[extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies

[Robert J. Bradbury]

Ok, one can distance oneself from my remarks or deal with
them with sarcasm or state I'm shielding myself from critical
opinions.  *But*:

Lets start with:
Triage: (from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)
  Etymology: French, sorting, sifting, from trier to sort,
   from Old French -- more at TRY
  : the sorting of and allocation of treatment to patients and
  especially battle and disaster victims according to a system of
  priorities designed to maximize the number of survivors; broadly
  : the assigning of priority order to projects on the basis of where
  funds and resources can be best used or are most needed

[Side note -- anyone who does not view the current loss of
human life (on a global basis from a variety of sources)
as a crime of monumental proportions when we are almost
have the technical capabilities of extending human
lifespan to thousands of years should come visit me in Seattle.
I will be more than happy to whack you in the side of the
head with both large and small books until this becomes
completely clear.]

Those not responding in a concrete way (because they find
my proposed solutions repulsive or wrong) are part of the
problem and not part of the solution.  You have obviously
*not* been reading Kristoff's editorials in the NY Times
about the situation in the Sudan.

Sudan/Darfur situation: 180,000 to 1 million people displaced
  (many of whom face starvation).
Rwanda: 800,000 massacred in 1994

(I don't recall seeing any discussion on the ExI list
[other than my own] with regard to the Sudan situation
which proposed *solutions*) and I doubt there was much
discussion of the Rwanda situation when it was taking place
a decade ago.

in contrast:
Hiroshima: 64,000 deaths.
Nagasaki: 20,000 to 87,000 deaths (by various estimates).

(And don't even get me started on the 12+ million people a
year dying primarily from hunger [1] -- but the "treatments"
I proposed earlier will not work with *that* problem.)

Point being -- some, many, most (???) list members are sticking
their heads in the sand.  Yes the concept of proposing to
end lives to save lives is repulsive.  But that is what triage
is effectively about.  Those who do not engage in the discussion --
think again -- you are engaged by default.

We *claim* to value extropian perspectives.  Previous comments
lead me to believe that this implies there is an implicit value
to all human life (better be careful here or we end up looking
like right wing christians and catholics proclaiming "thow shalt
not destroy an embryo or fetus (or other form of human life...)".
Instead we are content to sit on our hands and ignore "passive"
destruction of life which significantly exceeds in all
probability some planned "active" destruction of life (which some
so strongly object to).  I.e.  "Oh don't mind me -- I'm just
guilty of the sins of omission rather than sins of commission...".
(Of course we [in the U.S.] went through that to a large extent when
the U.S.  resisted entering WWII -- and of course that cost the lives
of 6 million Jews and ultimately 50+ million lives of combatants
and noncombatants).

There are costs associated with not doing anything...
(We can see this in the delays in the process of developing
robust molecular nanotechnology for example.)

Robert

P.S. Damien... you are probably right -- taking the pills
would be a good idea.

1. The Hunger Project, Ending Hunger: An idea whose time has come,
   Praeger, 1985  (and these numbers are almost 20 years outdated!)