RE: Friends or Enemies

From: lists@thecri.org
Date: Sat Mar 22 2003 - 17:11:18 MST

  • Next message: Lee Corbin: "RE: [POLITICS] Thank God for the death of the UN (Article)"

    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