Re: Long term self-protection [was Re: BIAS: CNN commits fraud...]

From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@optusnet.com.au)
Date: Mon May 19 2003 - 21:34:05 MDT

  • Next message: Robert J. Bradbury: "Re: Important step toward a practical solid state quantum computer"

    Rafal writes:
     
    > This brings me to the Ragged-Trousered Philosopher
    > (http://www.fullmoon.nu/articles/art.php?id=tal), and his
    > conversation with God (the God, not some poor poser):

    Hey fun story. Thanks for posting. When I was about 19 and
    an atheist I had a similar sort of dream. Difference was that it was the
    Devil I didn't believe in not God that I found myself confronted
    with. He was some sort of 30 something business suit clad collossus
    standing waist deep in the middle of shallow bay addressing me on
    the beach. He'd dispensed with a few "unverbalised" questions with
    some blaize displays of supernatural rock blasting but he was really
    more interested in rational discourse and argument. I think it was
    mostly about the absurdity of ethics and morality but can't remember
    the details except that I though he made a very strong case.

    In the Ragged-Trousered Philosopher I found it interesting that God
    too was an atheist. Apparently he didn't see the *need* to believe in
    hinself.

    >
    > If you think the dangers of genetic warfare are serious, imagine
    > discovering a secret thought or program, accessible to any
    > intelligent individual, which, if abused, will eliminate your species
    > instantly. If your progress continues as is, then you can expect to
    > discover that particular self-destruct mechanism in less than 10,000
    > years. Your species has got to grow up considerably before you
    > can afford to make that discovery. And if you don't make it, you
    > will never leave your Solar System and join the rest of the sapient
    > species on level two.'

    > ### Well-worth reading.

    Yep. But I didn't see why the species boundary was such a binding
    force. Why was species survivial the point? Don't species natually
    split? Seems we've just been through another interation of how
    easy it is for people to draw arbitrary lines around certain groups
    of people redefining in-crowds and out-crowds as the circumstances
    suit.

    Also the emphasis on the need to develop fusion power as a liberating
    energy source. I probably mistook that as a reference to cold fusion
    when cheap fusion was meant.

    >
    > Let's hope his worries are unfounded, and we'll find ways of
    > advancing to the next stage in development, without the fear of
    > deadly attacks during the next Extro.

    I reckon the next Extro is safe. Perhaps in no small part because
    the next Extro is unlikely to be seen as a serious threat to anyone.

    I think I accept the theses that in order for an intelligent desperate
    person to cause havoc (terrorists, or perhaps a better example
    Timothy McVeigh) all the is necessary is that they be willing to give
    up their lives as a sacrifice. Fortunately probably more people are
    capable of acquiring the destructive knowledge base but far fewer
    will adopt the perspective that their own lives are so worth the price
    of making their point.

    "Oklahoma bombings" as incidents are one thing, are we going to see
    them as a sort of syndrome? What if anything is the defence?

    Brett



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 19 2003 - 21:43:53 MDT