• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

G. Stolyarov II - Objectivism & Immortality


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 Bruce Klein

  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 11 October 2004 - 06:31 PM


Chat Time: Sun. Nov 7 @ 8 PM Eastern Time [Time Zone Help]
Chat Room: http://www.imminst.org/chat (irc.lucifer.com port: 6667 #immortal)

Chat Topic: Objectivism & Immortality
Science-fiction writer, G. Stolyarov II, joins ImmInst to talk about Objectivism, Transhumanism/Extropy and the pursuit of eternal life.

Posted Image
by G. Stolyarov II

* The common ground between the ideological systems of Objectivism and Transhumanism/Extropy. I am an Objectivist in terms of my adherence to the fundamental principles established by Ayn Rand, and I consider the pursuit of eternal life and continuous technological progress to be the logical consequence of these principles. I am currently in the process of writing an article about the application of the Principles of Extropy to Objectivist and libertarian organizations and endeavors, as well as the widespread recognition by both movements of the need for free markets and individual liberty.

* My science fiction eBook, Eden against the Colossus. This novel explores, among other intellectual themes, the issue of immortality in a highly advanced futuristic society, where the advocates of technological progress and the reactionaries against it are poised for one final conflict.

* The Methuselah Foundation and its efforts to reverse human aging via the Methuselah Mouse Prize. I will be happy to discuss my support for this endeavor via the CMFF and my magazine, The Rational Argumentator as well as to explain the rationale behind and elements of this effort.

Posted Image
Struggle for the Future by G. Stolyarov II

#2 advancedatheist

  • Guest
  • 1,419 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Mayer, Arizona

Posted 11 October 2004 - 09:56 PM

Objectivists seem to have made up their minds that man is potentially perfect as he is, that is, without the badly needed biological re-engineering Transhumanists advocate. I don't see Objectivists as necessarily the best candidates for recruiting additional Immortalists.

Moreover, they seem stuck in what Robin Hanson would probably call "Matrix" values, in that their lives are organized around constructs like "heroism," "self-esteem," "romantic love" and other make-believe that distract us from our real problems. As a recent article in New Scientist (28 August 2004) about terror management theory (TMT) states,

"What self-esteem is doing is convincing us that we are significant beings... By being more than just animals we persuade ourselves that we are not subject to the natural laws of decay and death."


In other words, people who emphasize these arbitrary fantasies over tangible pro-survival goals are clearly not dealing with the universal mortal emergency effectively.

#3 Bruce Klein

  • Topic Starter
  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 11 October 2004 - 11:50 PM

Interesting, Mark. I tend to agree in that most Randians I've talked with seem to overlook the problem of death and oblivion.

#4 John Doe

  • Guest
  • 291 posts
  • 0

Posted 12 October 2004 - 02:18 AM

Interesting, Mark. I tend to agree in that most Randians I've talked with seem to overlook the problem of death and oblivion.


I agree that there is a tension between transhumanism and Objectivism--and it shows what is wrong about Objectivism--and I thank Mark for articulating what I could not. If you consider Rand's responses to several philosophical dilemmas, such as the threat of determinism against freedom of the will, or the threat of simulation against reality, her answers always struck one was as a knee-jerk, almost infantile affirmation of orthodoxy. Her ethical position--that selfishness is a virtue--is, to my knowledge, the only major philosophical position she took that was unconventional, and even then the notion of moral non-realism upset her. In that sense, it is very interesting to contrast Rand with Nietzsche--whose influence upon her was obviously great--because not only did Nietzsche entertain unorthodox, even scandalous positions, on epistemology, freedom of the will, and ethics, but he was also unambiguously transhumanist.

I discuss this further in my essay the Posthuman Condition.
http://www.ece.utexa...g/posthuman.htm

#5 bgwowk

  • Guest
  • 1,715 posts
  • 125

Posted 13 October 2004 - 09:06 PM

Interestingly, of the billions of people lost during the past few decades, there are two that are explicitly discussed in the Library of Alcor's website:

http://www.alcor.org...tGetFrozen.html

http://www.alcor.org...ntGetFrozen.htm

As a point of cryonics history, many cryonics pioneers were strongly influenced by Rand, especially at Alcor. Mike Darwin, Jerry Leaf (who studied philosophy under John Hospers), Hugh Hixon, and Max More are just a few examples. Technophile objectivist/libertarians have historically been much more receptive to cryonics than the general population.

Regarding the quote:

"What self-esteem is doing is convincing us that we are significant beings... By being more than just animals we persuade ourselves that we are not subject to the natural laws of decay and death."


"advancedatheist" has it backwards. It's not that people with self-esteem ignore the problem of death. It's that you need self-esteem to even see death as a problem! To others (such as the quote author) death is an eternal verity, or "natural law."

---BrianW

#6 advancedatheist

  • Guest
  • 1,419 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Mayer, Arizona

Posted 13 October 2004 - 11:37 PM

It's not that people with self-esteem ignore the problem of death. It's that you need self-esteem to even see death as a problem!


I don't see why you need a theoretical construct about a "self" and an estimate of its alleged value to motivate you to want to stay alive. Cognitive psychotherapists (e.g., Albert Ellis, who unlike Nathaniel Branden has a real Ph.D. in psychology) have generally found these ideas unnecessary for good mental health. Indeed, "self-esteem" beliefs often increase anxiety because you are always comparing yourself to an arbitrary and usually rationally indefensible standard. (The late Julian L. Simon in his self-help book Good Mood points out that depression involves making such irrational comparisons all the time. Breaking yourself of that habit gets you on the path towards better emotional coping strategies.)

The existence of a reified "self" seems increasingly unlikely any way due to the convergence of modern cognitive neuroscience with the anatta or "no-self" experience described by Buddhism and David Hume's skeptical analysis of the "self" concept 250 years ago. Maybe selfhood could become something arguably more real if we can outgrow our current biological forms, but in the meantime it's delusional (and apparently dysfunctional) to organize our lives around a belief about "self-esteem."

#7 Bruce Klein

  • Topic Starter
  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 14 October 2004 - 06:03 PM

Dear Mr. Klein,

Today, I have published the promised article, "The Objectivist-Extropian Synthesis," on The Rational Argumentator; it is also due to be published on Le Quebecois Libre tomorrow. If you would like to do so, please link to this article on the chat forum thread, so that Immortality Institute members may have ample time to read it, formulate their ideas and responses, and bring some of them to the chat.

G. Stolyarov II

The Objectivist-Extropian Synthesis
October 14, 2004:
G. Stolyarov II argues the fundamental compatibility of two vastly developed ideological systems, Objectivism and Transhumanism, and claims that adherents of these two strains of thought need to recognize the necessity of each ideology to achieving the other's goals.

#8 bgwowk

  • Guest
  • 1,715 posts
  • 125

Posted 14 October 2004 - 06:17 PM

Advancedatheist wrote:

I don't see why you need a theoretical construct about a "self" and an estimate of its alleged value to motivate you to want to stay alive.


