[extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award

[Russell Wallace]

On 5/16/06, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
>
> No.  I am against such regulation today.  But we don't need to claim
> these things are fantasy to argue against such regulation.


If we're relying on winning arguments at this stage, then:

1) We've got to win every time for the indefinite future, our opponents only
need to win once (since regulations are a one-way ratchet, once enacted they
don't go away).

2) We've got to win in the eyes of the voters and legislature, not only in
the eyes of us geeks.

3) We've got to win in an environment where there's no actual data, only
imagination - the perfect environment for emotion to trump reason.

4) We've got to win in the eyes of people who are being fed crap like "oh
yes all life as we know it will be exterminated, but that's okay because I
personally will become a god, and I subscribe to a moral philosophy where my
personal well-being is the only thing that matters". Sure, that's the
lunatic fringe of transhumanism, you personally don't subscribe to it nor do
most of the people on this list - but who do you think the newspapers are
going to quote?

I think we'd be much better off _not having_ those sort of arguments until
we get to the point where there's actual data.

It is not up to our descendants.  It is our watch.    If we drop the
> ball there will not likely be any space-faring descendants and
> perhaps no AGI in this corner of space-time.


And I think we've been dropping the ball on memetics.

McKibben has many more opportunities to speak than the more positive
> side.   Should we shut up just because the McKibbens will take
> advantage of the opportunity to provide "balance"?


No, but I think we should refrain from wild, unsubstantiated speculation of
the sort that provides them with ammunition, and try to stick closer to the
realm in which we have some sort of data.

Again we are in agreement about avoiding the politics where we can.
> There are places where we cannot and where some political activity is
> essential to move forward.   Putting the worse fears to rest or
> showing they are manageable is for instance part of what allowed
> nanotech funding to increase.
>

That sounds like you have historical data to at least partly refute my idea
that we've been dropping the ball on memetics. Do you have any details or
references on this?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060516/a5af548c/attachment.html>