Re: A (Useful?) Simplification
From: Joe Dees (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Jan 05 2002 - 01:38:49 MST
('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)
>Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 01:53:08 -0800
> Samantha Atkins <firstname.lastname@example.org> email@example.com Re: A (Useful?) SimplificationReply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
>Joe Dees wrote:
>> Let's say that there are a hundred people on an island (let's call it Spaceship Earth); the majority, say 85, eat meat and vegetables, but realizing that their numbers are growing and that latrine space is overtaking cattle range and farmland, a few are working on ways to get our eggs out of a tiny basket before we all die of overpopulation-induced pollution and starvation. Let's say that the other fifteen have sworn fealty to a murderous Thugee ideology, and the only people they will not kill are their own. What are the 85 to do?
>Actually, the minority eat meat and vegetables and consume most
>of the resources and wealth, of course they arguably produce
>much of it too. One option is to create more resource and
>distribute them more broadly. And also it might be good to eat
>less meat so not so much habitat is consumed feeding cattle. :)
Yeah, tell me about the Vegan Muslins!
>Of course there is no 85% fine people who are protective and 15%
>who are murderous. It is highly artificial.
What is not artificial is that 15% are ostensibly following a doctrine which, if taken literally, prescribes the murder or dhimmitude (serfdom) of those who do not accept it. True, most of them do not act upon it, but those who do must be dealt with, or we will be dealt with by them, and they have already begun.
>> 1) Hunt down and convert, or, failing that, kill the 15 so that all may live their lives unendangered and those working on liberation may continue.
>> 2) Join the 15 to avoid being murdered.
>> 3) Blithely ignore the 15 and hope that one's own number does not come up.
>> 4) Try to understand the killers as members of an alternative yet equally valid lifestyle and attempt constructive and nonjudgemental dialogue with them.
>> 5) Assert that the 85 deserve such a fate because of real or imagined historical wrongs and await their fate with a sense that an incomprehensibele (or maybe comprehensible, but these would most likely convert) divine justice was being meted.
>> I stand squarely with alternative #1. I see Samantha as embracing alternatives #4 or #5 or perhaps a syncretism of the two.
>That is very dishonest. I do not claim that killers are of an
>equally valid lifestyle. I do claim and am quite correct in
>this that the terrorist have at least some claims of wrong-doing
>that should be examined on their own merits regardless of the
>source. Where we are in the wrong and can improve things we
>should in the interest of greater peace and well-being for
>working toward liberation. But that doesn't mean we condone
>terrorism in the least or do not punish it.
It still ounds like a 4-5 syncretism to me, up until the pro forma and rather desultory ending disclaimer.
>And I most certainly never said or implied (5). My interest is
>in getting to "liberation" (Singularity) with as many of our
>fellow sentients on board as possible. I think you can get more
>on board by addressing real grievances even while ending
>barbaric acts of terrorism of all kinds. I believe you will
>get more people on board by welcoming more people on board
>whenver you can without inviting your destruction.
And what about welcoming those aboard who are vocally committed to your destruction?
I think that Mike Lorrey, despite our differences, answered you quite well, too.
>Is that clear enough?
As clear as mud.
Looking for a book? Want a deal? No problem AddALL!
http://www.addall.com compares book price at 41 online stores.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:32 MST