[extropy-chat] re: embedded in open hearts (Meta/EP)

spike spike66 at comcast.net
Tue Apr 12 14:45:49 UTC 2005

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] re: embedded in open hearts (Meta/EP)
> On Apr 10, 2005, at 6:17 PM, spike wrote:
> >
> > I may disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the
> > point of non-life-threatening injury your right to say
> > it.  After all, anything you or I say is completely
> > irrelevant to me should I perish.
> >
> >
> Is there any level of evil that you would stand up against even if to
> do so would quite likely put your life in jeopardy?  Sometimes I wonder
> if we are not at a distinct disadvantage against those who may
> willingly put themselves in harm's way for what they believe is
> sufficiently important.
> -s

I have no doubt that transhumanist memes reproduce at a huge disadvantage
with respect to religious memes.  If one is able to convince others
to risk their lives, with a promise of some eternal reward, 72 virgins
etc, those memes reproduce with great force.  Surely this explains
why religion incorporated has such a strong grip on humanity.

As for putting myself in harm's way, this would be the logical
course of action if one is already in harm's way.  If one is
being threatened directly, one must react in such a way as to
defend oneself, thereby reducing the total risk.

Regarding those who willingly put themselves in harm's way
to take away my rights and freedoms, the right way to fight
back must surely be thru advanced technology.  Someone posted
an article yesterday on remote control of flies.  If we
were able to penetrate such things as organized crime and
terrorist sleeper cells with fly-borne microphones, for instance,
then convince every one of them that there is a mole in their
midst, perhaps they would beat each other beyond recognition,
leaving the rest of us safe to pursue ever more advanced 


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list