I'm going to offer my impressions and probably get raked over the
coals. I found Michael's original post useful because it pointed
me to some interesting historical information (those not understanding
the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them). Harvey's comments
were also useful because he did more investigation than I did
showing that the comments should be viewed in light of the agenda
of the people making the comments.
Regarding the question of whether such topics should be posted to
the extropian list I would have to say yes on two counts. First,
I think looking at political history is very useful because we
are going to have to deal with issues of how to best regulate
potentially dangerous technology, how to provide rights to
different classes of "citizens" and how to allocate scarce
resources (eventually) in the most extropic way. Second, though
I'm unsure of what "focused extropic topics" would be, I'm
sure they have been beaten to death in discussions in the
archives. It is perhaps useful to realize that the core
extropic viewpoint discussion may have been exhausted and
we are either waiting for "it" to happen or waiting for
someone brilliant to come along and contribute something
significant we haven't seen before. As a result the discussions
are on the fringe of the core extropic viewpoint and sometimes
trip over the "that isn't an extropian topic" trip-wire and/or
degrade into ve-said-ve-said dribble.
So Mike, I think it was useful and even Harvey would have to
admit so since it seems he is now planning a Hensonistic
picketing campaign for the Claremont Institute....
Harvey said:
> With this additional information, that they view "natural law" to mean
> "God's law as presented in the Christian Bible", do you still think this
> is on-topic for the Extropians list?
There seems to be a lack of balance regarding religion on the list.
On the one hand Harvey is going after it with stakes and hammers
while Spike is supporting every new variant falling out of the sky.
Perhaps one should doubt them all and doubt them all equally
(because as Harvey says they can't be subjected to scientific
analysis). But that does not mean that they will not from time
to time get something right and perhaps provide useful information,
insights or shortcuts towards functional societies.
"Thou shalt not kill" (because the all powerful god say so)
is certainly a much simpler rule to live by than a complicated
explanation on how killing destroys potentially valuable
information, might shorten ones own lifespan, doesn't produce
the most effective use of resources based on game theory, etc.
While I have no objection to people attacking the core problems
with religion (one "right" religion, brainwashing before the
ability to make informed choices, etc.), that has to be balanced
against the fact that the *average* IQ out there in the world
is 100. When people with that intelligence have the time and
interest to investigate and debate the issues to the depth that
some list members do, then we can throw out "religion" and replace
it with a more carefully designed philosophy. Until then the
system has worked sufficiently well that at least we have gotten
ourselves to this point. Its not a perfect world but it could
certainly be a lot worse.
My final point in this sermon would simply be to "lighten up".
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:05 MDT