[extropy-chat] Freedom and Practicality

[Lee Corbin]

Jeffrey H. writes in reply to Samantha

> > Samantha writes:
> > "I don't think much less than super-totalitarianism by a hopefully 
> > guaranteed benevolent government or later a SAI more powerful (and 
> > kept that way) than anyone and anything else that can come along will 
> > get you full safety. Personally I value freedom far more than that 
> > level of safety. And I am very cynical about the "guaranteed 
> > benevolent" part."
> 
> I don't have the answers - but these things need to be deeply
> considered. I personally also value almost ALL freedoms (spare
> what I've mentioned already) more than I value *my* own personal
> safety, but I can't speak for the 6 Billion other people on this
> planet.

Yes---it would be surprising if anyone here did not. Of course,
the hard questions are just coming up, and it may surprise you
that my position may be closer to yours---Jeffrey's---than 
Samantha's or a number of other people's.

> If an existential disaster destroys all life (and matter) in this
> Universe, then of what value is this idea called "Freedom"?

Yes, exactly. 

But let's take a more practical everyday threat. At the beginning
of the 21st century, human beings find themselves piled by the 
millions into large cities.  It so happens that it is now possible
for very small disaffected groups, possibly even single individuals,
to destroy large cities. For example, just think of how many people
tonight are in an uncontrollable rage because of what their 
girlfriends or bosses have just done to them. How many of these
people are so hysterically angry or crazy that they'd destroy the
entire city in which they live were it only easy?

There is, unfortunately, at the present time NO ALTERNATIVE but for
citizens to keep a close enough watch on each other---or enable
their governments to be able to keep such a watch---to ward off
total destruction.

How many people reading this list would be shocked, just *shocked*,
if New York or San Francisco or Washington D.C. were to be destroyed
tonight?

I wouldn't be at all shocked, because I have been expecting it for
years. I think about it every day.

Therefore, the absolute *minimum* intrusion into our lives must
logically be arranged---either now, when we can do so calmly and
rationally---or later, after the first cities have gone up.

(I have every hope that the United States government, for one,
is secretly engaged exactly in such monitoring, and that that
is the reason nothing since 9-11 has happened. The U.S.
Government is still under *some* control of law, or so it
seems.)

But if somehow miraculously we escape destruction tonight---or
tomorrow night---then we eventually turn to the questions of
what else such a powerful global entity should control. (Jeffrey's
answer is: it should also make sure that I don't do anything 
immoral with my equipment. Well, frankly, I do something that
with my equipment many people believe to be immoral as often
as I can, these days!)

But the bottom line is: unless it's a threat to *everything*---
outside monitoring of what individuals are doing ought to be
prevented (by checks and balances, of course).

Lee