Don't listen to me, just re-read the quote that you yourself supplied from New Scientist:

"What self-esteem is doing is convincing us that we are significant beings...


Nuff said.

---BrianW

#9

  • Lurker
  • 0

Posted 14 October 2004 - 08:55 PM

I don't think I understand how you two are using the term self or self-esteem in the context of this discussion.

Can you not think of yourself as a significant being without a construct of "self"? Perhaps arbitrarily significant within this closed or open system that is the universe.

If I were to identify a "self" it would boil down to our neural patterns. The issue with that, is that it may be a tenuous definition because of the constant changes that occur on the physical level. The example someone on this board gave was about a person who lives for 3 billion years but only remembers the last 2 billion years, if that is the case then, is that person the same person who lived the first billion years? I doubt an absolute construct of self does exists, at best we may be left with a general construct of self that is not absolute for all time, and is undergoing constant change based on environmental input.

#10 bgwowk

  • Guest
  • 1,715 posts
  • 125

Posted 14 October 2004 - 09:36 PM

By "self-esteem" I mean internal recognition (recognition independent of others) that you, as an individual person, have worth. It is not to be confused with narcissism, sociopathy, or other self-centered psychopathologies. It is simply the recognition that individual human lives are important, starting with your own as the human life you are most directly responsible for.

Philosophies that devalue self-esteem, placing importance on collectives rather individuals, are precisely those philosophies that are most antithetical to immortalism. If individuals are not valued, and the standard of good is merely the general perpetuation of a collective protoplasm of humanity, then there is no philosophical foundation for immortalism whatsoever.

---BrianW

#11

  • Lurker
  • 0

Posted 14 October 2004 - 10:31 PM

The nature of self-esteem as you define, is expressed by most animals and humans, the self worth placed upon one's survival. In this universe as a closed or open system does it matter if one being flashes in and out of existance, does it collectively matter for a species to flash in and out of existance. If the answer is no in the individual case then suicide is an option equal to natural death or non-existance at all, the same would be true if the answer is no in the collective situation.

However given that an absolute answer to such a question is a negligible likelyhood, we must default to the assumption that there is individual and collective self-worth. The reason being that the burden of proof, so to speak, lays upon the action of suicide. Without such proof we must default to continued life, since suicide is a permanent action (an undoable act ceasing existance as far as we know). Collective self-worth arises from individual self-worth on some level, each part (individual) of the whole that is the collective is important, but simply not as important as the whole in the view of collective self-worth. So in either case (collective or individual self-worth) there is individual self-worth, or assumed self-worth, based on the lack of an absolute answer either way as to the question of universal importance.

#12 sasy_kumar

  • Guest
  • 8 posts
  • 1

Posted 05 November 2004 - 04:58 PM

This forthcoming chat with Mr. Stolyarov II,- science fiction writer, Ayn Randian, Objectivist and Extropian (!) will certainly be a new and pioneering direction in ImmInst forums;-the coverage of subjects to date has indeed been very impressive and quite extensive. Compliments to BGK for the selections. Stolyarov II is certainly new to me; and I look forward to reading his works.
The topic and the theme of the chat: “Objectivism & Immortality” and GS II’s objective of synthesis / symbiosis of the Objectivist and Extropian streams of thought has parallels to my own memetic evolution ; i.e. my path to ImmInst.Org;thus, => my discovery of Friedrich Nietzsche during my teens, Ayn Rand during my early twenties, and then, [a quarter century later and hardly one year ago (Oct-2003)], Max More and ExI. And this discovery of Max More and the Extropian philosophy led me to consider the possibilities and the potential of indefinite life extension etc! ( I have elaborated in my self-introduction letter dated 14-June-2004 here on ImmInst.Org. ).
I consider Max More and ExI Principles to be the logical extension , the evolutionary upgrade of Nietzsche-Rand value systems ; a selective symbiosis, a synthesis of the essence and the core themes of their prolific achievements. Max More, qua architect of ExI has built up a magnificent edifice , a fountain-head for the future, for the post-human evolutionary surge ! .
Needless to say, Nietzsche and Rand are not exactly ‘popular’ or ‘mainstream’ philosophers, in view of their socio-economic and political stance;- both collectivists and the religiously oriented are united in their attitudes towards these great thinkers. As I understand, N and R are taboo in their polite society. And the left-wing controlled media and the academia have a strategy of deliberately ignoring and/or ridiculing Rand. I hope that the writings of Stolyarov etal will increase pubic awareness of Nietzsche and Rand, and their intellectual influence upon human civilization and its onward march. Fiction writers and artists have an important role in the free market of ideas [I think it was Natasha Vita More, President of ExI who enlightened me on the status of the creative artist in society; she has said somewhere that the artist stands at the top of the intellectual (food) chain.]. Rand herself is the example, par excellence of such an artist;- there is probably no other philosophical-novel, comparable to her magnum opus “Atlas Shrugged”; capable of delivering its message and reaching out to the reader.

[It is of course true that Rand did not extend her ideas to cover the possibility of reversing ageing and enjoying an extended life-span. The Alcor.org link above, (thanks to ImmInst member, Brian.W = bgwowk) indicates that she must have been aware of cryonics etc and maybe the writings of Dr.Robert Ettinger (The Prospects of Immortality-1963).; but apparently she chose to avoid or ignore them ;- certainly an intellectual blind-spot in such a prolific thinker. However it may be noted that Rand’s focus was on socio-economic and political philosophy;-individualism, laisez–faire economics , capitalism , the necessity for minimizing the role of governments etc. And considering the intensity and extend of her activities in these areas during the post-WW-II / Cold-War period until her demise in 1984 (?), it is understandable that she did not or could not time or energy to pursue any such thoughts on cryonics / life extension etc.]

And contrary to the reservations expressed above by members-Messrs- Mark Plus , John Doe and Marc Geddess, ( Hi Marc: Last Nov, I had read your Aug-2002 piece titled “Transhumanism and the Philosophy of Ayn Rand” from the 2002 archive of ExI; you have certainly raised many objections ,-mostly in the 2nd half of the 19 page essay; however I found it a very scholarly presentation and analysis), I would like to observe that Rand’s philosophy is based on rational-logical axioms and is on solid foundations and is profoundly in favor of an individual’s right to her/his own life, its enjoyment and fulfillment; and the (ImmInst) goal of an extended active life-span is a logical corollary to Rand’s value systems. I do not see any contradictions or mutually exclusive values between Objectivism , Extropian values and the goals of ImmInst.//

To those members who have expressed reservations about Objectivists, I wish to quote/paraphrase Rand=>

"By the essence and nature of existence, contradictions cannot exist. If you find it inconceivable that,-Objectivists, such as G.Stolyarov II, are interested in Transhumanism, Life Extension and Immortality and that such persons can contribute to the goals of ImmInst ,ExI,- check your premises . You will find that one of them is wrong.”
( Black font is part of Rand’s original quote: see Atlas Shrugged-Part -1, Ch.X, Page-315-remark by Dr.Hugh Akston, the Philosopher to Dagny Taggart ) ( Red font part is of course my substitution)

Further as Mr.Brian.W=bgwowk has commented above “Technophile objectivist/libertarians have historically been much more receptive to cryonics than the general population.” And referring to the criticism about Randian ‘self-esteem’ he has pointed out that “Philosophies that devalue self esteem, placing importance on collectives rather than individuals ,are precisely those philosophies that are most antithetical to immortalism.”

