From: Anders Sandberg (asa@nada.kth.se)
Date: Sat May 24 2003 - 02:38:24 MDT
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 02:17:51PM -0700, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
>
> Having been quite seriously roasted with respect
> to "utilitarian" arguments (perhaps quite reasonably
> so) with respect to terminating collectives of
> humanity I am forced to question whether any
> conversation that does not promote the survival
> of human entities can really be considered "extropian"?
>
> In other words -- if ones conversation is not directly
> directed at saving lives does it belong on the list?
> (Goes to the nature of what is "extropianism" and *who*
> can contribute to that?)
Aren't you putting the wagon before the horse here? Is extropianism
really primarily about saving lives? I would rather put it like this: we
are here to discuss extropian ideas and activities. Extropianism is
about enhancing human potential, looking forward and create constructive
futures. Saving peoples lives certainly is a part of it, but it is not
all.
The ideas of Locke, Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill have arguably saved
more lives and enabled more people to exist in safety than many medical
breakthroughs. But they were not ideas about directly saving lives, not
even indirectly - they were talking about other things that enhanced
human and social welfare.
I think where we can really shine is in applying our own unique outlooks
to problems and come up with really new solutions (which we then better
promote). Dealing with SARS is best left to the epidemologists and
virologists - we can think of innovative ways of handling the next
pandemic or how such prevention could be combined with internet
institutions or whatever.
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/ GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 24 2003 - 02:44:36 MDT