From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Thu Jul 31 2003 - 23:24:49 MDT
On Thursday 31 July 2003 13:47, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> Sorry Emlyn, but I have to *most* strongly disagree. Just because a
> discussion "sucks" does not mean that it may be useful to engage in it.
>
<example of roughly similar things not quoted>
> Here are another two definitions of genocide:
> 1. "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political,
> or cultural group" (Merriam-Webster online).
> 2. "the systematic killing of a whole people or nation" [Webster's
> New World Dictionary]
>
> Now, my proposal was not in any way based on race or culture.
Actually, it more or less was based on geographical area, i.e., particular
countries you seem to belief are so benighted as to be hopeless and possible
threats to our continued future and thus to purported HUGE numbers of people
to someday be. Toying with the idea that Afghanistan or N. Korea should be
nuked for the alleged good the the supposed future hordes of being does
amount to an indiscriminate genocide of a nation or nations.
> It was based on a clear presentation of the value of current
> vs. future human lives.
Actually it is based on pure speculation that isn't exactly what I would call
"clear" at all.
> If that isn't trying to look at things
> from an extropic perspective then I don't know what is.
If that is an extropic perspective then I would want nothing to do with
extropy!
>If we
> discover a NEO is going to strike the Earth in a month and the
> probable death toll will be half of humanity then decisions
> are going to need to be made. "*Who* do we save?" and "*How* do
> we save them?".
Please stay on track as to what you said and why it is objectionable. This
flak thrown in does not help.
> And we aren't going to have all this "flak"
> about "genocide". If anyone on the list thinks that major
> military organizations, the Center for Disease Control, and
> perhaps other security & health related groups have *not*
> thought about scenarios (that might kill large numbers of
> people) and do not have contingency plans for this then
> they are simply being naive.
>
Irrelevant to you proposed thought experiment.
> The only thing that I am guilty of might be having the
> audacity to ask the question of "Do the needs of the
> many outweigh the needs of the few?" and ask it in a
> rather controversial way. But it is *not* an unusual
> question (or one that should be discarded from the ExI
> list) as the PBS special I cite above shows. If PBS
> can debate issues like this, then I think we should be
> able to do so as well.
>
Controversial? Proposing genocide goes far beyond controversial.
Indiscriminate slaugther, even as a thought experiment, of entire countries
full of people because you or we may be worried about them and not believe at
least the leadership is reachable is highly un-extropic. If such
indiscriminate slaughter of sentient beings is not un-extropic then I don't
know what is.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 31 2003 - 23:30:49 MDT