The forthcoming chat session with Mr.G.Stolyarov II will certainly prove to be very informative and interesting. Let us welcome him to ImmInst.Org.//

Sasy Kumar .

5-Nov-2004

Edited by sasy_kumar, 05 November 2004 - 05:16 PM.


#13 lucio

  • Guest
  • 14 posts
  • 0

Posted 07 November 2004 - 10:27 AM

I have been an Objectivist for two years now, although I do not agree with what I term the "fringes" of Ayn Rand's philosophy.

To explain, I have to recap my own philosophical development. I have always had a long-standing disgust for the principles of "service" that the altruist morality demands, but I never really found a substitute. When I was fifteen, I first opened Nietzsche's Also Sprach Zarathustra . This was one of the moments that definitively transformed my life. The notion that the measure of a man was unconnected to his "social interactions" was the answer I had been looking for for so long.

However, as everyone who has read Nietzsche knows, he is somewhat cryptical. So, I was still left with the problem that I had no wish to sacrifice myself to others, and ended up with conclusion that the only alternative was to sacrifice others to myself. However, I knew that this was pretty ineffectual - how, exactly, one can produce a therapy, vaccine, or treatment by sacrificing others is beyond me. It was at this point that I discovered transhumanism.

When I first read Atlas Shrugged, it sorted out the ethical problems I had been wrestling with for so long. Transhumanism seemed to me to be a natural extension of Objectivism, since Objectivism is a system of ethics based around living. I am convinced that Ayn Rand solved what has to be the single greatest ethical problem in history - why societies that base themselves on "love" "brotherhood" and "self-sacrifice" end up with oceans of blood. I furthermore strongly support her view of man as a heroic being, of production being a great achievement, of her ethical ideal..

My reservations are fairly simple. Firstly, while Ayn Rand was a great philosopher, she knew next to nothing about both psychology and neuroscience, and had moderate knowledge of modern science. This lead, especially among the Ayn Rand institute, to the problem of confusing "reason" with "the reasonable". To give a concrete example, in For the new intellectual , she appears to be attacking Quantum Physics, and I know the ARI lambasts both Relativity and Quantum Physics. What's more, in their hatred of "mysticism" they attack anything which even seems to be vaguely like it, such as meditation, and other techniques to help increase right-brain/left-brain activity and integration. I practice several of these, because they allow me to do my work much more efficiently and I find them enjoyable. I see nothing mystical or unreasonable in that. Then there is the fact that Ayn Rand also thought that homosexuality was a manifestation of philosophical damage, but any neuroscience will tell you that it is not. Finally, I am a little leary of the fact that all of her heroes are extremely beautiful young men. Great men are often very attractive - look at Nelson Mandela - but rarely do they fit that greek ideal. Ayn Rand also seems to take alot more from Nietzsche than she admits to.

There are a few more on this excellent website, which I strongly reccomend reading, as well as following the links

http://jeffcomp.com/faq/

However, these are really the only objections I have. And I have found a number of objectivists very responsive to Transhumanist ideals. The Ayn Rand institute itself came out in favour of life enhancement. I also believe the Insitute for Objectivist Studies is very much in favour, which is to be expected, since they are the more "reasonable" of the two, as in they acknowledge the objections listed above.

Furthermore, Immortalism actually proves Ayn Rand right. How many people do you know that react with horror and disgust at the thought of eternal life? My explanation is the following: Ayn Rand stated that many people do not want to live, because of the responsibility involved - the responsibility to yourself, of finding your happiness, of making decisions, of thinking. They try to sneak by in their lives. They don't like this, and hide it from themselves.

Immortalism exposes this, to others, but more importantly to themselves. If there is a real potential for eternal life, these people would have to either face up to their own nature - that they do not desire to live - or accept the responsibility of life. This is why they hate immortalists - and I do mean hate. I am not talking about people who say "Well, good for you, but due to my religious/ethical views, I will not make use of such technology if and when it is available." One of my greatest friends takes this attitude, and I respect her deeply for it. I mean the ones, and I have met many, who snarl that immortalism is unethical, grotesque, disgustion, and so on and so forth. They hate it, because it confronts them with their own nature.

A specific reply:

Moreover, they seem stuck in what Robin Hanson would probably call "Matrix" values, in that their lives are organized around constructs like "heroism," "self-esteem," "romantic love" and other make-believe that distract us from our real problems.


How, exactly, these values are make-believe are beyond me. Heroism is make believe? How do you then explain John D. Rockefeller, Nelson Mandela, Jonh Sperling, Nikola Tesla, Gallileo, Beethoven, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and J.S. Bach?

I define self-esteem as the capacity to look myself in the eyes every morning while shaving. It's the ability to sit down at my work and know that whatever it is, hard or easy, dull or exciting, it is something I respect and value, that I am working not as a fool doing despicable work, but as a capable man doing good work.

Romantic love? This one's a bit more dicey. However, many people do seem to find something like that - I have - and some find great emotional satisfaciton and happiness in it. Good for them.

I should note that I do not know many Objectivists personally, and have had my primary contacts with Objectivism as a movement through the web-sites of the ARI and the IOS. So, please no "well, Objectivists I have met are like this" arguments, since I am not them.

#14 Bruce Klein

  • Topic Starter
  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 24 November 2004 - 06:30 AM

