Re: UPL: The myth of we

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• [ Next ][ Previous ] In reply to: Technotranscendence

On Fri, 3 Dec 1999, Technotranscendence wrote:

> Today, I wrote:
> > The problem here that I foresee is that we (as humans) presumably have
> > a fairly strong built in respect for other humans (even those we
> > consider enemies).
>
> The fact that is has taken pretty strong social conditioning and strict laws
> to prevent war crimes, mass killings, and the like and also that humans seem
> to revert to disrespecting other humans whenever they get the chance (recent
> examples include Cambodia, Turkish treatment of the Kurds, the Sudanese
> civil war, Rwanda, Zaire/Congo). I wish I could agree with Robert here, but
> the evidence seems to weigh in the other direction.
>

I was thinking more along the lines of individuals respecting individuals. It takes very strong motivations (starvation or lack of mates) or a lot of other+self convincing that you have a well defined advantage (so you are "likely" to get the spoils you are risking your life for) to put humans into a mode where they become violent towards other humans. One on one the risks of self injury are usually too high unless, as you point out, one side has a significant technology edge.

Once an individual or group gets a distinct technology or numbers advantage, then yes, we do seem to have a bad habit of falling back on violence. Presumably latent drives for food or mates coming to the surface. Interesting isn't it how few women you you see going on rampaging killing sprees or becoming power hungry dictators....

I'd strongly suggest the uplifting be done to females of the uplifted species before males.

Robert

• [ Next ][ Previous ] In reply to: Technotranscendence