Neal Blaikie wrote:
> Emlyn wrote:
>
> > Many here would argue that this
> > is fundamentally at odds with extropianism, which has a more
individualistic
> > outlook... we would save ourselves, at the cost of the long term good of
the
> > species perhaps. Although it is not at all clear that this is a required
> > tradeoff.
>
> If this is true, it may explain why I am not quite willing to say "I am an
> Extropian," while as the same time sharing many of the same interests and
> values. I'm all for my own individual autonomy and freedom (particularly
from
> death), but am also concerned about everyone else's--not from any
altruistic
> sense, but from a practical one. If we're to take, or reclaim, or assert,
or
> manufacture this freedom for ourselves, there is great danger in at least
not
> offering it to everyone. (Anyone, of course, has the right to refuse it.)
I may have misrepresented the extropian position in that last paragraph, but
do note the last sentence... I am by no means suggesting a relationship of
mutually incompatibility between the good of the individual and the good of
the species. Truly, I'd say they are fairly closely aligned. Natural
selection has managed to produce our species, members of which quite often
hold personal survival as their highest goal; if that was in opposition to
the good of the group, it likely wouldn't be a viewpoint represented with
such frequency.
Also, think of this... extropianism might be an highly individualistic
philosophy, yet it has catalysed the formation of this rather cantankerous
group. How would that be? Have a look at people who espouse this philosophy,
and you'll find people who care about providing others with the ability to
act in an individualistic fashion. In some senses this really is
altruistic - we care about the future, and what it brings, because in the
end we really like people and care about what happens to them. Also, as
you've pointed out, there is a practical aspect. Humans achieve more as a
group than individually. The kinds of technologies we are looking at require
cooperation amongst people on often massive scales. Also, a society which
treasures individualism and dynamism is more likely to allow you, the
individual, to do the things you want to do - it mightn't help you much, but
it's unlikely to get in the way.
I think there's a great temptation to see individualism as being opposed to
the best interests of the group, often colouring it as immoral or even evil.
That's an unfortunate simplification, which ignores the fact that the group
is, in the end, made up of those individuals, who are not entirely blind to
their interdependence.
I'll just make a quick comment that having an individualistic outlook might
colour your political views a bit, but it doesn't dictate them. It doesn't
necessarily progress to "I gotta get some big g*ns and put in razor wire".
In fact, I believe you can support some fairly major governmental
infrastructure without contradiction, although your demands on the
transparency and accountability of such institutions might be pretty high.
> It's long been my contention that where natural selection ends,
> artifical selection begins (this is an oversimplification). Intelligent
agents
> (ourselves, for instance) then become responsible for their own evolution,
and
> for the evolution of intelligence in general, using whatever tools they
are
> capable of making. Since we humans have evolved through natural selection
to
> the point where we can do this, I don't see how it could be anything but
> "natural" for us to do so. If we were to continue to rely only on "plain
> vanilla natural selection" (as if we could, now), we'd pretty much be
headed
> for stagnation or extinction.
>
We are in accord. Unlike someone else who replied to you rather
discourteously and without much evidence of a point, I find what you have
said here completely agreeable. It's a line that I continue to push...
"natural" loses it's meaning when you talk about what humans will do next.
We'll do what we will do; it's our nature.
Emlyn
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 10:00:04 MDT