17:42:54 BruceKlein hello..
17:45:12 G Greetings, Mr. Klein.
17:45:16 G I am glad to be here.
17:46:14 BruceKlein ah, welcome
17:47:19 BruceKlein ready to chat about Objectivism and Immortality?
17:47:29 G Indeed I am.
17:47:34 BruceKlein will start in about 20min
17:48:06 G There is a wealth of information on your website.
17:48:17 BruceKlein ah, thanks
17:48:57 G I have been perusing several articles recently, including Reason's "The Problem with Immortality" and Tarik Ladlani's "Rumble in the North," and am quite impressed.
17:49:22 BruceKlein yes, interesting topic
17:50:03 ex_banana-eater Hey G
17:50:07 ex_banana-eater I saw you post at SOLO
17:50:07 G Greetings.
17:50:11 BruceKlein sadly i may not be able to stay very long.. i'm at a conference ACC in CA
17:50:19 ex_banana-eater What is the difference between SOLO and traditional Objectivists
17:50:29 G There is quite a difference, actually.
17:50:31 BruceKlein but there should be a moderator to take my place
17:50:41 G This is one of the reasons why my SOLO days are past.
17:50:55 ex_banana-eater Do you subscribe to toleration as a virtue
17:50:58 G SOLO, alas, has taken a turn for the worse in recent months.
17:51:11 G Yes, I do believe toleration is a virtue, but SOLO's editor-in-chief, Mr. Perigo, does not.
17:51:29 ex_banana-eater Ah I see
17:51:32 G He has undertaken to ban or moderate anyone whose views diverge from his own interpretation of Objectivism.
17:51:56 G Some of my differences with him include views on the issue of homosexuality.
17:52:17 G He wishes to have Objectivists believe that homosexuality is something innate.
17:52:24 G I think that it is a volitional choice.
17:52:35 G I moreover do not glorify it like he does.
17:52:52 G I also do not prescribe to his ad hominem tactics.
17:52:57 ex_banana-eater I am fairly new to Objectivism, and don't have an opinion on the toleration as a virtue debate yet. I have just looked at what it seems to produce when people practice it
17:53:16 G Toleration has produced some exceptional Objectivists.
17:53:29 G David Kelley and The Objectivist Center are living proof to this fact.
17:53:39 G I have personally met the man and spoke with him.
17:53:48 ex_banana-eater From what I've seen, homosexuality is something that occurs more often in groups that were abused, like occupied Germany
17:54:14 G In which case it is a choice in response to the abuse, no?
17:54:53 ex_banana-eater Yes, most psychologists think different sexual habits and addiction problems are responses to abuses
17:54:53 G I think it is a choice that people should be free to make, but I do not consider it good manners to publicly flaunt it.
17:55:30 G This may be true, yet it is also true that it is within man's power not to make that choice.

#15 Bruce Klein

  • Topic Starter
  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 24 November 2004 - 06:30 AM

17:55:44 G If it were rooted in abuse, then the choice is irrational.
17:56:00 G After all, "because someone abused me, I must become homosexual" is a non sequitur.
17:56:36 ex_banana-eater What happens is that typically when people are very young, under 8, abuse sets off something with gives them deviant tendences, and their brain and habits develope that way ever since
17:56:52 G They then need to check their premises, as Rand would have said.
17:56:53 ex_banana-eater So its environmental at root
17:57:02 ex_banana-eater But it becomes ingrained
17:57:03 ex_banana-eater yes
17:57:09 G Yet they can still have volitional control over it.
17:57:14 G It may be a difficult habit to break.
17:57:18 G Like smoking, for example.
17:57:36 G But many smokers have quit after a detailed examination of their goals and the realization that smoking conflicts with them.
17:57:59 ex_banana-eater When must one be tolerant
17:58:08 ex_banana-eater If something is a virtue should it be practiced all the time?
17:58:25 G One must be tolerant when the other party presents claims that are supported by rational argument.
17:59:03 G The other party can be wrong in argument, but, if it attempts to put forth claims that are debatable and open to reason, and does so civilly, it should be treated civilly, too.
17:59:05 ex_banana-eater So, if an intelligent rhetor comes up with some Marxist argument but it is based on faulty epistemology, you would ignore it?
17:59:09 ex_banana-eater If you choose
17:59:29 G I would be quick to point out the flaws in that argument, but I will treat the argumentator with civility and respect.
17:59:40 G David Kelley argued precisely this in Truth and Toleration.
17:59:50 ex_banana-eater Isn't he evil?
18:00:00 G He stated that "good and evil" apply to actions, not ideas.
18:00:05 G Ideas can be right or they can be wrong.
18:00:15 G But only their practical consequences are good or evil.
18:00:17 ex_banana-eater Hm, Ill have to read about that
18:00:24 ex_banana-eater Im interested to know
18:00:27 G Stalin was evil, for example.
18:00:40 G But Marx and his supporters were plain wrong. Very wrong.
18:00:43 ex_banana-eater Does Peikoff write that ideas are ethical too, in fact and value?
18:00:54 ex_banana-eater Where is the difference between the groups
18:01:07 G Peikoff is opposed to toleration.
18:01:17 G He thinks that Objectivism is a "closed system."
18:01:25 G This means that Rand's discoveries are "it."
18:01:35 G Nothing new can be added to Objectivism and called "Objectivism."
18:01:55 G Peikoff also does not want to associate with people like libertarians, because some disagreements may exist.
18:02:09 G Kelley thinks that this is an untenable way to advance a system of ideas.
18:02:11 ex_banana-eater I can see Objectivism (qua its philosophy) being a closed system
18:02:20 ddhewitt ddhewitt (~ddhewitt@[death to spam].c-24-2-135-104.client.comcast.net) has joined #immortal

18:02:29 G But Kelley would say that ideas constantly evolve and advance.
18:02:39 hkhenson wassail
18:02:40 G No individual, no matter how great, could ever discover everything there is to know.
18:02:44 G Greetings.
18:02:58 ddhewitt Howdy.
18:02:58 hkhenson mra been around?
18:03:02 G So ideologies must progress thru discussion, tolerance, and rigorous examination.
18:03:08 G Greetings, Mr. Hewitt.
18:03:29 G Some of the ideas newly produced may be wrong, but others will be right.
18:03:32 hkhenson responded to an MRA post on the mailing list
18:03:48 BruceKlein I'll be away soon, Duane, can you cover for me?
18:03:58 G Best wishes, Mr. Klein.
18:03:59 ex_banana-eater Say a Christian libertarian... wouldn't they be undermining what liberty stands for
18:04:05 G Not necessarily.
18:04:06 hkhenson hi bruce
18:04:12 ddhewitt Sure. What do I need to do?
18:04:15 BruceKlein * BruceKlein Official Chat Starts
18:04:18 G After all, they still advance liberty.
18:04:37 BruceKlein ah, thanks ... make sure noone goes home unhappy :)
18:04:43 G They could be wrong, but not in all things.
18:04:58 G And we could work with them where they are right.
18:04:58 ddhewitt Heh. That might be tough.
18:05:16 BruceKlein G. Stolyarov II - Objectivism & Immortality


