Thursday, December 25, 2003

> On 25 Dec 2003, at 13:32, Matus wrote:
> >>
> > CS said:
> >
> >> I'd like to add to that: war seems to me to be about as anti-extropic
> >> as you can get. The triumph of brute force over enlightenment,
> >> destruction, death and despair on a massive scale. An excuse for the
> >> enemies of freedom on every side to chip away at civil rights. The
> >> ascendency of dehumanization is the *opposite* of transhumanism.
> >
> > I would like to disagree with that. War is neither intrinsically
> > extropic nor anti-extropic. If one of the parties at war is less
> > extropic, and it wins, then war is anti-extropic.
>
> Sorry, I think you're wrong.
>
> We're talking on two different levels. You're discussing ideology, I'm
> discussing methods.
>
> I'll grant you that it's necessary to address the problem of
> anti-extropic ideologies, and in some cases their proponents will not
> listen to reason. But ...

Those who do not subscribe to reason can not be conquered by it. So, are you admitting that as a 'method' war can sometimes be extropic?

>
> > If the other party is
> > more extropic, and it wins, the result is clearly extropic. Would you
> > have been content trying to 'enlighten' Hitler or Hirohito or Stalin
> > about why war was wrong?
>
> Is this a case of ascribing too much to contingency? Sure. But I feel
> it's important to note that these monsters you point the finger at were
> in every case the outcome of a chain of violent circumstances.

Understandable, but that chain of violent circumstances as far back as history goes can not simply be ignored for want of imagining a world where war is always bad because no one ever behaved in any manner where war was required to stop them. That history is real, and we must deal with its consequences in the best manner we can. Your comment is like saying 'if no one ever behaved in a warlike manner than war would have never been required and thus war is all bad!' Its nice, gives one a happy feeling, but its pure fantasy. If no one ever assaulted another person, police wouldn’t be required either. People DO behave in a warlike manner, how should one who is extropic and values human life deal with them?

> Violence
> begets more violence, and in each case (Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito's war
> cabinet) the monstrous fruit grows from a relatively small seed.

By your thinking, it seems even self defense would be anti-extropic.

>
> > As I have pointed out many times on this list,
> > there has never been a society more anti-extropic than just about every
> > incarnation of communism on this planet. More people have been killed
> > by communism than all war dead combined,
>
> Blaah blaah blaah.
>
> I suppose "every incarnation of communism on this planet" doesn't
> include all those family groups that pool their collective assets and
> resources.

No it doesn’t, I was referring to states that enact communist as a form of political and economic rule that force the people that live under them to abide by it wholly even against their own will, states that have killed 170 million people this century.

> Or the roughly 75% of the planetary population who live in
> dirt-poor peasant communities and are so poor that they're excluded
> from capital-mediated economic interactions, dealing instead on the
> basis of barter and favours. Right?

People who are mostly ruled by corrupt totalitarians or oppressive theocratic regimes.

>
> The truth is, communism works very well indeed -- at the smallest
> scale. And if you insist that it doesn't, I'm going to have to ask you
> how much your parents charged you for the use of your cot when you were
> a baby.
>

Im sure it does, if you want to live in a hippy commune, be my guess. Just don’t toss fellow members who change their mind in gulags to work themselves to death.

> But I digress ...
>
> > And tell me if a war to free them from that particular oppressive
> > murderous regime would not have been extropic. If any part of extropy
> > requires freedoms of any kind, than turning non-free nations free by
> > means of war is by definition extropic.
>
> Tell that to the corpses.
>
> Here's a clue: the survivors may (or may not) be better off after a war
> of liberation. But the people who die during such a war are cleary
> *not* better off; they're dead. No amount of "liberation" can help a
> corpse.

Ok, so whether a war was extropic or not is measured by how many people are killed? Is extropy *solely* a measure of intelligent life, and nothing else? If you are going to talk about the results of a war being extropic or not, you must define what is extropic. In some cases it may be reasonable to believe inaction would cause more deaths than action, is action then extropic?

What of other factors, I would be hard pressed to agree that what is extropic is merely a measurement of being alive. As a billion couch potatoes may be alive, but will hardly be as extropic as 10 productive motivated scientists.

To positively assert whether something was extropic or not, you will have to define what criteria makes something extropic, and how much of it was present before and how much present afterward. This would probably be quite an undertaking, yet you are all ready absolutely positive that *all* wars are anti-extropic.

>
> > Extropic progress requires freedom of information, ideas, thoughts,
> > technology, etc. In most oppressive states, the internet and computers
> > are illegal, non-governmental publications and political disagreement,
> > also are, including property and technology in others.
>
> Like, oh, cannabis or heroin or cocaine in the USA?

Are either of these requirements for extropy? Hardly, I would argue that they are probably anti-extropic. Will a bunch of cocaine addicts or stoners bring about a singularity? I doubt it. Hey, while were at it, why don’t we force everyone to be scientists and engineers and theoretical physicists and AI programmers. Now that would surely be extropic. Clearly what is extropic is not solely related to everyone being entirely free and everyone being not free at all. Specific freedoms may or may not be extropic, and fighting for extropic freedoms would result in a more extropic society. Defeating a clearly anti-extropic state (say, one that has *no* freedoms, allows no technology, and no free exchange of information) is clearly extropic. But of course, by your comments, if even one person is killed it is not, correct?

