[ExI] elections again

Harvey Newstrom mail at harveynewstrom.com
Sun Dec 30 01:36:18 UTC 2007

On Saturday 29 December 2007 14:28, Mirco Romanato wrote:
> Harvey Newstrom ha scritto:
> > We have to be careful to create technologies that do not impose our will
> > on others, or they will rebel.
> From a libertarian point-of-view, I find this notion confuse and blurry.
> My freedom stop where someone else freedom begin in equal terms, it
> doesn't stop where the feeling of someone else start.
> Because it could not be technologies but lifestyle or religious believes
> or others.

I didn't mention feelings of others.  I said not impose our will on others.  I 
think most libertarians would agree that nobody should have somebody else's 
will imposed upon them.  

But in general, I agree that the concept becomes blurry.  Say you claim the 
right to carry a gun.  Fine.  Say you want to shoot me.  Not fine.  Say you 
want to sit on your property with your gun aimed at me while I move around on 
my property.  Blurry.  I would find this intolerable.  But you might argue it 
is your right to point your gun anywhere you want on your property.  The 
tragedy of the commons is where your rights could suddenly disrupt my rights.  
I feel like there must be away to protect all rights, but it is not always 
clearly possible.

> > For example:
> > How can someone create a super-AI without threatening the people who
> > don't want the possibility of an AI dictator?
> Doing it in secret?

This doesn't solve the problem for those who fear an AI dictator.  It merely 
forces them to become more invasive and suspicious in routing out the AIs 
being developed.  I think this approach, while seemingly obvious and 
straightforward, actually compounds the problem and makes it worse.

> > How can someone carry guns without
> > threatening people who don't want the possibility of being shot?
> Concealed carry?

Same problem as above.

> > How can
> > someone get an abortion without threatening people who think all abortion
> > is murder?
> This is the most confusing.
> How is that they feel threatened when they are not in danger or menaced?

They believe that babies are being murdered and must be protected.  In their 
world-view this is an obvious danger and menace.  Asking your question is the 
same as asking why people would need to stop child abuse or murders of 
strangers.  To someone who believe that life begins at conception, not birth, 
abortion is the same as murdering babies.  I don't know how to resolve this, 
but explaining that we think it's OK to do this doesn't resolve the issue.

> > How can someone build robot workers without threatening people who
> > don't want to lose their jobs?
> They are not interested in the job, but in the income derived by the
> job. But do they have any entitlement to it?

I don't know.  Many people in this country object to humans coming from other 
countries to take jobs away.  They feel like citizens are more entitled to 
these jobs then foreigners.  Imagine how much more adamant they would be that 
humans deserve these jobs more than machines.  It doesn't even matter if they 
believe in entitlements or not.  They have to work to feed their families, 
and these machines are threatening their families.

> You missed a few question:
> 1) How can someone leave Islam, when so many Muslims feel threatened by
> this simply act?
> This simply act threaten the Ummah itself that have not the same belief
> system like other kaffir (impure) groups

This is a very good example of the problem.  Freedom of religion is fine where 
one can choose one's own religion.  But the problem comes in where religions 
believe that they must be the only religion allowed.  Then we have a problem.

> 2) How can someone be atheist....?
> 3) How can someone be homosexual...?

Same issues.  I don't know how to resolve these to everyone's satisfaction.  
Forbidding the atheists and homosexuals their existence is not a possible 
answer.  But many religions will not tolerate their existence either.  How 
can we coexist with intolerance?

> The problem is not with freedom technologies, but with freedom itself.
> Any free act will, in a way or another, conflict with the direct or
> indirect, immediate or delayed interests of someone else.
> Do you prefer suppress freedom or suppress conflicts?

I prefer that we suppress conflicts.  There must be some win-win scenarios.  
It should be possible to build an AI without threatening to overthrow 
humanity's governments.  It should be possible for everyone to practice their 
own religions without forbidding anybody else's.  It should be possible to 
end one pregnancy while maintaining the fetus' viability elsewhere.  There 
should be an answer to most conflicts.  Simply having one side override the 
other side is usually not the answer.  (Sometimes it is when one side is just 
unreasonable.)  But often, there are legitimate concerns that should be 
addressed rather than ignored when developing new disruptive technologies.  
But it is much more complicated and messy than people like to imagine.

Harvey Newstrom <www.harveynewstrom.com>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list