Subject:
|
naiveté (was: Re: Extropianism)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 19 Jul 1999 17:58:47 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
C576653@CCLABS.avoidspamMISSOURI.EDU
|
Viewed:
|
390 times
|
| |
|
|
Do I smell a troll?
John Neal wrote:
>
> Okay, Lar, I guess I would like to hear why you think goodness is innate?
I would like to hear the basis for it too. I know that I'm innately
good, but I do see an awful lot of seemingly bad people.
In many ways I support the LP platform, but I don't think innate
goodness is needed for it to work. I think that all you have to count
on are self-interest and that's the strength of libertarianism. I'm
quite satisfied that self-interest is innate.
> And BTW, extropianism is quite naive in assuming that science and wisdom
> will solve our problems.
Between the two very broad ideas of 'science' and 'wisdom' some problems
aren't solved, then something is very wrong. Science can solve some of
our problems and shed light on new ones that we didn't know we have.
> What difference does it make whether I live in a cave 50,000 years ago or am sitting
> in front of a TV watching Jerry Springer?
What does that mean? Obviously, the cave dweller is a higher
consciousness. But that has nothing to do with science.
> I still live (maybe longer, with or without the aid of a ventilator), and I still die.
Maybe a lot longer. Maybe through near-term genetic therapy we'll do
away with old age entirely and then just start concentrating on organ
rejuvenation or replacement. Or, if you can be completely simulated,
then you can live as long as you can keep an upload copy running. I
hope to be copied onto millions of outbound starships and live a
trillion unending lives across the universe. But you think that's just
the same as watching Jerry Springer?
> The important questions will always be beyond science by definition,
Excuse me? Definition of what? Science? Important? Question? What
are you talking about?
> and therefore the pursuit of them through science is merely an exercise in futility.
Nah.
> People want to know that their lives mean something, that there is more to life than
> simply working hard every day to make ends meet.
I don't. I don't want to be deluded in any way. Instead of hiding from
those very real issues (the random meaninglessness of life) I want to
conquer them. I want to carve my own meaning out of this opportunity.
People need to set goals for themselves.
> Science makes our lives more convenient, more comfortable, and maybe even richer, but > not more meaningful.
But if science can conquer the myths that people buy into about the
universe, then people will be more free to fully explore their lives.
Tied down to foolish notions of an afterlife, reincarnation, judgment,
karma, etc. people are less likely to take the bull by the horns and
make something of themselves because they'll be worrying about
conforming to some arbitrarily made-up set of rules by which to live.
> Property,
> after all, is just property, and the guy with the most stuff at the end
> doesn't win cuz you can't take it with you AFAIK.
I agree, but if you can make it work for you to accomplish something,
then it's great stuff. The Catholic church used tons of money to
commission great works of art. Bill Gates could potentially start
mining the asteroids (that's what I'd do with his cash) or whatever.
Property is great stuff because you can use it to get stuff done.
> Post-Modernism, baby. Science is bankrupt;-)
:-)
--
Sincerely,
Christopher L. Weeks
central Missouri, USA
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: naiveté (was: Re: Extropianism)
|
| (...) ;-) (...) How are you innately good? Is not being good a learned behavior? (...) I know this has been covered elsewhere, but could you distinguish for me the difference between self-interest and selfishness? I agree that selfishness (looking (...) (25 years ago, 20-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Extropianism
|
| (...) Okay, Lar, I guess I would like to hear why you think goodness is innate? I would think stuff like survival of self would be innate, but that goodness would be a learned trait. We are certainly born innocent but quite selfish to the exclusion (...) (25 years ago, 17-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
49 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
