[ExI] Fwd: Transhumanism and Politics

[Stefano Vaj]

I inadvertenly dropped this discussion from the list. Thank you to
Rafal to point it our for me.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com>
Date: Jan 23, 2008 10:31 AM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Transhumanism and Politics
To: rafal at smigrodzki.org


On Jan 23, 2008 3:50 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2008 3:59 PM, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > But you may have also noticed that there have always been people
> > violently, albeit futilely, resisting lawful execution, or stealing
> > food to avoid death by starvation.
>
> ### Yeah....so what?

So we cannot, and should not, expect or demand heroics as a standard.

> > And I am pretty sure that many would consider "violent" whatever
> > attempt at enforcing "property" of longevity technologies might took
> > place.
>
> ### Would you count yourself among those "many"?

I guess it would probably depend on what side of the fence I find myself... :-)

But personal "moral" views are not really relevant to what I mean.

> Because, you know, to do that you would require guns,
> > policemen, electrified fences and so on, more or less as to enforce an
> > attempt to assert property on breathing air.
>
> ### Not really. Intellectual property is in the mind of the creator,
> and in some other material resources used to impact the world. It is a
> form of personal property stemming from first possession, since a new
> idea always appears in the human mind which is legitimately owned by
> itself only. Air (at least outside of space and undersea habitats) is
> subject to a number of property conventions, for the most part placing
> it in the public domain. An individual assertion of rights over
> intellectual property is therefore automatic, while unilateral
> assertion of rights of exclusion to air would infringe on established
> property claims of others.

There again, you are speaking in terms of right and wrong, and the
rationale behind them. What I am saying is that people do not react in
a fundamentally different fashion if faced by death through starvation
or death through soffocation.

> Whether an action is to be seen as violent cannot depend on
> superficial appearances, and association with weapons, but rather must
> be based on the analysis of the underlying principles.

I would say that this is far from true, psychologically speaking.
Electrocution is perceived as equally violent by the victim both if it
is administered by a sadist or as a consequence of a lawful sentence.

> > Now, my point is not taking side about that. I simply encourage
> > realism in this respect
>
> ### I do not understand. The word "to encourage" has a weak normative
> connotation, so there is a certain state of affairs you wish to come
> about. You are taking sides. What then is this "realism" in practical
> terms? Cessation of attempts to enforce intellectual property? Refusal
> to protect pharmacies from thieves? Allowing patients to hold
> physicians at gunpoint until cured?

No. It simply means that you have to consider the consequences of an
attempt to establish and enforce exclusivity in respect to radical
longevist therapy, both at social and international level. You may
still wish to do so, but in such event you should be prepared to fight
to death, quite literally, as the other party very probably would.

Stefano Vaj