>
> Here's a thought-experiment for you. Clearly the USA is ruled by an
> oppressive regime that refuses to give its citizens the right to
> experience certain states of consciousness or to posess certain types
> of property. Political disagreement with this platform can (as in the
> recent case of Tommy Chong) make you a target for imprisonment on
> trumped-up charges.
>
> Does this justify carpet-bombing Washington DC and launching a war of
> invasion and subsequent occupation by foreign troops, at a cost of,
> say, 150,000 lives (the equivalent per capita adjusted for the US
> population of the proportion of the Iraqi population killed during this
> years' war) to redress this oppressive situation?

No it does not justify it, but why are you hitting me with thought experiments, you are the one who has made the absolutist assertion that all wars are anti-extropic. You have merely cited a hypothetical example of one that is not. I have not asserted that all wars *are* extropic in no way shape or form. Only that some wars, depending on circumstances, may be considered extropic.

>
> War as a cure for social evils is almost invariably worse than the
> social evils it is proposed as a solution for. I find it notable that
> the only really enthusiastic proponents of such wars on the planet
> today are barking mad Islamic fundamentalists -- and Americans, who
> haven't actually experienced a war on their home territory for nearly a
> century and a half!
>

" almost invariably" ? Why the 'almost' qualifier, I thought you said 'all' wars were anti-extropic.

Michael
CS said:

> I'd like to add to that: war seems to me to be about as anti-extropic
> as you can get. The triumph of brute force over enlightenment,
> destruction, death and despair on a massive scale. An excuse for the
> enemies of freedom on every side to chip away at civil rights. The
> ascendency of dehumanization is the *opposite* of transhumanism.

I would like to disagree with that. War is neither intrinsically extropic nor anti-extropic. If one of the parties at war is less extropic, and it wins, then war is anti-extropic. If the other party is more extropic, and it wins, the result is clearly extropic. Would you have been content trying to 'enlighten' Hitler or Hirohito or Stalin about why war was wrong? As I have pointed out many times on this list, there has never been a society more anti-extropic than just about every incarnation of communism on this planet. More people have been killed by communism than all war dead combined, add to that any other kind of murderous totalitarian regime, and I am hard pressed to believe that wars enacted to remove such murderous tyrants are *always* anti-extropic. I find you summation simplistic. Take a look at the rights enjoyed by people under the Khmere Rouge

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/WF6.TAB.6.3.GIF

And tell me if a war to free them from that particular oppressive murderous regime would not have been extropic. If any part of extropy requires freedoms of any kind, than turning non-free nations free by means of war is by definition extropic.

Extropic progress requires freedom of information, ideas, thoughts, technology, etc. In most oppressive states, the internet and computers are illegal, non-governmental publications and political disagreement, also are, including property and technology in others. Yet you assert that *any* war, even ones that would bring freedom to these horrifically oppressed peoples are by definition anti-extropic?

You can debate about the specific ways a war might be carried out, and can surely figure some to be anti-extropic, but to absolutely assert that *any* war is automatically anti-extropic is egregious.

>
> About the only possible exception to this bleak picture is the way
> that in the industrial age war permits the mobilization of vast
> technological and scientific resources and their direction towards
> achieving specific goals, in a manner that is difficult to coordinate
> in peacetime. But those goals are seldom positive, frequently
> destructive, and wouldn't it be better to achieve such mobilization
> for creative and constructive ends instead?
>

And if a society is ideologically opposed to creativity and construction (as many communist regimes have pretty much been) then going to war with them is still not extropic? Do you consider WWII to have been extropic or anti-extropic?

Michael

Wednesday, December 17, 2003

I have read many of the authors cited by the topic originator, and I would have to agree with them. Most skeptics and athiests probably did not undertake a full fledged investigation of religious arguments and then come to a conclusion after carefull consideration. I would tentatively say that I have, as I made a point to learn a lot of the pro-theism arguments, but I did this primarily so that I could have some sincere and thought provoking conversations with my family members, many of whom are born-again christians. I find many pro-theism arguments profound certainly, but more often than not I can think of, or know of, simple logical counter arguments that deflate that particular theological argument. But the fact is, it doenst seem many religious people hold there religious veiwpoint because of cold , objective, calculated indeifferent analysis of all the data. Most are just normal emotional human beings seeking happiness. But those who do not make decisions based on reason can not be conquered by it. I think this is why (justifiably) many skeptics dont undertake a serious examination of pro-theism arguments, because once they embrace the concept of a natural universe that doesnt require divine creation or manipulation, its pretty unlikely some amazing piece of evidence will arise that will get them to change their mind. Its like insisting that round-earthers must undertake an enormous study of all flat earth arguments before being sure of a round earth. I disagree, the probability of the theistic interpretation and the non-theistic interpration of the universe is not equal, it is much more likely, based on reason and science, that no divine being plays or ever played any role in the universe. Consequently, its unreasonable, imho, to devote similiar amounts of time to these assertations. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. THe burden of proof lies on the theist.

