>I personally think those who demand the perpetuation of personal "privacy"
>in a future that will live and breath on the unrestricted communication and
>processing of ever increasing amounts of informatio are unknowing Luddites.
"unrestricted"? You think there will no longer be a need for privacy?
So, in your future, you think that there will no longer be criminals
ready to take your money from your bank accounts; no longer be people
willing to take advantage of information you have, like ideas for
inventions; no longer be anyone who is judgmental about your
lifestyle?
You think that human nature will be perfect in every way,
transcending all of these problems and many others? Just how far off
is that future: ten years, a hundred years, a thousand years?
Do you at least acknowledge that privacy is necessary in the face of
those problems (and a whole host of others) today? Do you really
think that people who would at least like for personal privacy to
exist while those above problems exist are "unknowing Luddites"?
>As I see it our ultimate "purpose," if there is one, is to facillitate the
>efficient storage, transmission and processing of data.
Bleah, who says we have a purpose? You'll have to prove (or at least
refer to a common one) some metaphysical basis for existence before
talking about purpose. Then we can make stuff up all day about good
purposes.
>Everything at its
>core is information and the more of it we can grasp and utilize, the better
>off we will be.
Maybe, but you'll first have to address and remedy the human
deficiencies that necessitate personal privacy before referring to
privacy adherents as Luddites. Doing otherwise seems a trifle unfair
and premature.
Even after that, I'm unsure that you can claim that rendering all
information public is a Good Thing(tm). If you and I are playing
chess, should you be entitled to know my next move? If I don't
personally like the color of your space suit, should you have access
to that opinion? Should you know for whom I voted?
>The *only* difference between man and God is access to, and
>the ability to usefully exploit, information.
The main difference between man and God is that man exists in a
scientifically verifiable sense. If you're talking about the common
perception of what a Judeo-Christian God would be like, you're going
to have to acknowledge that there is a substantive difference between
omnipotence and omniscience, which are both attributed to him/her/it.
>So, on the one hand you say you are an Extropian hoping one day to become
>Uberman. On the other hand you want to put up impenetrable road blocks on
>the information super-highway.
That's a false dilemma. The two goals aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.
> Look in the mirror. What do you call
>yourself?
Realistic? Hunky? Susan? :)
Regards,
Chris Russo
--
"If anyone can show me, and prove to me, that I am wrong in thought
or deed, I will gladly change. I seek the truth, which never yet
hurt anybody. It is only persistence in self-delusion and ignorance
which does harm."
-- Marcus Aurelius, MEDITATIONS, VI, 21
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:33 MDT