Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
>Dan Fabulich wrote:
>> While I agree that it's nice for Congress to be forward-looking, it would
>> be much nicer if he had more libertarian leanings than it would be that he
>> be at Future Shock level 4. The future can take care of itself; all we
>> want/need gov't to do is get out of the way!
>What I'm trying to point out is that the two are hardly unrelated. Would a
>science fiction fan have reflexively banned cloning? Of course not. Cloning
>is a totally innocent technology which is not subject to any abuses
>- it's simply a way of artificially producing unsynchronized identical
Yes and no. Cloning probably not. However, a liberal/conservative with a high SL can still be even more dangerous. cf. any of the various techno-socialist schemes that occasionally get posted here and elsewhere. Insert old sayings about technology and morality here.
I'd say that sf and libertarianism are extensionally equivalent in a few (mostly trivial) ways, but that in general they don't have all that much to say about one another, ie they're mostly unrelated.
I'd rather have a libertarian with SL0 running the country than a fascist w/ SL4+.
>President Cl*nt*n banned it because cloning is SL2 and President Cl*nt*n
I think he banned cloning because he's an authoritarian with SL0. If he were an authoritarian with SL2, he would have made it only available with gov't license and supervision. Interestingly enough, however, a rational libertarian wouldn't have banned cloning at all, no matter WHAT their shock level was. (Non-initiation of force and all that.)
-GIVE ME IMMORTALITY OR GIVE ME DEATH-