For those keeping scoring, I would probably most accurately be considered a 'weak atheist'

Matus
I think a more appropriate question would be 'does everything happen for a purpose?' Instead of leaving open the question with the more broad phrasing of reason. As others rightly responded, everything occured for a reason, as part of an infinitely regressing cause and effect chain. I would however dispute that somewhat since random quantum mechanical fluctations influence the macroscopic world and cause events where the fluctuation itself had no cause.

But does everything happen for a purpose? As in, a direction to achieve a goal? Personally I would say no, no purpose what soever. a predertermined destiny is at odds with the concept of free will, and there is no scientific or rational reason to suspect there is some ultimate path we are destined to follow. Believing this, imho, is humbling, since it implies that every action on your part can have drastic and profound consequences on the entirety of your life. Choose wisely. I do think some things can be predetermined, but they are limited to things that can not be influenced by any being choice or behavior, and remains uninfluenced by random quantum mechanical fluctuations between now and the time you identify the predetermined outcome. But I have no data to base such an opinion on, it only seems reasonable to me.

Matus

Thursday, December 11, 2003

Yet there are more democracies than there have ever been before in the world, and more people enjoy freedom in the world than ever before. No democracies have ever started a war, and no two democracies have ever been at war. People work less and live longer than ever before, and fewer people starve than ever before. Population growth rates in all post industrialized nations have fallen and continue to fall, estimates of total world populations after every country industrializes keep going down as well.

Dont believe every doom and gloom scenerio thats touted, People since ancient greece have been insisting that the decline of destruction of society is inevitable very soon. Bad news sells, good news doesnt.

Matus
Ill make some comments on this, having worked at Pfizer for nearly 10 years. The US is reluctant to make price controls on medication because its the only place in the world where drug companies can still make any money off of creating drugs. You may think this is bad for US people, but if the drug companies cant make any money off of any drugs, they wont make any drugs. If you think they are too expense, start your own pharmacuetical firm and so how cheaply you can make drugs. I walked nearly every hallway in nearly every building at pfizer's research headquarters in CT, some 2,000,000 sq ft worth of offices and labs. Those drugs may cost a few pennies to manufacture, but the very first one can cost 400 - 500 million dollars. Part of this great expense is the tremendous amount of regulation the FDA puts all medicines through, part of this is the fact that finding medications that work is time consuming and difficult. For every 10,000 potential compounds that enter the drug testing and approval line (before its submitted to the FDA) only two or three make it through. Many drugs which will work for diseases which not a lot of people have are awaiting trials because the FDA demands human trials of minimial sizes. When not enough people have the disease, the drug is never tested, and never released. The FDA would rather have 10 people die from no treatment then one person die from any drug not thoroughly tested.

As for Canada, their heavily socialized government subsidizes the difference in cost from the American outlets compared to the canadian ones, so if you live in the US and you buy 'cheap' canadian drugs, you are sticking it to the tax payers of canada, not the pharmacuetical industry.

As with most issues, this one is complicated, I emplore everyone to reasearch the subject more before forming absolute opinions. For every complicated problem there are a million easy solutions that are completely wrong!

Perhaps a good place to start -

http://reason.com/0104/fe.rb.goddamn.shtml

Matus
Take the time to read this phenomenal speech given by popular novelist Michael Chricton. I have been a big fan of his for a while, despite the repetitive theme of his books, they tend to get some interesting science in them. In this speech he suggests environmentalism is the new religion of the secular west, complete with its blissful Eden (people in tune with nature, noble savages, etc) Its wanton disregard for facts in the wake of 'True Believers' , Salvation (sustainability) and, of course with any religion, lots of suffering and death (DDT Ban).

Remarks to the Commonwealth Club

by Michael Crichton
San Francisco
September 15, 2003

From - http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote05.html

I have been asked to talk about what I consider the most important challenge facing mankind, and I have a fundamental answer. The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance.

We must daily decide whether the threats we face are real, whether the solutions we are offered will do any good, whether the problems we're told exist are in fact real problems, or non-problems. Every one of us has a sense of the world, and we all know that this sense is in part given to us by what other people and society tell us; in part generated by our emotional state, which we project outward; and in part by our genuine perceptions of reality. In short, our struggle to determine what is true is the struggle to decide which of our perceptions are genuine, and which are false because they are handed down, or sold to us, or generated by our own hopes and fears.

As an example of this challenge, I want to talk today about environmentalism. And in order not to be misunderstood, I want it perfectly clear that I believe it is incumbent on us to conduct our lives in a way that takes into account all the consequences of our actions, including the consequences to other people, and the consequences to the environment. I believe it is important to act in ways that are sympathetic to the environment, and I believe this will always be a need, carrying into the future. I believe the world has genuine problems and I believe it can and should be improved. But I also think that deciding what constitutes responsible action is immensely difficult, and the consequences of our actions are often difficult to know in advance. I think our past record of environmental action is discouraging, to put it mildly, because even our best intended efforts often go awry. But I think we do not recognize our past failures, and face them squarely. And I think I know why.

[continued at From - http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote05.html]