[extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies

[Robert J. Bradbury]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Gregory Propf wrote:

> Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
>
> >I bask in the radiance of my own intense insights... :-;
> >
> Or you stuck your head in the microwave.

Haven't tried that.  I find attaching two wires from a high
voltage spark coil to my hands much more stimulating.

> I am not saying this.  I am saying quite the opposite of course.  Oh,
> you're talking about the Sudan now.  Somehow we shifted from responding
> to the beheadings with nukes to somehow nuking the Sudanese into
> stopping their wars.  Two different things of course.

Greg, you are of course correct.  I am mixing situations.  But you would
need to take apart the differences between Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the
Sudan (all of which seem to have Arab/Muslim orientations and sources
of problems) to make a case that we are not dealing with either
a Muslim "crusade" (as in: "a remedial enterprise undertaken with zeal
and enthusiasm" or desire for a hegemony (as in: preponderant influence
or authority over others; AKA "Domination").

Furthermore you need to then explain why Islam (or any other organized
religion for that matter) is not fundamentally opposed to extropian
principles and/or transhumanism.  (If you claim the religions need
to be modified so be it -- there is a very *long* history of this.
But you should not be claiming that people acting on the faith of
their religion and murdering or raping people should be tolerated.)

> >As pointed out in other messages the death toll would not be millions.
> >
> You want to nuke Jerusalem.  I think quite a number of people live there.

Yes, and this is why after some thought it seemed reasonable to
demonstrate that (a) we would nuke Jerusalem; (b) then do it.

No more Temple on the Mount, no more wailing wall, no more
tomb of Jesus.  They are all gone.  Kaputski.  If the people
suggest they will rebuild them we simply suggest we will drop
another nuke.  I.e. the complete elimination of the historic
symbols that tie humans to religions that are irrational
(and more importantly those that promote violence).

> I challenge you to provide proof that the current "path we are on" will
> not require the immediate sacrifice of 100 virgins to the god Foobar
> from the planet Kroton.

To answer this question would require knowing whether either the
virgins or Foobar were innately violent, had irrational thought
patterns or represented a distinct threat to either the extropian
philosophy or transhumanity as worthwhile long term goals for
humanity.  Please remember the basis for this discussion was my
assumption of utilitarianism -- i.e. more extropian or transhumanistic
perspective is better than less.  The burden is on you to show
how the preservation of "faith-based" humans rather than
"reasoning-based" humans will be more extropic or transhumanistic
than if we simply return them (perhaps prematurely) to the endless
recycling of atoms (something they are going to be involved in anyway...)

> It is *you* who must provide evidence that our
> response to terrorism (or anything going on in the world right now) will
> require nuclear weapons.

Ok, granted.  Question 1 revolves around whether a strategic use
of nuclear weapons can convince terrorists that they cannot win?
(A subset of this question involves whether the ends justify the
means -- and to date I haven't seen a single person deal with this
in way that can be evaluated.)

Question 2 revolves around the question of *what* in the blazes
do people with extropic or transhumanistic perspectives do with
all of the people who have historic/faith-based (i.e. not-rational)
perspectives?

Those are the questions I would like to resolve.

Robert