18:05:18 ex_banana-eater If I said "Hitler was bad because he wasnt a vegetarian" I would be right that he was wrong, but base it on the wrong premises
18:05:36 ex_banana-eater K..Immortality
18:05:40 BruceKlein Science-fiction writer, G. Stolyarov II, joins ImmInst to talk about Objectivism, Transhumanism/Extropy and the pursuit of eternal life.
18:05:54 G Greetings, all.
18:06:02 hkhenson evening
18:06:02 BruceKlein http://www.imminst.o...&f=63&t=4362&s=
18:06:13 BruceKlein Thanks so much for joining us, G.
18:06:19 G You are welcome.
18:06:23 BruceKlein So, how long do you wish to live?
18:06:30 G Forever.
18:06:33 BruceKlein * BruceKlein claps
18:06:36 BruceKlein why?
18:06:45 G Life is the absolute value.
18:06:50 BruceKlein cool
18:06:57 G There can be no value beyond the life of the individual.
18:07:04 G How can I value if I am dead?
18:07:12 BruceKlein heaven?
18:07:23 G Heaven is not logically substantiated.
18:07:28 BruceKlein * BruceKlein plays devils advocate ;)
18:07:31 ddhewitt Well said.
18:07:36 G It requires *faith* to accept it.
18:07:47 hkhenson live forever or die trying :-)
18:07:53 G Faith is by definition a rejection of reason, a belief when proof is absent.
18:07:56 G Indeed! :)
18:08:02 ddhewitt All anti-immortalists must die.
18:08:10 ex_banana-eater G, if Objectivism is about living qua man, what is the opposite of living qua man?
18:08:13 ex_banana-eater Death, slavery?
18:08:20 G Yes.
18:08:27 hkhenson not all of them. we should keep one alive as punishment
18:08:32 G You will be enslaved by the collective.
18:08:37 G If you do not live qua man.
18:08:46 G The anti-immortalists will die of their own will.
18:08:52 ex_banana-eater Would it be acceptable to choose death over slavery
18:08:54 G In a free society, we should let them.
18:09:01 BruceKlein What gave you the idea to write "Eden against the Colossus"?
18:09:23 G I wished to play out the ultimate struggle between the forces of reason and those that opposed them.
18:09:39 G I set it in the far future, when life extension technology would be on the horizon.
18:09:48 hkhenson ah ....
18:09:49 G At the same time, the ultimate backlash from the Luddites would be imminent.
18:09:52 hkhenson how far?
18:09:57 G 2753.
18:10:09 hkhenson reminds me of AC clarke
18:10:09 G This would be their last chance to retaliate.
18:10:24 hkhenson he set AI billions of years into the future
18:10:34 hkhenson and it might well come about while he is still alive
18:10:43 G Yes.
18:10:54 G It seems the date for actual immortality may be closer than I thought.
18:11:02 hkhenson much closer
18:11:10 G Since I wrote "Eden," I became introduced to the efforts of Dr. de Grey.
18:11:15 G And the Methuselah Mouse Prize.
18:11:22 ddhewitt If we have anything to say and do about it.
18:11:24 BruceKlein yes.. excellent project
18:11:30 hkhenson there are a lot of people alive today who are likely to be here 1000 years from now . . . if anyone is
18:11:33 G As well as Mr. Kurzweil's predictions about nanoscopic robots in 30 years.
18:11:46 G And indeed I have a stake in these developments.
18:11:59 G I am in the flower of my youth.
18:12:06 ex_banana-eater G: Should a government regulate safety on nanomachines
18:12:13 G No safety regulations.
18:12:18 hkhenson you may make it without the LN2
18:12:19 ex_banana-eater Considering the possible weapon

#16 Bruce Klein

  • Topic Starter
  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 24 November 2004 - 06:32 AM

18:12:24 G The market will determine safety.
18:12:33 hkhenson ah . . . .maybe
18:12:36 G The government only has the monopoly on the initiation of force.
18:12:46 G It cannot intervene in peaceful economic matters.
18:12:55 G Or in the right of citizens to defend themselves against force.
18:13:07 ex_banana-eater I understand, but I've read of disaster scenareos
18:13:20 G If criminals get a hold of the technology, the government should act.
18:13:22 ex_banana-eater "Grey goo" was the first, and then terrorists constructing nanobots to destroy entire populations
18:13:29 G But only if the technology is used to harm people.
18:13:35 ex_banana-eater Ah
18:13:41 G "Preventive" measures are unwise.
18:13:50 hkhenson not a chance. these things will happen much faster than the government can react
18:13:53 G Because they assume automatically that anyone with the technology will want to do evil.
18:13:56 ddhewitt I would hate to live in a world where the government in actuality had a monopoly on the initiation of force.
18:14:27 G The initiation of force by the government can only be used to retaliate against crime, remember.
18:14:35 G And the government ought to be properly checked and limited.
18:14:37 ex_banana-eater Its really retaliatory force
18:14:39 LazLo LazLo (~LazLo@[death to spam].ool-182c9f9d.dyn.optonline.net) has joined #immortal

18:14:40 hkhenson I suspect that the singularity is like to happen in hours rather than even days
18:14:41 G Yes it is.
18:15:04 G And if it happens, why do you suspect that terrorists will get a hold of it before legitimate scientists?
18:15:11 G Or entrepreneurs?
18:15:27 hkhenson I don't know that it makes much difference.
18:15:40 ex_banana-eater Scientists will be the firsts, but I assume a nanofabricator would be easy for most to get eventually
18:15:41 hkhenson how can you control something much smarter than you are?
18:15:47 G But free market entrepreneurs respect the rights of others.
18:15:56 G They live by the trader principle and will only take what is given freely.
18:15:57 hkhenson am one and I don't
18:16:02 BruceKlein * BruceKlein is away.. thanks again G.
18:16:07 ddhewitt By definition do the initial conditions actually impact the Singularity?
18:16:16 G They could.
18:16:22 G Remember, man will still be in control of the technology.
18:16:29 G How it is designed will be within his reach.
18:16:37 hkhenson I think there are people who should have no vote in how the world looks after the singularity
18:16:57 G No one should have a vote in how to run other people's lives without their consent.
18:17:06 G That is where majority rule ends.
18:17:12 G After the singularity, this will be as true as before.
18:17:25 hkhenson I hope you are right about the singlarity being controlable
18:17:30 G I think so.
18:17:32 hkhenson but I doubt it.
18:17:36 G Man's reason would make the machines.
18:17:46 G It would be able to keep a step ahead of them.
18:17:53 G After all, man, too would be enhanced.
18:18:03 ex_banana-eater Imagine a fabricator being available to everyone for virtually nothing, couldnt one punk make something that would attack people
18:18:05 G He would still need to fathom every aspect of his creation.
18:18:06 ddhewitt Objectivism seems to be a polarizing topic. Almost as polarizing as GWB. Why do you think that is G?
18:18:16 hkhenson how are you gonna control a machine with as much thinking power over you as you have over a mouse?
18:18:20 G Objectivism is radical and new.
18:18:29 G Many people are simply not ready for it.
18:18:36 hkhenson ah how long has objectivism been around?
18:18:37 G Millennia of dogma have conditioned them to think in other ways.
18:18:49 G Less than 70 years.
18:18:56 ddhewitt Some Objectivists seem rather dogmatic themselves.
18:18:59 G Ayn Rand published "We the Living" in 1937.
18:19:06 G Alas, you are right, Mr. Hewitt.
18:19:09 ex_banana-eater Hewitt, Objectivism is different from the implicit philosophy most people have, which says there are no real absolutes or ways to judge whether there is something right or wrong
18:19:15 G There is a schism in Objectivism over this.
18:19:29 G There is the "closed system" faction and the "open system" faction.
18:19:32 G I belong to the latter.
18:19:37 hkhenson having been around objectiveist for a long time . . .


