Re: How transparent should transparency be?

From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Mon Aug 04 2003 - 01:36:08 MDT

  • Next message: Brett Paatsch: "Re: Being Extropic"

    On Sunday 03 August 2003 22:34, Lee Corbin wrote:
    > But Samantha does not like the whole idea AT ALL:
    > > I cannot believe what I am reading here. Does anyone remember that the
    > > vast majority of human beings on this planet do not think at all like we
    > > do and would consider many of our thoughts, much less acting on any of
    > > them, extremely and even pathologically dangerous?
    >
    > Okay, so what do I care if they think our thoughts are dangerous
    > and pathological? They can already sip at this list and get a
    > taste. So what. Remember: it's the ability to *do* something
    > to someone else that is dangerous.
    >

    Huh? They already have more than sufficient ability to "do something to
    someone" and it is already used much to often and to deadly affect. Would
    you really prefer that every infraction of every law that you are bound to
    commit just by being alive be duly recorded for the use of anyone at any time
    who wants to stop you and whatever works is yours dead in its tracks?

    We live in a time when it is obvious great irralitionality is matched up with
    great power over our lives and futures. The only chance we have if we
    cannot stem the tide of irrationality to a large enough degree and cannot
    sufficiently defuse the power is to be able to be at least partially covert
    in plans and activities. I don't see what is particularly difficult to
    comprehend about that.

    > > What exactly are we counting on to still have any room to
    > > effect extropian change at all when everyone and anyone can
    > > not only examine all our actions but all of our thoughts as
    > > well?
    >
    > Just what are we afraid of? Just what do we have to hide?
    >

    See above. It is not "what we have to hide" but what is not anyone's business
    but our own. We do not have to justify private thoughts and private actions.
    Or are we so far down the totalitarian road that the desire to simply be left
    alone to one's own devices and voluntary assocations is now automatically
    suspicious and requiring public justification?

    > > Are we expecting the vast majority to somehow become enlightened and
    > > tolerant? If not, then exactly what kind of game are we playing? As
    > > I see it the ability to see everything, including thought would result in
    > > the worst kind of dystopia given the current nature of human beings and
    > > our institutions. If you see some good airtight reason this would not
    > > be so then please share it.
    >
    > Okay: I am sure that the more they learn about us (or, in the
    > broader context of your question, the more that other parts of
    > the world learn about the West), the better. Openness rules.
    >

    Let's see. Today government attempts to shut down all "cloning". Tomorrow
    they attempt to hamstring and make nearly illegal most types of nanotech and
    several varieties of AI. Exactly what in the current shape of the world
    makes you believe such things are impossible or even unlikely? With perfect
    oversight of all our activities and associations there is no way any of us
    will be able to proceed on such lines. There is certainly no way we will
    be able to be covert long enough to successfully oppose or escape a society
    gone this mad. End of story, very sad.

    - samantha



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 01:43:22 MDT