Newsgroups: bit.listserv.xtropy-l
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 12:34:29 PDT
              <XTROPY-L@UBVM.BITNET>
From:         Hal Finney <ghsvax!hal@UUNET.UU.NET>
Subject:      Re: Memebabble
X-To:         pmetzger@uunet.UU.NET, xtropy-l@uunet.UU.NET

I have strong disagreements with many of the points made by Richard
Kennaway, <jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk>:

> IMHO, people on this list have been playing fast and loose with the
> concepts of "survival" and "memes".  Consider Perry Metzger's comment re
> Jellinghaus not signing up with Alcor, and not considering important the
> survival of the information pattern which is "him":
>
> >However, I will point out that evolution favors those of us who choose
> >survival, so ultimately, your point of view is doomed. Those of us who
> >choose survival become more and more prevalent through time.

Perry didn't mention memes.  You're the one who cast his argument in
memetic terms.  You're attacking a straw man of your own creation.

Perry referred not to the survival of ideas, but to the survival of
people.

> I have a more fundamental problem with the way the concept of "meme" has
> been used here.  In the quotation above, Metzger seems to imply - perhaps
> he will say whether my extrapolation from his words is correct - that
> since the meme "the survival of at least one copy of my personal identity
> is unimportant" has (supposedly) poorer survival value than its negation,
> there is no need to argue against it.  Never mind which (if either) of
> them is true or false, all that can matter to us people, mere epiphenomena
> of the meme soup, is being on the winning side, of having the surviving
> memes.  In a similar vein, people have remarked that Asimov had
> "contracted" the (supposedly) anti-survival meme "death is good".

Perry was specifically discussing a point which he described as
"arational", that is, one which is not subject to decision by rational
means.  Rationality is a tool which can help you advance towards a
goal, but it cannot choose your fundamental goals.  In particular, it
cannot tell you whether your own survival is worthwhile.

Perry could have tried to convince Young Rob that he should try to stay
alive.  He could remind him of how good life can be, of all the
pleasures that he could experience.  But is this kind of argument
really convincing?  No - it's utterly presumptuous to try to tell a
total stranger that he should seek to preserve his life.  This is a
decision each person must make for himself.

Perry was therefore not saying that there was no need to argue against
Rob's ideas, but rather that there was no point, that such an argument
would be fruitless.  This is simply an issue that people have to decide
for themselves.

> People propounding unwelcome ideas used to be seen as possessed by devils.
> In more sophisticated times, they were viewed as possessed by repressed
> memories, by false consciousness, by Communism, by internalising the
> patriarchy, or some other such jargon.  Among Extropians, the demon's name
> is "Bad memes".  The words change but the demon is the same: fear of
> anything you don't control.

This is an utterly misleading characterization of how most people on
this list view ideas they disagree with, or the people who hold them,
IMO.  Stating that extropianism is a philosophy which fears what it
cannot control is exactly backwards.  Extropianism is characterized by
trust of the decisions made by others.  Surely the many discussions
here and in the pages of Extropy on issues such as private legal
systems, use of drugs, individual privacy, and a host of other
issues should make that clear.

Naturally, this includes the freedom to disagree with extropianism.
If someone wants to become rigid and unchanging, to avoid improving
himself, even to die, that's his right.  No extropian would deny these
choices to an individual.

> And when unwelcome ideas are seen as diseases, it is only a short step
> from smugly crowing like Metzger that one will bury their believers, to
> taking active steps to eradicate them.

No one but you has suggested that unwelcome ideas should be seen as
diseases.

I'm not sure whether the referent for "eradicate them" is the
unwelcome ideas, or their believers.  I will give you the benefit of
the doubt and assume that you are not suggesting that it would be a
"short step" for extropians to begin killing people who disagree with
them.

Instead, if you are saying that extropians might take active steps to
eradicate ideas which they disgree with, then in a sense this is
trivial.  Of course if you disagree with an idea, you may choose to
argue against it.  If you are successful, you may indeed eradicate the
idea, at least in those who hear your argument.  There is nothing
sinister in this.  Indeed, earlier in your message you seemed upset
that extropians weren't doing enough to argue against ideas, but were
content to predict their extinction.

If you are making the stronger statement that extropians would support
some kind of thought control in which unacceptable ideas would be
forbidden, erased from the archives, and thus eradicated through the
use of force, I can again only point out that such actions would be in
diametrical opposition to extropian philosophy.

In summary, this posting is full of misconceptions and inaccurate
characterizations regarding extropianism.  Again, I suggest that
people take the time to subscribe to Extropy magazine to learn about
the philosophy and ideas first-hand.  Max posted information recently
on subscriptions and the contents of the recent and next issues.  It's
an excellent magazine, well worth the few dollars it costs.

Hal Finney
ghsvax!hal@uunet.uu.net			...!uunet!ghsvax!hal
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU