[extropy-chat] Fwd: Extinctions

[Samantha Atkins]

On Jun 10, 2006, at 11:06 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
> Date: Jun 10, 2006 2:06 PM
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Extinctions
> To: Damien Sullivan <phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu>
>
>
> On 6/10/06, Damien Sullivan <phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 10, 2006 at 11:05:05AM -0400, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
>>
>>> Besides, if we really want to have more species, it will be  
>>> cheaper to
>>> make them tomorrow than spending a lot of effort on saving them  
>>> today.
>>
>> This sort of gambling of present things for hypothetical future
>> capability is part of what strikes normal people as wild-eyed  
>> optimism
>> and religiousness about the Singularity.  "It doesn't matter what  
>> we do
>> now we'll fix it later."  "We can't fix it now."  "But we will be  
>> able
>> to!  Trust us!"
>
> ### To save all species you would need to kill many humans and enslave
> most of the rest. Potentially hundreds of millions, if you are serious
> about it. How many humans are you willing to kill or enslave to
> protect species diversity?

Come on.  Did Damien state a goal of saving all species?  No.  Is  
your notion that you would have to kill many people and enslave the  
rest based on much more than rhetoric?  No, not really.  Given MNT it  
is quite possible to save most of the biodiversity of Earth and have  
humanity and posthumanity thrive.   There is no either-or here.    
This is really good news.  So why not accentuate it instead of  
squabbling over the worth of various parts of the biosphere?

> The choice is simple: either you forbid
> human economic growth to protect wood lice, or else you accept that a
> lot of wood lice will die so that a few billion brown and yellow
> people get affluent.

I do not accept your either-or viewpoint.  Besides, wood lice, are  
again a rhetorical device to attempt to make the views and concerns  
of others look foolish.   Why do this?
>
> What I am saying amounts to "Let everybody first get rich, and *then*
> worry about the flowers to put in their backyard", not some
> Singularity stuff. You can trust the market to provide flowers and
> other diversions once the demand is there.
>

Really?  This is a position of considerable faith if it really is as  
either-or as you present.

- samantha