hal@finney.org wrote:
>
> Corey asks:
> > Is the core idea of Extropy (as I understand it, summarized by "Upward and
> > Outward") predicated on a libertarian philosophy? Does one have to accept
> > all the other excess baggage that comes with libertarianism (i.e. absolute
> > freedom to own and use firearms, no centralized legal systems, decentralized
> > or no environmental regulations, no public investment from non-private
> > organizations, etc.) to be a true extropian?
>
> I do think that libertarianism is a natural political philosophy
> for an extropian to adopt. Extropians believe in removing limits,
> and libertarianism is that philosophy which puts the fewest limits on
> people's actions.
>
Extropianism is about transcending limits. Those limits might include
limited notions of what is and is not for our good and limited notions
of where the boundary of "me" ends and "you" begin. Thought precedes
action. Unlimited thought is not bound to any particular "ism".
> Earlier I posed questions about how modern liberalism could coexist with
> an extropian philosophy. What is the meaning of a minimum wage law,
> when there is a continuum of intelligences from AI through transhuman?
> How can the basic idea of social equality exist in a world where some
> beings think millions of times faster than others? It seems to me that
> a laissez faire attitude will work best in the future we anticipate.
Social equality in the sense of equal rights to life and one's own
pursuit of happiness must exist if you are to have peace. Peace after
extermination of all opponents last only as long as no one as stronger
or stronger than you shows up. It is not logical.
>
> > I ask this question as a believer in the concepts of expanding beyond what
> > are accepted as "common" limitations - overcoming such barriers as aging
> > pathologies and death, limitations of the physical body (strength, endurance,
> > etc.), limitations of input bandwidth and storage, gravity wells, the speed of
> > light... All of these things that we can and SHOULD overcome.
>
> Facetiously I said, "we tell people that in 30 years everyone will be
> an immortal superman and they say, ho hum. But suggest that someone
> ought to be able to work for less than the minimum age, and all hell
> breaks loose." Seriously, I can't understand how you can accept the
> massive changes which the concepts above entail, while still being
> married to modern social government concepts.
I am not "married" to either current concepts or yours or libertarian
ones. I do believe the idea that all beings should benefit to the
limits of what benefit they are willing to accept is much more appealing
that the notion that only "me and mine" should benefit if we stumble on
the next great thing first. All the dreams and struggles of humanity to
date have brought us to this point. Wrong turns and stupid ideas and
all. Perhaps it is all only fertilizer, only fodder for the Great AI to
come. But I am not ready to assume that is the only or the best dream
or to assume we have no say in the matter. I am not sure some times if
the race has a desire for transcendence or simply a death wish.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:39:11 MDT