18:19:49 G I seek to work with people who share similar views, even if we do not agree precisely.
18:19:56 hkhenson I find they are infected by rand's meme
18:20:01 G And I see the ideology as open to Perpetual Progress.
18:20:09 gustavo gustavo (~gustavo@[death to spam].pool-141-156-235-59.res.east.verizon.net) has joined #immortal

18:20:10 hkhenson and there is a narrow window when they can be
18:20:18 G Rand was such a colossal figure that few have risen to her prominence.
18:20:24 G But that does not mean she is infallible.
18:20:29 hkhenson about 13. being male is also a major factor
18:20:50 G There are many young Objectivists, true.
18:21:00 hkhenson I suspect there is an evolutionary psychology reason behind this
18:21:04 G This is because they have not yet been infected with the cynicism so rampant in the post-modern culture.
18:21:06 ex_banana-eater Henson, anyone who just reads Atlas Shrugged as a Bible is not being an Objectivist
18:21:22 G Agreed, ex-banana-eater.
18:21:29 hkhenson it is unreadable if you come upon it too late in life
18:21:30 G As for evolutionary psychology, perhaps.
18:21:42 G Young minds are more open to new ideas.
18:21:48 ddhewitt What would you characterize as too late hkh?
18:22:00 G But older ones are not hopelessly lost.
18:22:07 hkhenson late teens maybe, depends a little on the person
18:22:11 G There have been Objectivists who first read Atlas at 48.
18:22:19 ex_banana-eater I'd say never, anyone who is open to rational ideas
18:22:31 G Dr. Edward Younkins, a prominent writer on economic subjects, was such a latecomer.
18:22:34 hkhenson I am a lower case libertarian of the space cadet (heinlein) school
18:22:34 ex_banana-eater But at some point, alot of people stop being open
18:22:47 G Volitionally.
18:22:52 hkhenson exposed to his stuff as a teenager
18:23:10 G The mainstream's cultural pressures can be overbearing, yes.
18:23:21 ddhewitt I would agree. I work with other scientists all the time and am continually shocked at how closed their minds are.
18:23:21 G But they can never overcome an individual ultimately, but of his own free will.
18:23:27 hkhenson right ex, about the time they can no longer learn to speak another language easily
18:23:45 ex_banana-eater Im not speaking deterministically
18:23:50 G I know.
18:24:04 G Aging can impair one's body.
18:24:12 G And can render it difficult for the mind to think.
18:24:16 G And to innovate.
18:24:25 G So one reverts to tried-and-true older ideas.
18:24:32 hkhenson :-) depends.
18:24:33 G Or the ideas one thinks are tried-and-true but are not.
18:24:38 hkhenson I still do original work
18:24:46 G Yes, this can be overcome.
18:24:48 ddhewitt I am also surprised at the percentage of fellow scientists who are also religious. It seems like a contradiction to me.
18:25:03 G But most of them do not let religion affect their work.
18:25:09 G They are like Immanuel Kant in many ways.
18:25:17 G They see the material realm as open entirely to reason.
18:25:26 G And a separate spiritual realm that has little to do with the material realm.
18:25:45 G This is a wrong idea, but it does not preclude valuable work.
18:25:52 ex_banana-eater Most Christians in America are completely secular. Most Americans are looking for a philosophy, because the alternative is what the liberals espouse, so they pick Christianity but ground everything else in reality
18:25:53 ex_banana-eater IMO
18:25:53 ddhewitt I don't know if they really keep things that separate. I observe inconsistent thinking creeping into their scientific work as well.
18:25:55 G Kant was a great proponent of political liberty, for example.
18:26:17 G Some Christians do talk about creationism as the basis of life, true.
18:26:26 G But a lot of others, historically, have not.
18:26:37 G Newton was deeply religious, for example.
18:26:46 G But his model of the universe was purely mechanistic.
18:26:58 G And open to the laws of causation that worked predictably, no faith involved.
18:27:19 G It depends on the person's view of the role of religion in his life.
18:27:34 G Is God actively involved, or is he just a passive creator entity?
18:27:53 G The Deists thought the latter, and formulated the Enlightenment principles of rationalism, secularism, and individualism.
18:28:17 ddhewitt But is God still necessary?
18:28:23 G I think not.

18:28:26 G I am an atheist.
18:28:34 G I do not accept God for lack of logical proof.
18:28:35 BruceKlein BruceKlein (~BruceKlei@[death to spam].DNab40c1de.Stanford.EDU) has quit IRC [Ping timeout]

18:28:46 G As well as due to the problem of infinite regress that God brings about.
18:28:56 ddhewitt Although perhaps we are striving to create him?- Artificial Intelligence.
18:28:56 G Occam's Razor states that God need not be the first cause.
18:29:09 G God in Man's image, yes.
18:29:20 G But this will always be a finite, fathomable God.
18:29:29 G A god no more advanced than Reason can make him.
18:29:54 G Man, in his transformed form, would still be the highest entity possible.
18:30:01 G He would not need to bow down to anyone in submission.
18:30:01 ddhewitt But what if the A.I's capacity for Reason far surpasses ours?
18:30:15 G Then why not integrate the A.I. into ourselves?
18:30:26 G We made it in the first place.
18:30:30 ex_banana-eater I will only feel comfortable with the singularity if the proper philosophy takes hold in our culture
18:30:48 G I think we of the proper ideas will be safer after the singularity than before.
18:31:06 G We would be free of the same vulnerability to our lives that comes from others' reactions to our ideas.
18:31:33 G We would no longer be as afraid of governments and restrictions.
18:31:46 G And we would have won our most cherished victory.
18:31:48 ex_banana-eater Do you mean we'd be more independent, self-sufficent?
18:31:52 G Yes.
18:32:16 G We would also be able to prove, in full, that a rational, life-affirming view can bring the highest possibilities.
18:32:27 G We would demonstrate the ultimate outcome of our progress.
18:32:35 G And show that opposition to it was unfounded.
18:32:47 G Such will be the universal extent of happiness and opportunity.
18:32:57 G As well as of each person's confidence in the future and in themselves.
18:33:25 G Afterward, I would expect few obstacles to a harmonious, rational society of full liberty.
18:33:37 ex_banana-eater What about all of those people out there
18:33:40 G This is why I so earnestly advocate immortality.
18:33:42 ex_banana-eater This sounds like Galt's Gulch
18:33:49 G Yes, it does.
18:34:04 G Rand would not have written about it were it not someday possible on the entire Earth, and beyond.
18:34:16 G The people who oppose us would either wither away or change.
18:34:24 G If they do not wish to be immortal, they do not have to.
18:34:36 G If they change their mind, we will welcome them as traders and as friends.
18:34:39 ddhewitt The problem is how much are they going to impede our progress.
18:34:51 G Yes, that is a problem.
18:35:01 G We see the reaction beginning to take hold already.
18:35:18 G Yet, there was a reaction against every technological breakthrough.
18:35:31 G "Eden against the Colossus" tries to envision what this one would look like.
18:35:48 ex_banana-eater Would there be a spell of unemployment just before the singularity
18:35:51 G In it, every brand of mysticism and Luddism is aligned against the protagonists.
18:35:54 ex_banana-eater I think that would create many luddites
18:36:12 G This is why we must convince them that the problem would only be temporary.
18:36:23 G Like the outsourcing "crisis," which will end up creating more jobs in the long run.
18:36:41 G Free market economic theory is crucial to bringing about this mindset.
18:36:59 G Yes, the gravedigging/funeral industry will disappear.
18:37:07 ex_banana-eater lol
18:37:08 G As will the retirement homes.
18:37:22 ddhewitt The problem for most is that those jobs won't be "American". re: outsourcing
18:37:35 G Yet many will be.
18:37:41 G The law of comparative advantage:
18:37:49 G Countries specialize in what is best for them.
18:38:01 G The US is a high-tech country full of innovators and entrepreneurs.
18:38:09 G It is at the forefront in technology and research.
18:38:16 G As well as in mass service industries.
18:38:38 G Any new industry will have its beginning in the US, with all the new jobs it implies.
18:39:07 G So, we can comfortably let the less developed counries take the more basic jobs, such as manufacturing, which are more suited to their level of development.
18:39:30 G History has shown that the market has solved dilemmas far greater than this one, and will bring a satisfactory solution here, too.
18:39:50 ex_banana-eater It could be possible that the threat of "foreign" ideas is a bigger barrier to prosperity than domestic


