From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Tue Apr 01 2003 - 12:40:38 MST
On Tue, 1 Apr 2003 cryofan@mylinuxisp.com wrote:
Finally -- an *interesting* topic worthy of extropic discussion!
> However, here is article discussing a paper by an MIT social scientist that
> indicates that social capital is decreased by ethnic and cultural diversity:
>
> http://vdare.com/letters/tl_033103.htm
I have not yet read this paper (so subsequent comments may be ill-informed).
> I have always thought that the basic premise that diversity is inherently
> beneficial is flawed,
I would tend to agree with this. It would seem (to me) that promoting
diversity is like promoting masturbation. It may be rewarding in the
short term but it isn't guaranteed to get you anywhere.
The phase space of possible activities is much larger than the phase
space of extropic activities. (Why do you think Eliezer or Greg
try to do spin control on the ExI list threads...)
> I have always thought that it was obvious, mainly because it is much easier
> for the citizenry to control the govt when the populace is homogenous.
I think this perspective may be flawed. One does not want the govt
"controlling" the citezenry or the citizenry "controlling" the govt.
Either of those perspectives seems (to me) unlikely to explore the
phase space of creativity productively.
What we would like to do is maximize creativity -- perhaps bordering
on chaos -- and at the same time develop methods for selecting and
promoting the ideas that are most extropic while at the same time
nurturing those that may grow more slowly but might in the long run
have a more significant impact.
So one wants to strongly promote creativity (and potentially diversity)
but one wants to wield a sharp sword (natural selection?) for those
developments most extropic while at the same time having some awareness
that there might well be "sleepers" in the nest. Very difficult IMO.
There are significant elements of this in the current Western grant
application and review process -- but it may be offset by "group
think". This may be offset by things like the "National Center for
Complementary and Alternative Medicine". But as I think Rafal may
have recently implied getting the folks in that camp to play by the
credibility rules may be rather difficult (why else wouldn't their
grants be funded...).
So extropes are caught in a difficult position -- one wants to
promote creativity and diversity but one probably does not want
it to reach X-files levels.
R.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Apr 01 2003 - 12:47:36 MST