From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@optusnet.com.au)
Date: Mon May 19 2003 - 21:34:05 MDT
Rafal writes:
> This brings me to the Ragged-Trousered Philosopher
> (http://www.fullmoon.nu/articles/art.php?id=tal), and his
> conversation with God (the God, not some poor poser):
Hey fun story. Thanks for posting. When I was about 19 and
an atheist I had a similar sort of dream. Difference was that it was the
Devil I didn't believe in not God that I found myself confronted
with. He was some sort of 30 something business suit clad collossus
standing waist deep in the middle of shallow bay addressing me on
the beach. He'd dispensed with a few "unverbalised" questions with
some blaize displays of supernatural rock blasting but he was really
more interested in rational discourse and argument. I think it was
mostly about the absurdity of ethics and morality but can't remember
the details except that I though he made a very strong case.
In the Ragged-Trousered Philosopher I found it interesting that God
too was an atheist. Apparently he didn't see the *need* to believe in
hinself.
>
> If you think the dangers of genetic warfare are serious, imagine
> discovering a secret thought or program, accessible to any
> intelligent individual, which, if abused, will eliminate your species
> instantly. If your progress continues as is, then you can expect to
> discover that particular self-destruct mechanism in less than 10,000
> years. Your species has got to grow up considerably before you
> can afford to make that discovery. And if you don't make it, you
> will never leave your Solar System and join the rest of the sapient
> species on level two.'
> ### Well-worth reading.
Yep. But I didn't see why the species boundary was such a binding
force. Why was species survivial the point? Don't species natually
split? Seems we've just been through another interation of how
easy it is for people to draw arbitrary lines around certain groups
of people redefining in-crowds and out-crowds as the circumstances
suit.
Also the emphasis on the need to develop fusion power as a liberating
energy source. I probably mistook that as a reference to cold fusion
when cheap fusion was meant.
>
> Let's hope his worries are unfounded, and we'll find ways of
> advancing to the next stage in development, without the fear of
> deadly attacks during the next Extro.
I reckon the next Extro is safe. Perhaps in no small part because
the next Extro is unlikely to be seen as a serious threat to anyone.
I think I accept the theses that in order for an intelligent desperate
person to cause havoc (terrorists, or perhaps a better example
Timothy McVeigh) all the is necessary is that they be willing to give
up their lives as a sacrifice. Fortunately probably more people are
capable of acquiring the destructive knowledge base but far fewer
will adopt the perspective that their own lives are so worth the price
of making their point.
"Oklahoma bombings" as incidents are one thing, are we going to see
them as a sort of syndrome? What if anything is the defence?
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 19 2003 - 21:43:53 MDT