[extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to themiddle ages

[Brett Paatsch]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Adrian Tymes" <wingcat at pacbell.net>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 5:09 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to 
themiddle ages


> --- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>> So, I'd really like to see *anyone* that ever posts to the
>> ExI chat list and is a US residing libertarian be very clear
>> about who they are including and excluding when ever
>> they use the word "we".
>
> We are, for the purposes of humor and of proving your point,
> using the royal "we" for the duration of this particular
> post.

Its just as I feared. This King George business has really gotten
out of control. Citizens of a proud republic conceeding not just
their freedoms but the freedoms of any offspring and successors
they may have.

> We are not technically "at war" with anyone, in the usual
> sense.  We are, however, fighting our fights in technical
> realms beyond what most religious zealots, neo-luddites, and
> similar types are even considering.  We are, in short,
> attempting to bring about certain technologies before the
> would-be opposition has much chance to comprehend and
>oppose them.

Too late. Every sci fi shock meister worth a damn can knock
out a good scare-em jarn involving grey goo and the perils
of this-or-that-other-tech being given free reign. Michael
Crighton can produce money from future speculations that
sound semi plausible faster by scaring and entertaining that
just about anyone else can produce money by actually
realising anything.

And more seriously, the US national government reserves
the right to sequester what ever you do anywhere provided
that it is in the "national interest" as perceived by whoever
happens to be the arbiter of the "national interest" in a state
where a President is not accountable to Congress.

> We do not expect to invoke the Singularity on our own, but it is
> our hope that by making real at least a substantial portion of
> its requirements, those who stand themselves in opposition to
> human progress merely because it upsets the old ways and/or
> their personal power bases (which does not, by the way, include
> those who can point to concrete potential harm upon humanity to
> justify their opposition, such as those who do not wish nuclear
> weapons to destroy or help destroy a major fraction of humanity0
> will be rendered irrelevant, their hypocracy made so readily
> apparent that very few if any people will believe their words.

Alas, its poor naivety that makes you speak thus.

Whilst in the world, how do you realistically expect to pull off
an end run around the worlds largest government that wants
to make sure noone has a weapon dangerous to its interests?

This is the big  question for the folks that like to treat politics
as something best ignored. How do you imagine that the
politicians can possibly ignore threats and opportunities to
sequester what *you* do?

> In short, we have better and more urgent things to do than fight
> the latest batch of religious extremists.

Technology progress is easy in comparison with getting the law and
politics stuff right and technological advances with the law and politics
stuff wrong simply entrenches those with power into place before they
have the skills to exercise that power wisely, and before there are the
means to keep that power under a system of appropriate cross checks.

In the world as it is currently configured noone alive today will live
to 150. The engineering that needs to be done can't be done in the
world as is, with the political legal situation as it is, but perhaps it 
might
be different if the legal political situation was different.

>  Besides, others are already fighting said extremists so that we
> can proceed with our work - and if you ask said fighters, phrasing
> it so they understand, they would most likely agree with our
> assessment.

But would said fighters recognize that they may be fighting for
another said extremist. Fighting yes, but fighting in the valleys
with the moral high ground left unoccupied by either side.

Fighting to create liberty elsewhere whilst losing it at home.

Brett Paatsch