From: Brett Paatsch (bpaatsch@bigpond.net.au)
Date: Mon Sep 01 2003 - 22:52:07 MDT
Robert J. Bradbury <bradbury@aeiveos.com> writes:
> Ok, Greg, I'll wade into these waters (though I realize it is
> probably foolish to do so). [Someday, the Extropian List Principles
> should include a list of people that one should never never
> argue with.]
No, no, no Robert :-)
I agree with what I think is your contention that Greg's post was
excellent. I'm actually very much enjoying the current exchanges on
the list on law (and politics) especially between Greg and Barbara
and now between Greg and Robbie and am mindful that Greg has
other demands on his time too, (indeed we all have) but I really
hope we (extropians) never get the point when there are any people
who are formally listed as not to be argued with. I am sure you jest
- but any newbies please take note that that is my view of Robert's
statement.
I would like to explore some of the issues Greg raises in his post
as well, (but not in this post), I think, there is much wisdom in
Anders recent comment in another thread that we (transhumanists
I presume) need to be get are arguments sharp as it is the status
quo that we are trying to change and we are not the only ones with
visions of a possible futures. I was less certain that Anders was right
in saving sharpening the arguments is the *first* step. We must get
our arguments sharp to change the status quo that is true but I think
even before that we need to be able to triage and prioritise issues.
I do not have too much trouble envisioning to a fairly high degree
of detail how the commercial and technological wherewithal to
radically extend life may be achieved even without GAI within
a couple of decades. I do have trouble though factoring into
my mapping of such a possible futures the great uncertainties
that exist in international law. International law or the lack of it
has the potential to unsettle everything. It is the big factor X
on the horizon. International law relates to the relations between
countries which relates to economics and human rights and
everything down stream of those. Politics (international law and
politics) can stymie technological development at least for
timeframes that are not insignificant for individual humans with
our current lifespans. I have seen this up close with the international
stem cell debate in which I am certain that politics and law (including
international and intellectual property law) has slowed the rate of
basic research and created bottlenecks in the pipeline of the
development of therapies.
I respect that the Exi list is not about partisan politics, and agree
that it should not be, however politics (in the broad sense) and the
laws by which humans live and organise themselves sensibly be
off-limits to any transhumanist agenda in my view unless we are
content to be an esoteric enclave. We must engage politically at
times because we will be treated politically whether we do or not.
Now to me, it is very clear that most existing ideologies and
party platforms are not going to be embraced wholesale by
transhumanist but it is not so clear how we can go about triaging
the problems that remain and require solutions between us.
I do however think that international law (whether it exist or works
or not) and the relationship of the most powerful country in the
world to the future of the world will be of *great* importance.
I also think it is important for us to realise that technology may
have the effect of placing enormous propaganda power in the
hands of fewer and fewer individuals. Even the brightest of us can
only make good decisions on the basis of the information we
receive. This means that there are good grounds for us to be
mindful of the quality of the information we receive. It is no good
arguing flawlessly from flawed axioms and it is no good having a
great understanding of world events and ideas if our information
base itself is getting increasingly smaller and subject to the power
of fewer and fewer individuals and governments.
The internet can be a great tool for providing diversity of sources
but it is not completely untouchable by governments that may be
tempted to control the sources of information that citizen voters
receive.
Regards,
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Sep 01 2003 - 23:02:40 MDT