From: Paul Grant (shade999@optonline.net)
Date: Mon Jul 14 2003 - 10:37:19 MDT
hell is other people;
-sartre
later recanted of course,
but the fact he at least felt the
need to make that statement should
indicate the root cause of the problem :P
--
personally, less taxation please.
as to ethics, I like property rights,
in so far as material things go; I even
like property rights (as they relate to
real estate) as far as owning the land
as long as you use it constructively,
but owning large tracts of land without
putting it to use, and of course, deathless
corporations suck.
Thats from a US [stateside] point of view :)
As to your question, depends on your style
of management; some people like to micromanage
[you must follow sociol/political/psychological/economic/ethical
structures
style to succeed], and others are more loose, letting
people adopt whatever is most convenient in getting the
job done.... Some people need the former, others are
stifled by the former.
Let me put it to you another way;
which do you prefer, econonomy (thrift, efficiency) in achieving
said society, or just plain acheiving it to the maximal rate possible?
If you prefer the former; than planning
[adopting a set of socopolitical etc is the way to go];
why replicate the search for an optimum pathway if
it can be discovered by one person? Any sufficiently
intelligent person will disregard the portions of your
"code" that are not functioning... stupid people will
follow them to the best of their abilities lacking the
ability to derive their own.
if you prefer the latter (as a development path), than
leave it unspecified, but state your goals clearly.
Eventually people will find correct ways to achieve that
goal (if its possible). of course, thats puts far less
of your population in play, as most people will not
really be driven to improve anything if left to their
own devices (in my ever so humble of opinions).
Funny, I think you could just establish it as a religion;
I mean, when you stop and think about it, religions
must be doing something right, for it to be
represent in 90%+ of the population.
Also, do you see (even if its a long way off)
a terminal point in development?
As to defining how we relate to another,
I would definately say one thing; don't bother
unless your vision specifically acknowledges
that human beings can be very mean (ignorant)
spiteful creatures, and then build your framework
off of that -- the reason I make that point is
that unless your philosophy {which is what your
constructing} specifically deals with the most
unruly humans, it will inevitably collapse,
either as incorrect [if you choose to state/build on
the reverse], or incomplete.
omard-out
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-extropians@extropy.org [mailto:owner-extropians@extropy.org]
On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins
Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 2:47 AM
To: extropians@extropy.org
Subject: Re: A vision
There was one thing missing imho. That is how society and people will
change.
How we are to one another is missing. There is a lot about technology
in the
vision but almost nothing about us when you get down to it.
There is the statement that many types of life choices will be possible
and
room will be present for all of them. But there is nothing about what
sort
of sociol/political/psychological/economic/ethical structures would
allow/enhance that.
Is just the growth and increase possibilities enough? Or is much more
required before we expect the growth in abilities actually leads to a
future
we wish to inhabit?
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 14 2003 - 10:50:02 MDT