[ExI] Isn't Bostrom seriously bordering on the reactionary?
giulio at gmail.com
Fri Jun 17 09:54:10 UTC 2011
I acknowledge existential risks, but I prefer to focus on existential
opportunities and positive visions.
Those who choose to focus on risks are, of course, free to choose
their own focus and priorities, and so I am I.
I am not saying that you should not read and write about risks, risks,
risks, small risks, big risks, existential risks, and other risks
again, I am just saying that I find it boring and prefer to read and
write things more interesting and fun.
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 1:31 AM, Jeff Medina
<analyticphilosophy at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2011/6/16 Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com>:
>> Does environmentalists or pro-choice activists or trade unionists have
>> credibility problems because they do not explicitely take into consideration
>> interests different from those of the environment, or of pregnant women
>> seeking termination, or of their members?
> Any environmentalists who refuse to compare and contrast different
> plans and the safety and efficacy of those plans absolutely lose
> credibility, as they should.
> There are no constituents for whom your and Giulio's approach increase
> expected utility, not even yourselves. It is very strange to see you
> advocate for a position (i.e., don't acknowledge existential or other
> risks) that is *less* likely to bring about a posthuman future.
> If you believe the risks matter, but that Nick shouldn't mention them,
> then it just seems like you're inviting caricaturing and demonization
> by the Luddites, who already like to (falsely...?) claim we don't care
> about the risks or problems that could come about with certain
> approaches to certain technologies.
> Jeff Medina
> "Do you want to live forever?"
> "Dunno. Ask me again in five hundred years."
> (_Guards! Guards!_, Terry Pratchett)
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
More information about the extropy-chat