<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; "><BR><DIV><DIV>On Jun 15, 2006, at 2:05 PM, Robert Bradbury wrote:</DIV><BR class="Apple-interchange-newline"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><BR><DIV><SPAN class="gmail_quote">On 6/15/06, <B class="gmail_sendername">The Avantguardian</B> <<A href="mailto:avantguardian2020@yahoo.com">avantguardian2020@yahoo.com</A>> wrote:</SPAN><BLOCKQUOTE class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Convince me and my client the devil that rights, human<BR>or otherwise, actually exist.</BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR>They *don't* "actually" exist! They are pure inventions of beings that can think "consciously" in order to develop a social structure which is less prone to destruction and/or decay then would otherwise be the case. <BR><BR>The "rights" used to be handed down by those in power until such a time as the people decided to assert them for themselves. (The many can overpower the few or the one if they agree that their rights are relatively equal). All of the rest of the discussion of extending rights is probably due to the fact that feeling sympathy for those less fortunate probably had survival advantages (reciprocal social contracts which promote self-survival when one is less able to care for oneself, e.g. due to injury or illness, is probably the origin of "rights").<BR><BR>If Extropianism has any value it may revolve around whether or not we can consciously agree on a single or multi-dimensional scale that can be used to evaluate the value of forms of complexity or relative "worth" of such complexity (value & worth can be context dependent). This would replace the social contract based system where you and I agree that we have a "right" to life and use that agreement to bring down our lethal injections, bullets (or the wrath of 500 lb bombs) on those who disagree with that right. <BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>This is not "rights" at all but simply "might makes right" or in this case "might makes rights". I think you may be confusing defense or forceful assertion of rights with rights themselves. </DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV><DIV><BR>Mind you, not a lot of people on this list, much less in the world at large, would be willing to agree that their self-proclaimed (& group-acknowledged) rights are null and void and should be replaced by a system which perhaps might balance whether their past, present, or potential future contributions should determine their access rights to the matter & energy at our disposal. <BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Determined by whom or what? What could possibly have enough information to evaluate every sentient (more or less creature) and apportion all resources accordingly? </DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV><DIV><BR>If such a system were in place I suspect we might be putting a lot of elderly individuals to sleep. Because with the exception of those signed up for cryonic suspension most of those say 60-65+ are a net drain (i.e . they are contributing more towards problems like global warming that are going to have to be cleaned up later than they might contribute to bringing forward lifespan extension, a friendly AI, whatever, that might justify their current resource consumption). <BR><BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>You are arguably a "net drain" when you assert such inhumane treatment of your fellow humans. Do you realize how much ammunition you give to those against extropy by such pronouncements? Do you understand how many will turn to mysticism to escape such draconian calculation from the supposedly rational and secular? If we are not about more abundant and longer life for all humans then what good is our work really? Where is the "good news"? Relative to the first AI of >human intelligence pretty much every one of us is of marginal utility to future progress in fairly short order. Will you suicide happily when you can no longer contribute or march to the ovens in the name of "progress"? </DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV><DIV>As a challenge, go through Fortune Mag's Top 10, 100, Hollywood or Sports stars, etc (I'd argue against using politicians...) and do an up or down (or "weakest link") analysis for who is potentially accelerating the development of singularity related breakthroughs vs. who is retarding them. <BR><BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>If we judge by the acceptance of such goals then you are probably not helping.</DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV><DIV>Instead of the question "Do they have a right to live?" one might instead ask "Is their continued existence justified?" Mind you, since we have an extremely large excess of resources at our disposal currently we can be very generous but that will *not* always be the case. <BR><BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></DIV><DIV>It will be much more the case in the future than it is today. </DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>- samantha</DIV></BODY></HTML>