Re: Help! Leisure or Extro-Holocaust?

Keith Elis (
Sun, 14 Sep 1997 05:53:21 -0400

Sarah Marr wrote:
> At 15:01 13/09/97 -0400, Keith Elis (Hagbard Celine) wrote, replying to
> Holly Pearson:
> >The pace of change is not a problem to be solved. It is a fact of life
> >that human beings should synergize with.
> You cannot justify your statement about the nature of the pace of change
> simply by saying it a fact of life.

Huh? I wasn't justifying anything. If you think the pace of change is a
problem, then express that. If you don't think that it is a fact of life
then express that as well. I'm not sure what you have a problem with in
that sentence(s).

> Cancer is a fact of life. Death is a
> fact of life. Bigotry is a fact of life. They are all problems and I
> believe they all need to be solved. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with
> you, just asking you for a cogent argument.

If you don't disagree then you don't need any argument, cogent or not.

Anyway, sorry for being pedantic.

The problems you cite are indeed problems. They are also facts of life.
The pace of change is not a problem, but it is a fact of life.

I must be missing your point because if you don't disagree then what are
you doing?

> >I say speed them up so I can augment my inefficent physical form with
> >something more capable.
> It seems a little naive to assume that increases in the pace of change, or
> even continued change should allow you to do anything at all about your
> form. Will you be able to afford it? Will you have access to the
> technology? Will you even hear of the developments?

Ancillary questions, don't you think?

Whether I can opt for augmentation or not is irrelevant to the question
of whether augmentation is available, no? If the pace of change is
slowed, then I might not have even the option, never mind how much it

> >The future is not a hundred, fifty or even ten years down the road.
> Er, pedantic perhaps, but yes it is.


> >Well, to get there, we will have to watch as the world we know it is
> >entirely turned on its head.
> No, for _us_ to get there, we will have to be part of the process of
> change. Sit around watching and I suspect you'll be just so much worm
> fodder within one hundred years.


> >You are insignificant. So am I.
> This is not a very Extropian attitude.

I nearly became sarcastic. I wonder why you think so? Oh, wait, here's
the reason:

> We may not be owed anything by
> anyone but that does not have the corollary of insignificance. And if we
> truly desire change, insignificant is one thing we cannot _afford_ to be,
> either as individuals or as a group.

This doesn't tell me anything about whether we are insignificant or not.
Whether I can afford to be insignificant in the face of the universe is
not the question I was addressing. If I am significant, then express

> >Waste your energy
> >trying to fight the facts and you will indeed be dead in five years.
> Fact: we're all going to die within an hundred or so years unless we do
> something about it. Hmmm... personally, I think some facts are there to be
> fought.

My point, as you pointed out earlier, is that the pace of change is a
fact of life. This the fact of which I speaketh.

Sorry I was so unclear.

> The tools for my survival are on their way.
> To people with money, and friends in high places, and influence, of whom
> you and I have probably never heard. Unless we do something to involve
> ourselves.

The tools for *MY* survival are on their way. I didn't include anyone
but me.

> >We are, for all practical purposes, equal.
> Sorry, but that is completely without any basis.

It's okay. I might be wrong.

> Do I really need to go in
> to the relative chances of an American and an Ethiopian getting gene
> therapy, or even decent dental treatment?

No, I understand your point about resources, etc.

> >No one has any better chance than any other. All your
> >money, all your resources may be rendered worthless at the Singularity.
> Hmmm. 'And He shall judge them one and all at the great Singularity, when
> all shall be equal.' Om.

Well said.

Notice my use of the construction "may be".

Are you arguing with me, or just being clever?

> Sarah
> B e a u t y i s o n l y s i n d e e p.

An abstainer is a simpleton so weak that he gives in to the temptation
to deny himself a pleasure.


Boat Drinks,