<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; "><BR><DIV><DIV>On Jan 11, 2006, at 5:38 AM, Robert Bradbury wrote:</DIV><BR class="Apple-interchange-newline"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><BR><DIV><SPAN class="gmail_quote">On 1/10/06, <B class="gmail_sendername">Samantha Atkins</B> <<A href="mailto:sjatkins@mac.com">sjatkins@mac.com</A>> wrote:</SPAN><DIV><BR> </DIV><BLOCKQUOTE class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> I don't think positioning on "information" is particularly clear and therefore not a good platform. How would this "cease execution" be implemented? </BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR>I was thinking along the lines of a need to put people committed to being suicide bombers on ice and eventually uploading their memories. One does not lose the information contained in their brains, one simply eliminates activities based on faulty meme-sets (in the area related to "Religion and Reason" the faulty meme-sets brainwashed into people by religions, usually at very young ages). <BR></DIV><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>How exactly would you know what someone was "committed to"? Do you advocate in depth monitoring of people's thoughts? The 91l hijackers were apparently highly educated Saudis mostly who don't exactly fit the profile of being brainwashed by Muslim fundamentalism. As bad as fundamentalist religion is it certainly doesn't account for all the groups or people that may be tempted to some asymmetric warfare or taking out some hated figure.</DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV>Obviously one is on a serious slippery slope with respect to how one would identify and "defang" the people acting upon faulty meme-sets.<BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV>Who exactly would judge what is a "faulty meme-set"?<BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Perhaps in seeking elevated style you have become too abstract to make your meaning clear. Please say more.</BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR>For example, looking at the recent discussion about head mounted displays one is looking at a transhumanistic technology which probably has little extropic impact (unless you want to get into a discussion of their use in battle zones). On the other hand an aggressive campaign to fight against toleration of irrational (and/or unextropic) religions could be viewed as both transhumanistic (leaving behind operating principles which do not take into account the last 1300+ years of technological, philosophical, etc. progress) as well as extropic (saying that religions (or sects) that support the creation of suicide bombers should be eliminated). <BR><BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>If it helps us become more augmented when the HUDs become smaller and better it has very real extropic content. Using them in battle is less extropic than their ubiquitous potential use in everyday life.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Not all aspects of religion/spirituality are necessarily unextropic. Broad brush dismissal of all of it at once is not terribly useful and not particularly extropic imho.</DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV><DIV>With the WTA, I note that they support the "ethical use of technology to expand human capacities" [quoted from their home page]. Within the "ethical" framework of muslim extremism, I would suggest that suicide bombers are doing just that. (One could add that the 911 attacks were a creative and brilliant use this principle.) <BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV>I do not see how your contention follows at all.</DIV><DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV><DIV><BR>If however I look at the Extropian Principles I can find lots of areas where religions, particularly the Muslim religion and to a lesser extent Christian Fundamentalism and Catholicism are quite problematic. Just as an example, how does one reconcile the decrees of various grand ayatollah's, the pope, hard core fundamentalist minsters, etc. with the principle of Self-Direction? And it only takes a little thought to see conflicts with the "Perpetual Progress", "Open Society" and "Rational Thought" principles as well. <BR><BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Yes, that is true. But advocating forefully rounding up believers and putting them in VR is not exactly a breath of fresh rational air. The consequences of such advocacy would likely be very costly. The consequences of actually implementing such a thing would be catastrophic to humanity.</DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV><DIV>My argument in large part centers around the fact that many religions are inherently irrational (the 'miracles' in the Bible cannot be accepted as 'fact' by any serious scientist unless one invokes the use of advanced biotechnology or nanotechnology by an ETC). The "tolerence" of the irrational positions which Harris objects to is in my opinion fundamentally unextropic because it allows people a "pass" on the serious consideration of cryonic suspension. ( I.e. "I don't need to worry about dying because I'm going to heaven.") That will by my estimates probably cost at least 500 million lives (figuring 50+ million lives a year for at least the next decade).<BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV>I have no problem with the intolerance of irrationality. I have a huge problem with forcing other people to accept my or your notions of what is rational and/or extropic or else. Each person decides what they hold as true. It is their own life to waste if they so choose. It is not mine or yours to dictate terms. </DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>If this is what you propose then I do not want to see you associated with this organization in any official capacity. </DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"><DIV>- samantha</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV></BODY></HTML>