[extropy-chat] ENOUGH already

[Harvey Newstrom]

Michael Dickey wrote,
> My statement that sometimes war may be extropic is a strong 
> assertion? How so?  Seems like that absolute that war is 
> *always* anti-extropic is the strong assertion, since it 
> requires not only a clear definition of extropic but one of 
> war as well.

People who have been on this list generally know what the Extropian
Principles are.  You can nit-pick on particular interpretations if you want,
but you can't assume that nobody has defined them yet.

People also generally know what war means.  You made your assertions about
war without having to create a more rigorous definition of the term.  If the
term is generally good enough for you, it is generally good enough for other
people.  You seem to be requiring a higher burden of proof for other people
than for yourself.

> "To positively assert whether something was extropic or not, 
> you will have to define what criteria makes something 
> extropic, and how much of it was present before and how much 
> present afterward. This would probably be quite an 
> undertaking, yet you are all ready absolutely positive that 
> *all* wars are anti-extropic."

That is like saying that to avoid a car crash, you have to define exactly
what "avoidance" means, exactly what a "car crash" is, calculate how much
work "avoidance" is versus work recovering from a "car crash" would be
afterward.  This would probably be quite an undertaking, yet you are all
ready absolutely positive that "all" car crashes are anti-extropic.

We do NOT need exact quantitative analysis to make a qualitative judgment.
I think there is more evidence and experience showing that "war is bad" than
"war is good".  Only warmongers and terrorists think that we should inflict
some war on "them" to get greater results for "us".

> What do we do when their proponents will not listen to reason?  

This is a key requirement for war.  You must dehumanize your enemy to the
point that it is not possible to negotiate or reason with them.  They will
never agree to anything else, so we must kill them.  We have to eliminate
all other possible options before the "final solution" becomes the only one
left.

As Extropians, we should be seeing more and more options all the time, not
less and less.  War should be less likely and less useful as we progress
into the future.  War is the opposite of extropy.  War means that there are
no possible solutions, we give up, we can't oppose the other side, so we
will just kill them.

> To suggest, as I did, that 
> maybe some wars are indeed extropic requires me to present 
> merely one single example of a war that would reasonably be 
> considered extropic.  To do this, and prove it to you, 
> Charlie, and Paul would likely require a lengthy discussion 
> just to define extropic and to define war.  But are you so 
> sure that ANY possible war is definitely NOT extropic?

Typical losing-position approach.  You want to assert it, but it would take
too long to explain why.  You want to push the burden of proof to the other
side.  You want them to prove a negative (that no war could ever be
extropic), while you refuse to prove a positive (just give one example).
You also claim that your position hasn't been disproved yet, nobody has
proved that all war is always entropic and never can be, so your argument
still stands undefeated.  A lack of defeat (yet) does not equal proof.

> If you wanted to try to 
> convince Hitler and Stalin that War was bad, I'm all for it, 
> but once tanks start rolling over us, I'm defending myself. 
> We could say that 'killing is bad' as well, but in saying 
> that am I giving up my right to self defense?  

There is a big difference between defending yourself from violence and
initiating violence.  The libertarians and older extropians on this board
used to understand that.  This idea of pre-emptive strikes and initiating
force on people who haven't attacked us is definitely not extropian.  It
never has been and never will be.  

(And for the record, no I don't believe that Iraq was part of the 9/11
attacks or had weapons of mass destruction.  I do believe that we
pre-emptively attacked a country that neither attacked us nor were capable
of attacking us.  No, I don't think the Iraq war is extropic.)

> > > A more reasonable question (if one can call such questions
> > > reasonable) would be how many lives are worth an increase in 
> > > extropy, and how much of an increase?
> > 
> > No we can not call such questions reasonable.  I don't know why it
> > keeps coming up on this list.
> 
> Yet if one is to assert that all wars are anti-extropic, then 
> this is a question that MUST be answered before making that 
> determination.  All wars include loss of life.  How extropic 
> is a single life?  What do we mean when we say 'extropic' in 
> the first place?

Sorry if I haven't made myself clear.  ZERO LOSS OF LIFE is extropic.  ANY
LOSS OF LIFE is entropic.  Now I know that the world isn't perfect, and we
can't prevent all loss of life.  But I certainly don't want anybody planning
loss of life as part of their master plan.  Especially any final solution
where the loss of life is directed at one group while a different group
benefits.

> > It almost seems as if there is a subgroup of people who 
> > keep trying to justify committing violence as part of
> > the extropian agenda.
> 
> And it seems that there is a subgroup of people content to 
> let us be overrun by murderous oppressive regimes for fear of 
> taking a single like to defend our very extropic (thought not 
> extropic enough) society.

Only people who cannot conceive of any answer besides murder, terrorism and
war would make such a statement.  If there are other options, then it is
perfectly possible to pursue them without resorting to murder, terrorism and
war.  The refusal to initiate force does not equal a lack of self-defense.
Every libertarian knows that.

> Yes, War is bad, and killing is also bad.  So is lying, 
> stealing, cheating, etc.  But the real world is cold, 
> complex, and unforgiving, and sometimes things must be done 
> that we prefer not to do in order to ensure the continuation 
> of the things we value.  I may steal bread to feed my 
> starving self or family, I may lie to protect the feelings of 
> someone I care about, I may kill someone in self defense, and 
> my country may go to war when threatened by a clearly and 
> significantly less extropic, less free, murderous and 
> oppressive government. 

This is my point exactly.  As extropians, we are supposed to be intelligent
people with optimism, smart technology and future solutions.  Can't we think
up something besides guns, murder, lying and war?  As long as you think
these things are bad and work to avoid them, then we are in agreement.  But
some people here seem almost eager to resort to these methods and too ready
to give up trying to find anything better methods.
 
-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com>