[extropy-chat] Crab politics. Was BIO: Stem Cell Genes

[Brett Paatsch]

Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

> On Sat, 27 Dec 2003, Brett Paatsch wrote:
> 
> > I mean that I think we try and kid ourselves a bit about
> > how easy things are, we are tempted to go for sugar 
> > coated solutions that we don't have to work quite so hard 
> > to achieve.

I wasn't meaning to pick on extropes or transhumanists in
particular I was just meaning to say that there are natural
tendencies in people to kid themselves - and we ought to be
as on guard against them as any others - certainly not less.

Wild beliefs in singularities or cryonics or friendly AIs or 
molecular manufacturing -without understanding how they
can be brought about in practical terms -  *any* culturally
propagated notion that is not understood personally and
intellectually rather than just embraced emotionally can 
function as a disincentive to action and thought. The same 
action and thought that might make an actual difference. 
Beliefs are the luxury that cannot be afforded. About the
only thing less disfunctional than belief is crazed panic. 

We are by my reckoning *at least* one generation short of 
the time when its smart to be relaxed and comfortable.
Being one generation short gets you just as dead as Benjamin
Franklin, or Blaise Pascal. 

By my reckoning no previous generation could stand to be 
relaxed and comfortable. Yet many of them were and perhaps
they experienced relatively more peace in their lives than the
non-believers - then they died. 

> No no no.  Its never easy -- I've clearly been in situations
> where resources made it appear easy in current time only
> much to my regret make it clear that it was difficult in the
> future.

> You should always assume changing the meme set is going
> to be very very difficult.

Forgetting that is like forgetting gravity. You don't forget for
long before hitting the ground reminds you  :-) Then, if your
lucky you walk away.  

I know its difficult. I also know it would be less difficult if
there were more thinkers and fewer believers. But this side
of the cut off believing rather than thinking is still selected
for. 

>  However the rewards (be they
> saving humanity or millions of potentially future extropic lives)
> would seem to justify the effort.
 
I find the notion of saving "humanity" wildly abstract. The idea
of saving potential future extropic lives is only appealing to me
if those lives are already alive and if I know them or if they are 
known to people I know and so on. Sooner or later I figure
just about everybody would be picked up in that manner but
I don't kid myself that I will miss or feel the loss of people
whos existence I was never even remotely aware of - nor they
me. 

I don't give moral consideration to non-existent life.  

> This raises an interesting point (which trails back into
> the recent points made by Matus) -- Is an extropian
> fundamentally going aginst their programming? 

There is no programming. There is no design. Thats an 
anthropomorphism particularly favored by programmers in an
era of programming. Evolution does not work by design.
Its a process not a personality. 

> Is promoting the survival of another individual with better 
> knowledge/ meme sets a better strategy than promoting the
> survival of oneself?

Depends. By definition it is not better for oneself in the
instance. 

>  [Begs a strong issue of if ones self
> survival probability is low whether one should transfer
> that interest to ones offspring or humanity in general.]

Thats a matter for that one in particular. I don't know what
I'd do. Anything too unpleasant I'm probably biased against.
Anything pleasant I say - might be purely me playing
politics. Bottom line - you really can't tell for sure what
I'd do, because if I told you I might be lying. Even to myself.
Thats my point we (people) lie even to ourselves. Thats what
makes politics so hard. The only conclusive test is the last test. 
 
> For a decade or more I've seen people running around
> declaring themselves to be extropians -- but I have yet
> to see a reasonable definition of how one breaks this 
> down when push comes to shove.
> 
> Simply put -- where do I get in line for the lifeboats being
> lowered from the Titanic?

If you think your on the Titanic - that's a matter for you. You
cannot make policy for other people with an expectation that
they will comply.  Their (and my) guesses as to what you will
do are political (and what you say only influences their views
it doesn't finalised them) just as yours are of what they will
do.

Your not on the Titanic. You have time to build boats if you
want to or to run around on the cruise ship. If you do build
boats those running around will distract you steal your material
and finally when you get some of what you want to get done
they may come along and draw lots or something to see who
gets in them when the iceberg hits. If your skills are in boat
building only and not the important managerial and political
tasks of poll calling, number crunching and outcome fixing, you
may do poorly in the getting a boat at all stakes as your job
may be deemed done and your usefulness moot. Its not 
automatic that you'd get the call on where you get in the line.
Could be that deal is already sown up in some hypothetical
game played between the boat owners to amuse themselves
on a sunny day on the titanic whilst others play and you
work.  Not everyone playing but not working is stupid. 
Some of them are watching you just in case. 

But this is bunk. Your not on the titanic. You alive in 2003
and everyone alive in 2003 rich and poor, powerful and weak
has a death warrant on their head that's been there since birth
and earlier. The question is whether some of us or all of us 
can get rid of that death warrant. 

You are in a bucket of crabs. The big crabs are on top and
they prefer to stay there because its less uncomfortable than
having another wiggling crab on your head. They'd like to be
more comfortable but getting out of the scrambling bucket is
beyond most of their imaginations. A few small crabs near the
edges might dream of the idea but dreams are cheap and the 
privilege of a few lucky small crabs that are probably relatives
of the larger dominant crabs. So long as those small crabs 
don't try and move into the terrain where the larger crabs are
wrestling they play little part in crab politics. Perhaps with
extraordinary coordination the crabs could form a living chain
of crabs. Hoist one of their number over as that one pulled the
next one and so on and they could all get out. But the crabs at
the top are too busy with the crab politics of staying on top of
the other crabs. Crab politics has not changed in generations.
A whole lot more crab generations may have to provide
carcasses to stand on before the bucket rim gets low enough
for enough crabs to get wise that collusion may get them out
of the bucket. But then again they are only crabs. They are
not big on thinking except about staying ahead of other crabs
and making little crabs.  

Maybe 

Or maybe I'm just crabby today :-) 

Brett