From: Damien Broderick (damienb@unimelb.edu.au)
Date: Mon Jul 28 2003 - 20:23:53 MDT
At 05:56 PM 7/28/03 -0700, Hal wrote on:
[lots of snips below]
>how to think about the unthinkable. Just as we
>have those here who argue against even abstract consideration of horrific
>suggestions,
>There is something about the mere possibility of a non-emotional response
>which is threatening to this mindset.
>much the same split, between viewpoints he called Classical
>and Romantic.
>I'm not sure what lesson we can draw from this, other than to recognize
>the existence of these two points of view, and to try to respect the
>other one even if you don't agree with it. Of course, my whole analysis
>here is completely in the Classical mode, and will therefore tend to be
>rejected by the Romantics.
Actually classic vs romantic isn't a divide between affectless reason and
brainless emotion; each style or mode emphasizes different kinds and
intensities of reasoning and emotional response. I'm inclined to regard
both as adoptable styles appropriate to circumstance, although obviously
every individual with his or her specific temperament and cultural shaping
is more likely to favor (default to) one pole or the other.
Because my sharp and immediate reaction to Robert Bradbury's `abstract
consideration' of a `horrific suggestion' was the first off the block, and
has been deplored in strong terms by Lee Corbin as nothing better than
bullying, I should perhaps write a little more about that. What struck me
instantly, aside from the horror and atrocity of discussing genocidal mass
murder as a tool of `extropic' policy, was what might be termed the awful
innocence or context-free character of what Robert proposed for discussion.
I regarded as blazingly self-evident the dire political and memetic
sequelae to any genocidal attack of the kind posited. These were later
spelled out by Emlyn, Anders and Eliezer, none of them notable for their
drunken Romantic excess and evasion of reason. Quite the reverse.
But that still misses the deeper point: we might just as easily claim (to
drag in the Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot card, which is never more appropriate
than in a discussion of genocide as an option) that the ExI list is also a
suitable venue to discuss the desirability of the liquidation of the Jews
or the homosexuals or the stupid or the Kulaks or the black-skinned or
indeed the extropians, and all of this, naturally, from a poised and
cautious classical perspective of "rational debate". My reply is: the ExI
list has to be the *last* place to discuss such mad atrocities as if they
were rational or indeed human options. Such policy suggestions, especially
on a google-archived list, are *incredibly* dangerous (and odious).
On the other hand, it certainly *is* the place to discuss rationally topics
that might give many people goosebumps or the horrors: e.g., what the
consequences might be if genomic science allows parents early detection of
embryos with a high likelihood of developing with strong homosexual
leanings, or autism, or low impulse control, and then aborting them. But
what about a rational debate on killing such children, when detected, after
they're born and before the age of 15? I think we're then back again to
discussing thoughtfully whether the Holocaust might have been a really good
idea after all. If the ExI list does move in that direction for long, I'll
not only be out of here, I'll be denouncing it in print.
But of course, as I believe Robert understands, my comments were not meant
as `character assassination' or personal abuse. It's a general point, and
sadly one that has to be repeated from time to time on this list of INTJs.
I approve of Lee Corbin's dislike of censorship, but he doesn't seem to
understand that what I (and some others, I think) were complaining about
wasn't the *voicing* of that detestable genocidal notion, but it's *being
considered as a rational option in the first place*. Lee will be appalled
at my saying that, of course, as if I were proposing `thought policing' or
`thought death'. But Lee and Robert don't seem to realize how pathological
and unsustainable life would be (how Colombian, perhaps) if we routinely
and `rationally' considered killing everyone we're frightened of or who
gets in the way of what we, in our partial ignorance, estimate might be the
optimal way forward for humankind.
Damien Broderick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 28 2003 - 20:32:19 MDT