[extropy-chat] Books: Harris; Religion and Reason

[Samantha Atkins]

On Jan 11, 2006, at 4:24 PM, Jef Allbright wrote:
>
> Harvey -
>
> Some of Robert's statements can really push people's buttons, but
> consider that this is the guy who repeatedly argues for saving *all*
> information, especially the more complex forms, as in living humans,
> as being intrinsically good.  He even argues for preserving society's
> worst offender's, in a deactivated state, rather than executing them.
>

Nuking part of the planet most definitely will lose information.  The  
argument was that it could save more information than it lost IIRC.   
But that was a bit of a stretch as it makes a series of HUGE  
assumptions.

> When Robert has proposed destroying some portion of that which he very
> publicly and very obviously values, he was trying to promote
> intelligent debate about a certain class of decision-making that is
> very difficult for many people to even consider, let alone decide.
>

The methods used did not and likely cannot lead to "intelligent debate".

> Sometimes a military leader is faced with the difficult choice of
> sacrificing some of his troops in order to save the rest.  Sometimes
> an individual will sacrifice himself to allow others to survive in an
> overloaded lifeboat.  Sometimes a surgeon will advise a patient to
> undergo radical amputation in order to have a chance at life.
> Sometimes a politician will risk loss of popularity in order to
> contribute to a greater good.
>

And all to often major atrocities are committed in the name of "the  
greater good".

> And too often people recoil in moral repugnance for lack of seeing the
> bigger picture.

There was no satisfactory "big picture" convincingly enough painted  
to justify mass murder.

- samantha