18:40:07 G Yet there is essentially no difference between the two.
18:40:13 G Ideas are individual, remember.
18:40:19 G Someone else's gain is not our loss.
18:40:30 G Their ideas could stimulate many Americans to think of even better ones.
18:40:35 ddhewitt Do you consider markets in the U.S to be free?
18:40:40 G Far from it, alas/.
18:40:56 G The government's import duties, subsidies, and economic regulations are stifling.
18:40:58 G BUT
18:41:06 G US markets are freer than any others.
18:41:13 G We should not make them less free.
18:41:24 G But the government behemoth needs to go.
18:41:38 G I think we need to abolish all international trade barriers, unilaterally.
18:41:44 gustavo gustavo (~gustavo@[death to spam].pool-141-156-235-59.res.east.verizon.net) has quit IRC [Read error: Connection reset by peer]

18:41:49 G End minimum wage laws.
18:42:06 G Also repeal environmental regulations.
18:42:21 ex_banana-eater The conservatives in America seem to be pressing for more trade agreements
18:42:26 ex_banana-eater Probably because of China's threat
18:42:28 ddhewitt What about the debt in the U.S economy public, private and corporate? What do you think will be the fate of the fiat currency?
18:42:38 G The fiat currency is a problem.
18:42:56 G I hope that, before it destabilizes the economy, people will recognize the need to return to the gold standard.
18:43:07 G The debt ought to be paid, but no new debt should be started.
18:43:17 G The government should be prohibited from deficit spending.
18:43:28 G After all, it is the taxpayers who will be forced to pay the consequences.
18:43:49 G The government thinks it can use others' money with impunity.
18:44:02 G And that it can tinker with the economy via the fiat currency.
18:44:10 ddhewitt Do you think it is realistic to expect change rather than collapse?
18:44:14 G But the outcome can only be detrimental.
18:44:22 G As for outcome, we will need to wait and see.
18:44:35 G And hope that we can sway enough minds to prevent a total breakdown.
18:44:39 ex_banana-eater Ayn Rand said that America could never be a dictatorship or totalitarian
18:44:49 G Because of a certain sense of life, yes.
18:45:07 G But a sense of life is hard kept when one's conscious value premises are not aligned with it.
18:45:22 G This is why structured, intellectual reasoning is so important.
18:45:35 G And why it needs to be propagated to the mainstream culture in all fields.
18:45:56 ddhewitt Does that America still exist?
18:46:00 G Partly.
18:46:12 G To the extent that it is still in accord with its founding principles.
18:46:19 G To the extent it allows free enterprise and innovation.
18:46:41 G To the extent it encourages Enlightenment values of reason, thrift, long-term thinking, and consistency in relationships and interactions.
18:46:53 G To the extent that it is free in speech and thought.
18:47:00 G America is a battleground.
18:47:14 G Between those who seek to preserve its original essence and those that would subvert it.
18:47:20 G The former are not yet gone.
18:47:26 G I would say their numbers on the upswing.
18:47:37 G Ayn Rand's works have helped them immensely.
18:47:44 G As have the libertarians, as have the extropians.
18:47:59 G The politics of the land has been changing for the better since Reagan.
18:48:12 ddhewitt I think that liberty may need to find a new home soon, unfortunately.
18:48:12 G And this Bush administration has some very interesting proposals.
18:48:33 ddhewitt I don't see Bush as a friend of liberty.
18:48:34 ex_banana-eater I wouldnt give up on America
18:48:35 G A new home would be nice, yet we should not give up on this one, either.
18:48:47 G Bush would like to partly privatize Social Security.
18:48:57 G And reform the morass of tax laws currently existing.
18:49:05 G How about a national sales tax instead of the income tax?
18:49:10 G A step in the right direction, no?
18:49:16 ex_banana-eater It would be nice to see a little place be an "example" of capitalism
18:49:21 G Yes.
18:49:39 G One country of unfettered laissez-faire, and the rest of the world will adopt it.
18:49:40 ex_banana-eater Plus Bush would not appease those that wish to destroy American liberty

#17 Bruce Klein

  • Topic Starter
  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 24 November 2004 - 06:33 AM

