[extropy-chat] thought space map on cartoons

[Robert Bradbury]

On 2/12/06, spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> I am asking from the moral and ethical point of view,
> which quadrant would one put oneself, and why?  What
> do you see as the long term consequences of your quadrant,
> and what of the other three.  Handle this topic with
> care please.


I would have to go with (3) yes, no.  Not however from the freedom of speech
standpoint that most journalists and many westerners might adopt.  Instead I
would base the argument that if the Muslims (and most Christians) continue
to follow a set of beliefs involving the predominant "life after death"
concept then they will ultimately end up dead.  Allowing a person to die
when one has the knowledge which might save them (i.e. the knowledge
available to most people on this list) is presumably immoral and unethical.
The moral/ethical (and extropic) arguments would dictate that continuing to
allow people to worship "false gods" when one knows that better belief
systems available is wrong.

If people are fully informed and they choose to follow some set of beliefs
to their death that is fine -- so long as they allow others to follow
different sets of beliefs.  If however people are not fully informed then it
seems to be an avoidance of ones moral/ethical duty to allow that situation
to continue.  Humor or irony is one form of expression which can be used to
point out inconsistent meme sets.

As far as I can tell both the Christian and Muslim religions are problematic
when it comes down to the question of how one deals with "infidels".  The
dictionary definition of "infidel" as "not holding the faith" and "faith" is
defined as believing in what another declares or utters.  So it seems to
come down to the issue that if one does not believe what someone else says
one is an infidel and should be dealt with accordingly.  Both Christianity
and Islam are based upon what individual(s) declared and or wrote down more
than a  thousand years ago.  The failure to update their fundamental
foundations in light of the development of science and the expansion of
knowledge over the last few hundred years is the source of the problems we
are now facing.

I believe one can only argue the (1) no, no point of view if you can make
the case that not confronting the Christian/Islamic swamp (i.e. letting
hundreds of millions, probably billions, of people die) will ultimately save
more lives.  Given the small numbers of people involved in transhumanism,
signed up for cryonics, etc. making that argument would IMO be difficult.
Whether cartoons can accomplish this or whether one needs a better strategy,
e.g. transhuman/extropic "missionaries" is an open to debate.

Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060212/b0468e32/attachment.html>