From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Thu Aug 07 2003 - 01:13:54 MDT
On Tuesday 05 August 2003 11:44, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
> Samantha Atkins wrote:
> > 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? 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? 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.
>
> ### I think I already had this discussion before on this list, with Eugen
> Leitl and you, but maybe we talked only about action transparency, not
> about thought transparency.
>
> All the arguments I have in favor of action transparency are valid for
> thought transparency. Basically, it's too good for economic efficiency to
> be in the long run rejected. I believe that whether you/I/we want it or
> not, sooner or later there will be a fully transparent society (assuming
> that it's technologically possible), and it will out-think, out-produce and
> out-fight all competition. This has little to do with extropy,
> enlightenment, tolerance, and could be a total dystopia, but our opinion
> about this possibility will not change much.
>
I do not believe you can take your projected long run advantages for granted
for the reasons stated. In the foreseeable run of events, given current
human individual and organizational realities, it is far more likely that
major oppression of all that is outside what is currently accepted or
currently in power would ensue. This would lead to a radical lack of
innovation and a stagnation of production values. To get around this I
think you will need to come up with a lot more compelling arguments about how
the innovative and new that disagrees with current ruling thought and
practice has room to develop and come to sufficient fruition for the system
to change and grow.
I don't see where this would lead to economic sufficiency any more than the
group mindedness of various socialized economies led to greater efficiency.
How would the lack of private thought and deed improve the picture precisely?
> Most likely though it will not be so bad. Read "The Truth Machine" by James
> Halperin.
>
That is not a fully thought transparent society and, of course, it is fiction.
> One can accept it now, and think about improving one's chances of long-term
> survival based on this assumption, or reject it. I choose the former
> approach. Future will tell which one is correct.
>
Is your decision then arbitrary? Because you don't seem to be fully
presenting your reasons for it. Nor do you seem interested in showing how it
will not lead to dystopia. How is this responsible?
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Aug 07 2003 - 01:22:48 MDT