From: lists@thecri.org
Date: Sat Mar 22 2003 - 17:11:18 MST
George Soros in his book Open Society proposes that humans are fallible
and that nobody holds the absolute truth. In all human interactions
(politics, economics - as opposed to hard science like physics) there
can only be approximations of what is the true answer. Some ideas are
generally agreed upon to be more "fit" but in general there is no one
answer.
In my life I take viewpoints, but try not to cling to them too strongly.
Those who are completely sure of their answer are in my eyes part of the
problem. I do not think war is the best solution, but I cannot be sure
it is wrong. I am fallible, I am humble.
Those who are so sure of something are extremists, they tend to cause
problems. Often there is a small group of 5 to 10% that are so sure of
something they try to run it through independent of what the majority
wants.
There are a small group of people who do not think Israel should exist,
as there are a small group that thinks that Israel should expand. There
are a small group who think that abortion is like murder, and there are
a small group who think it means nothing. There are some who think war
should never be fought, there are those that want to rule with an iron
fist of death. People on the extremes often screw up things for the rest
of the world.
Personally I think if moderates ran everything and extremists were held
to minimal participation, the world would be a MUCH better place. Yet a
dillemma is that extremists are aften very motivated to make a
difference, and moderates tend to be somewhat unmotivated.
Perhaps there is a way to set up a discussion system online that gives
more credence to moderation. Of course George Soros has many ideas on
this - an open society that accepts many different ideas.
Maybe competition does increase progress, but I think today, in 2003,
the world has so much momentum for progress, that we do not really need
much more competition. There are so many groups in the world that know
they are right and have access to more weapons, that we must think hard
how we can all get together.
Lastly, people who get bent out of shape over politics are pretty funny
to look at - they get the veins bulging on their red foreheads and their
eyes bulge out too......
Erik Sayle
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-extropians@extropy.org [mailto:owner-extropians@extropy.org]
On Behalf Of Nathanael Allison
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2003 1:49 PM
To: extropians@extropy.org
Subject: Friends or Enemies
Is it neccesary for two people with opposing views to become enemies in
order to resolve the subject with which they oppose? Does the creation
of
enemies lead to futher competition and therefore increase progress? Or
does the creation of enemies cause more irrational thought and thereby
decrease progress? What would be the best relationship for resolving
opposing opinions?
What systems offer an intermediate relationship so that people are
impelled
to challenge each other yet has check points so that people do not
become
overly irrational?
I would say that this email list is one such system. In the real world
though, what systems are setup?
_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 22 2003 - 17:20:35 MST