[extropy-chat] What the #$?! are rights anyway?

[Samantha Atkins]

On Jun 15, 2006, at 2:05 PM, Robert Bradbury wrote:

>
> On 6/15/06, The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Convince me and my client the devil that rights, human
> or otherwise, actually exist.
>
> They *don't* "actually" exist!  They are pure inventions of beings  
> that can think "consciously" in order to develop a social structure  
> which is less prone to destruction and/or decay then would  
> otherwise be the case.
>
> The "rights" used to be handed down by those in power until such a  
> time as the people decided to assert them for themselves.  (The  
> many can overpower the few or the one if they agree that their  
> rights are relatively equal).  All of the rest of the discussion of  
> extending rights is probably due to the fact that feeling sympathy  
> for those less fortunate probably had survival advantages  
> (reciprocal social contracts which promote self-survival when one  
> is less able to care for oneself, e.g. due to injury or illness, is  
> probably the origin of "rights").
>
> If Extropianism has any value it may revolve around whether or not  
> we can consciously agree on a single or multi-dimensional scale  
> that can be used to evaluate the value of forms of complexity or  
> relative "worth" of such complexity (value & worth can be context  
> dependent).  This would replace the social contract based system  
> where you and I agree that we have a "right" to life and use that  
> agreement to bring down our lethal injections, bullets (or the  
> wrath of 500 lb bombs) on those who disagree with that right.

This is not "rights" at all but simply "might makes right" or in this  
case "might makes rights".   I think you may be confusing defense or  
forceful assertion of rights with rights themselves.


>
> Mind you, not a lot of people on this list, much less in the world  
> at large, would be willing to agree that their self-proclaimed (&  
> group-acknowledged) rights are null and void and should be replaced  
> by a system which perhaps might balance whether their past,  
> present, or potential future contributions should determine their  
> access rights to the matter & energy at our disposal.

Determined by whom or what?  What could possibly have enough  
information to evaluate every sentient (more or less creature) and  
apportion all resources accordingly?

>
> If such a system were in place I suspect we might be putting a lot  
> of elderly individuals to sleep.  Because with the exception of  
> those signed up for cryonic suspension most of those say 60-65+ are  
> a net drain (i.e . they are contributing more towards problems like  
> global warming that are going to have to be cleaned up later than  
> they might contribute to bringing forward lifespan extension, a  
> friendly AI, whatever, that might justify their current resource  
> consumption).
>

You are arguably a "net drain" when you assert such inhumane  
treatment of your fellow humans.   Do you realize how much ammunition  
you give to those against extropy by such pronouncements?   Do you  
understand how many will turn to mysticism to escape such draconian  
calculation from the supposedly rational and secular?   If we are not  
about more abundant and longer life for all humans then what good is  
our work really?  Where is the "good news"?  Relative to the first AI  
of >human intelligence pretty much every one of us is of marginal  
utility to future progress in fairly short order.  Will you suicide  
happily when you can no longer contribute or march to the ovens in  
the name of "progress"?


> As a challenge, go through Fortune Mag's Top 10, 100, Hollywood or  
> Sports stars, etc (I'd argue against using politicians...) and do  
> an up or down (or "weakest link") analysis for who is potentially  
> accelerating the development of singularity related breakthroughs  
> vs. who is retarding them.
>

If we judge by the acceptance of such goals then you are probably not  
helping.

> Instead of the question "Do they have a right to live?" one might  
> instead ask "Is their continued existence justified?"  Mind you,  
> since we have an extremely large excess of resources at our  
> disposal currently we can be very generous but that will *not*  
> always be the case.
>

It will be much more the case in the  future than it is today.

- samantha
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060616/fd9fb9fe/attachment.html>