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

[Brett Paatsch]

Oops this one slipped out of the draft file where it should have sat a bit 
longer.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brett Paatsch" <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 6:51 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to 
themiddle ages


>
> ----- 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