Re: Lee Corbin's Goodbye

From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Mon Aug 18 2003 - 11:01:15 MDT

  • Next message: asa@nada.kth.se: "Re: eyes for Mars"

    Mark Walker wrote:

    > ...
    >
    > If I were a critic of transhumanism I would certainly use this as an example
    > of how little technology and science seem to improve age-old social
    > dilemmas. If my experiment is not tried I hope others will be suggested and
    > tried that will attempt to move us at least a little beyond this age-old
    > either/or.
    >
    > Mark
    >
    > Mark Walker, PhD
    > Research Associate, Philosophy, Trinity College
    > University of Toronto
    > Room 214 Gerald Larkin Building
    > 15 Devonshire Place
    > Toronto
    > M5S 1H8
    > www.permanentend.org>

    We are all still humans. Espousing TransHumanism doesn't make one a
    trans-human. So don't be surprised that normal human politics it the
    actual reaction pattern even among those who promote other patterns as
    preferable. And when the rules are vague and subjective, then those
    making the decisions will be greatly influenced by their own emotions.
    Will be, not may be. In that situation there *is* not alternative.

    I don't trust any centralized authority run by people, because over and
    over again people have proven untrustworthy. But I do trust traffic
    signals. They only play the favorites that they are designed to play
    (e.g., emergency vehicles, or timed signals).

    OTOH, I don't trust voting machines. Consider the reasons:
    1) how they work is hidden.
    2) there have already been instances where they were appearantly corrupted.
    3) reputable authorities have stated publically that they don't have
    good safeguards against being corrupted.
    4) Influencing the vote so that your client wins has a tremendously high
    payoff.
    But do you really think that the prior elections were without
    corruption? Even after the last one, where several different modes of
    corrupting the vote became public knowledge?

    Centralized authority is an inherrent weakness when the authority can
    benefit from misusing it's power. It's an evolutionary process, and if
    you don't consider the likely mutations, you can't predict the end
    result, but it won't be what you wanted.

    -- 
    -- Charles Hixson
    Gnu software that is free,
    The best is yet to be.
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 18 2003 - 11:12:28 MDT