[ExI] elections again
painlord2k at yahoo.it
Sun Dec 30 20:58:45 UTC 2007
Harvey Newstrom ha scritto:
> 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.
You can and must impose your will on others, if you like.
You can not use force first.
Against a thief I can impose my will stopping him from stealing my stuff.
> 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.
If it would be always possible there would not be conflicts.
It is a sad reality, but it is a reality, that sometimes there are
conflicting interests and no way to solve the conflict.
The law was developed to solve these conflicts in a consistent and
predictable way, sometimes in a fair and useful way.
>>> 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.
Only if you are catch before completing the AI and start exploiting it.
>>> 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 disarm me that don't want be disarmed when someone will
try to attack me?
This is because I write about feeling.
Because "people who don't want the possibility of being shot" are
speaking about feeling, not reality.
There is no way they can be sure none will be able to shot them.
They can only disarm the pacific people, not the people inclined to
>>> 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.
Then, why don't we become all vegans?
There are people that feel animals need to be protected against
carnivores like me.
Also, here they "feel" things.
They feel "fetus" are "babies".
You don't argue about vegan because they are not violent and don't go
around killing, menacing, and so on.
So, the only people feelings we need to care are the violent ones.
That they use the violence themselves or use the state arm don't matter.
> 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.
If it is about world-view, there is no solutions.
Because we are in the same world with them.
Or we bow to them or they will bow to us.
Do you know because these people is so easily offended with "us"?
Because we don't bite back easily.
This is because the same people don't bother to attack people that
"bite" without warning for behaviors they would consider a greater
insult and menace.
E.G. Communist in Italy talk about "sex discrimination" against
homosexuals and trans-gender, equality, etc. Then their leader (Oliviero
Diliberto) go in Lebanon and talk with Hizbollah leader and define them
a "quasi-normal party".
There are many more examples, but this is not the place.
>>> 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.
They can, and the best will, change their jobs.
They can pool their resources and work for each others or buy robots
themselves to do work for others.
>> 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.
You can not.
Or they bow you or you bow them. Or was blow?
> 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?
We can not.
Tolerance is only for tolerant people.
It is a reciprocating thing.
You could be tolerant to start, but be tolerant when the other party is
clearly intolerant is only stupid.
Saints against demons always lose.
>> 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.
I would like too.
But the harsh reality is different.
> It should be possible to build an AI without threatening to overthrow
> humanity's governments.
Do you would not threaten the Saddams and the taliban of the day?
Or would you let them do as they feel fit.
> It should be possible for everyone to practice their
> own religions without forbidding anybody else's.
It is impossible if your religion support world domination and do it a duty.
> 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.
The way we consider "legitimate" concerns is more about how strong is
the concerned, how strong we are and what both have to lose and gain.
[Intangible capital is] the preponderant form of wealth.
When we look at the shares of intangible capital across income classes,
you see it goes from about 60 percent in low-income countries to 80
percent in high-income countries.
That accords very much with the notion that what really makes countries
wealthy is not the bits and pieces, it's the brainpower, and the
institutions that harness that brainpower.
It's the skills more than the rocks and minerals.
Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale!
More information about the extropy-chat