[ExI] "death gives meaning to life"
brent.allsop at comcast.net
Sat Jun 7 19:29:42 UTC 2008
Thanks for letting me know what you think about this. This kind of
information is very helpful.
Anne Corwin wrote:
> If any "advocacy" is to be done in response to the "death gives
> meaning to life" sentiment, one possibly productive route (and the one
> I personally favor) would be for individuals (as themselves, not
> necessarily as representatives of some "camp" or "club") to publicly
> speak and write about what they think is GOOD about life, what they
> enjoy doing, what about their existence strikes them as so wonderful
> that they honestly can't see why they'd want it to cease.
Yes, there are definitely benefits to this kind of individual
"advocacy". But I believe we need so much more than just this.
First off, is the bandwidth problem. I have enough time to attempt to
individually discuss things with perhaps you, and a handfull of other
close friends. But non of us have enough time to do this with everyone
on this list. Let alone everyone in the transhumanist movement, and of
course not the millions and billions of people with differing and
diverse beliefs. Nobody has time to read and tally up every blog and
post made by everyone in the world. But wouldn't knowing, concisely and
quantitatively, what they are all saying, believing, and wanting have
significant value? Especially for the still minority beliefs lost in
all the noise?
Next is the quality issue. If I'm only talking to a few of my friends
IF they are very brilliant, and work very hard at it, they will be able
to come up with some kind of mediocre quality concise statements and
reasons for any particular POV to help me in my moral education. But on
average, the signal to noise ratio isn't going to be near as high - as
it could be compared to what thousands of people could be working on
collaboratively with simple / easy always progressive improvements to
concise actionable statements and moral arguments.
Have you ever tried to read anything on something critically actionable
like Global Warming at this kind of individual scale? A bunch of
friends will claim things like temperature isn't rising, and a bunch of
other friends will claim such arguments are completely mistaken. And
since it is very unlikely that any of your friends are world class
researchers knowledgeable about the particular small set of facts you
are discussing, you end up with completely worthless and meaningless
noise and group hysteria. And you don't get much better than any of
this even in the scientific journals. Everyone is just expressing their
individual opinions. Many people claim there is a 'consensus', but
there are obviously at least some people that disagree with the
consensus. Is anyone doing any kind of rational attempt to conclusively
state and quantitatively measure this so called 'consensus'? Isn't the
fact that there is no attempt to back up claims of consensus with some
kind of rigorous surveys and measurement completely absurd for such a
critical to all of our futures issue? And there are far more important
moral issues we are facing, that are barreling down on us like freight
trains from the future, than just global warming.
The primary reason nobody is attempting to measure consensus, is because
such simple measures or surveys are meaningless and inadequate. You
need to also have the reputations and rankings of everyones reputations
included in various quantifiable ways, all vetted and ranked in social
networking / reputation ways, so you know who are the cooks, and who are
the world class knowledgeable people on particular issues. You must be
able to select algorithms to value and rank peoples reputations, and
such, in various ways, like we are seeking to do at canonizer.com.
You talk about behavior. Right now people are rotting their dying
ancestors by throwing them in a hole in the ground and such. People are
refusing to invest more money in finding a cure for aging, and so on. A
lot of this is because so many people are blogging about things like
death gives meaning to life. You claim people don't really seriously
think this, even though so many are saying it. But that is precisely
the problem and terrible lying statements, causing the destructive
behavior, we need to get resolved. We need to force people to stop and
think about all this kind of terribly mistaken stuff they are blogging.
Surely there is more we can do to help everyone see there are different
behaviors we could embark on that could significantly improve all of
our, and especially our children's futures?
Finally there is the critical issue of simply knowing, concisely and
quantitatively, what everyone wants - especially as glorious diversity
increases. Spending huge amounts of time to attempt to find out in
concise details what a few close friends want is clearly a good start.
But we need much more than just this. If what you want is in the
majority, or the primitive ways things have been always done in the
past, then there are no problems. You can get what you want simply by
listening to all the blogosphere noise. But what we need to know, is
what are the maverick leaders / experts / and visionaries... the ones in
the still minority camps.. seeing? Chances are, you don't know any of
these yet because we are all blinded by all the majority blogging noise
saying such things as death gives meaning to life.
You can't get close to getting what everyone wants, until you have some
kind of concise and quantitative information about just what it is
everyone does want. And I always say, the more diversity the better,
and nobody can do it alone as an individual.
More information about the extropy-chat