[ExI] Isn't Bostrom seriously bordering on the reactionary?
pharos at gmail.com
Wed Jun 15 10:36:13 UTC 2011
2011/6/15 Stefano Vaj wrote:
> OTOH, as a *transhumanist* I think that it is not the role of a club for the
> promotion of chess playing to discuss the benefits of outdoor sports or the
> the counsel for the defence to present evidence against their clients or of
> a lobbysts to keep in mind some higher good or of a trade union to find the
> ideal composition of the workers and employers interests.
> To take all that into consideration is the task of the community or of the
> judge or the legislator, who are in the best possible position to do it when
> they actually hear *both* unadulterated cases, both pros and cons, not just
> more extreme and more moderate versions of the same, unidirectional,
> arguments, where there things become quickly of a fractal nature, given that
> we have position A but we do not really have position B, since position B
> would like to be a compromise between position A and... itself in the first
Well, ideally, yes. But the world doesn't work like that.
Lobbyists and pressure groups push their POV and those with the
deepest pockets prevail.
Reasoned discussion of options never takes place in the political (and
budget allocating) environment.
If transhumanists don't discuss possible problems, then nobody will.
We could push hard for technology changes and forget to mention that
there might be problems in future, but is that ethical?
That's what bankers and Wall Street lobbyists do. It works fine for
them, but not for the rest of us.
Are we supremely confident that the changes we push for are the best
choice? - For everyone, not just our in-group.
More information about the extropy-chat