we feel is "immoral" has been shaped by
evolution in the stone age.  It is, for example,
considered immoral to kill close relatives while it is
considered entirely moral to kill attackers who are
trying to kill those close relatives. Exactly what you
would expect from genes that are rationally "trying"
to get into the next generation."

I understand this.  I would like to understand better
what "immoral" really means. 
This is another example whether if the suicide bombers
really knew the 1000 people they where killing, if
they would be able to rationalize their goals?
I know I value human life as a supergoal but have some
doubts after that, what I consider moral and immoral.

Rafal wrote: 
### I see hate as an important public good, at least
until we develop truth machines capable of assessing
levels of commitment to a course of action. A member
of your group who hates your enemies is less likely to
defect when the chips come down. 
It is a simple matter of rational calculation that
cooperation with haters is under many circumstances
likely to be more stable than cooperation with wusses.

I don't understand how loyalty out of fear is
reflective compared to loyalty out of love.  Ghandi,
Buddha, Jesus Christ, Moses, Hitler, the japanesse
president during the time of WW2, they all had
something in common but at the same time chose their
goals differently.  I would be curious to know why?
Not based on values but based on genes.  What
distinguishes a Ghandi and what distinguishes
a Hiltler?

Jef wrote:
"Hate certainly acts to promote solidarity within a
specified group, but at the same time drawing a
sharper line between in-group and out-group.
The hate dynamic tends toward immoral actions because
hate motivates narrower context decision-making,
evaluating consequences over narrower scope of
possible agents and possible interactions."

This comes back to the fact of values.  Lee values
human life that is not a threat to his surroundings.
Very rational. 
At the same time, 
"immoral-hate" actions leads to irrationality based
I don't really understand. "evaluating consequences
over narrower scope of possible agents and possible
Could you give me an example?
I hope that's what you meant. My apology if not.

Because it is evolutionarily the best thing to do. If
the transhumanist dream of self-directed species
evolution is to come about, we have to make ourselves
fit enough to survive the 
unexpected while we develop the technology to undo the

I don't think I would have responded by it's the best 
evolutionarily thing to do.  Evolution is the past. 
To evolve takes time.  
I would have said:
Transhumanist is about changing the evolution we have
already experienced.  Thinking differently, logically,
defining morals that are accepted universally,
stopping the gene that determines
hate; it's no longer needed, we are not in the
hunterer/gatherer era.  Food is available, education
is offered to anybody that has a computer, logical
response and logical ideas.

I am trying to justifiably analize properly. 

Thank you

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list