18:49:45 ddhewitt And spend huge amounts of money in deficit. He is borrowing instead of direct taxation. Inflation is also gearing up.
18:49:58 G The deficit is a problem.
18:50:06 G However, it may be the lesser of two evils now.
18:50:21 G Taxes have declined (thankfully), but there is still inertia in reducing spending.
18:50:25 G This is why there is a deficit.
18:50:34 ddhewitt Bush is expanding government in different ways than the Democrats might. I don't know if he is the lesser evil.
18:50:39 G But the huge debt may motivate the administration to curb spending.
18:50:56 G Also remember that there are certain legitimate functions of government, such as war against those who threaten us.
18:51:09 G I support the War on Terror and the Iraq War, for example.
18:51:16 ddhewitt I think the debt is past the point of no return. Once Asian countries stop lending money the game will be up and it won't be pretty.
18:51:28 ex_banana-eater India pulled out
18:51:37 ex_banana-eater I think
18:51:47 G These pressures may have a positive effect, though.
18:51:54 G To convince the US government to spend less.
18:52:11 G I just hope the intellectual climate will be ripe for this.
18:52:16 ddhewitt I find it difficult to justify the Iraq War as a retaliatory exercise of government.
18:52:22 G This is why our task is so important.
18:52:37 G On Iraq: Saddam was clearly allied with terrorists.
18:52:44 G He financed Palestinian suicide bombers.
18:52:51 G His officials met with members of al Qaeda.
18:53:02 G And he always had nuclear ambitions, working WMD program or not.
18:53:10 ex_banana-eater http://www.husseinandterror.com/
18:53:28 G He had a nuclear plant and weapons factory as early as 1979, when the Israelis first destroyed it.
18:53:45 G Then he gassed his own people, the Kurds, in 1989.
18:54:03 G If the US waited, he could have become like Kim Jong Il.
18:54:21 G And would have had nuclear weapons, so that overt military confrontation would have been out of the question.
18:54:28 G This is why I think Bush made the proper choice.
18:54:43 G And proudly supported US unilateralism while at it.
18:54:51 G Unilateralism is the individualism of foreign policy.
18:54:58 ex_banana-eater Simply being a horribly immoral state and declaring yourself as an enemy can warrant defence by America
18:55:07 G Yes.
18:55:21 G Moreover, Objectivist thinkers have argued for the "right of intervention."
18:55:33 G Any free country can intervene against a government that is less free.
18:55:41 ddhewitt I see it as a dangerous precedent.
18:55:46 ex_banana-eater In self-interest I presume
18:55:49 G Yes.
18:55:54 G Self-interest is key.
18:56:01 G It could be economic self-interest, too.
18:56:14 G I see no problem with freeing Iraqi oil from a monopolistic dictator who controlled it before.
18:56:23 G But what dangerous precedents does it set, Mr. Hewitt?
18:56:30 G In your judgment?
18:56:58 ddhewitt For others to follow this example.
18:57:07 G It depends on what others they are.
18:57:16 G If Great Britain invaded Sudan, for example, I would be all for it.
18:57:37 G If North Korea invaded Japan, it would be horrid aggression.
18:57:37 ddhewitt I am surprised that as an Objectivist supports government military adventurism.
18:57:46 G Many Objectivists do.
18:57:54 G Most of them supported the Iraq War.
18:58:06 ex_banana-eater Hewitt, do you subscribe to a "law of moral universality" in politics?
18:58:33 ddhewitt What would that law be?
18:58:39 G Most Objectivists consider the US to be objectively freer, more developed, more rational a place to live than any other country.
18:58:41 ex_banana-eater It was just a made up title
18:59:24 ddhewitt I don't think that the U.S is more free despite the widespread belief that it is.
18:59:31 G The US thus has a right but not a duty to promote its good sides, its secularism, rationalism, individualism, and capitalism throughout the world.
18:59:35 ex_banana-eater What I meant was: Would you say that if America does something (say build nuclear weapons) then it is okay for Iran
18:59:36 ddhewitt Patriot act for example.
19:00:02 G The Patriot Act is questionable, but many would argue that it actually does not include any new violations of civil liberties.
19:00:18 G All of its statutes were based on already existing precedents.
19:00:29 G And it even removed some of the inconsistencies and ambiguities of those.
19:00:38 G I do not think it entirely justified

19:00:57 G But it is not the great threat to 4th Amendment freedoms that many leftists make it out to be.
19:01:09 ddhewitt What about the Bush position on stem cells?
19:01:18 ex_banana-eater It is the best position of the two
19:01:21 G I disagree with Bush's moral arguments.
19:01:28 G BUT, I do not support federal funding for science.
19:01:47 ddhewitt Just for the military?
19:01:54 G Thus, I am more inclined to favor Bush's position, because, ironically, it would advance stem cell research more.
19:01:58 G Yes, military, police, and courts.
19:02:18 ex_banana-eater Understand those are volluntary, hewitt
19:02:23 G That, along with enforcement of contracts and ultimate dispute arbitration should be the extent of government authority.
19:02:43 G If the government were to fund stem cell research, as Kerry wanted, the result would be stagnation.
19:02:59 ddhewitt How are those voluntary? I have to pay taxes and I am not even allowed to vote.
19:03:00 G A morass of bureaucracy, with tons of paperwork, elaborate hierarchies, red tape, and nothing done.
19:03:11 G Rand did not believe in compulsory taxation.
19:03:24 G But she said that this issue would need to be addressed last of all government reforms.
19:03:47 ex_banana-eater G
19:03:47 G In the reformed government, people will fund the key functions voluntarily, out of self-interest.
19:03:50 G Yes?
19:03:51 ex_banana-eater Is Objectivism winning?
19:04:02 G It is gaining ground.
19:04:03 ex_banana-eater Have you seen Objectivsm grow
19:04:15 G I have seen it rise in the past two years.
19:04:19 G But not without drawbacks.
19:04:24 G The old schism festers still.
19:04:29 G And SOLO has a new-found intolerance.
19:04:40 G But there is always potential for improvement.
19:04:59 G My publication, The Rational Argumentator, has been spreading ideas and has grown at an immense rate.
19:05:10 G TOC has also been doing excellent work.
19:05:16 G And, of course, there is the art.
19:05:28 G There are numerous painters and composers who are explicit Objectivists.
19:05:43 G Bryan Larsen, Damon Denys, Christopher Schlegel, Rodney Rawlings come to mind.
19:06:05 G Their works are fresh, original, radiant, and rational.
19:06:19 G A cultural infusion of Objectivism into a post-modern mainstream.
19:06:30 G Perhaps the mainstream is long overdue for a major paradigm shift.
19:06:49 ddhewitt ****Official Chat Ends***** Thanks G for joining us for an interesting chat.
19:06:58 G You are welcome.
19:07:13 ddhewitt Feel free to continue for as long as you like. I have to run now. Good night.
19:07:35 G I will remain for a bit more, if anyone wishes to tie any loose ends of discussion.
19:07:49 G It seems we have covered immense ground.
19:08:06 ddhewitt Excellent. I hope to encounter you again soon and I will check out your work.
19:11:16 ddhewitt ddhewitt (~ddhewitt@[death to spam].c-24-2-135-104.client.comcast.net) has quit IRC [Ping timeout]

19:12:36 G Are there any further questions?

#18 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 04 April 2010 - 04:15 PM

http://www.alcor.org...tGetFrozen.html


Ayn Rand did not get frozen. It certainly wasn't the case that she had not had the opportunity to hear about cryonics. In fact, we suspect that she not only knew about cryonics but that she had personally decided she didn't want it. In the early 1970's Fred and Linda Chamberlain, then running Manrise Corporation in Los Angeles, began sending Rand copies of "The Hourglass" (the newsletter of the Cryonics Society of California) and other cryonics literature. After several issues had been sent, "The Hourglass" was returned as refused. The Chamberlains followed this with a letter asking her to clarify her refusal and stating that they would remove her from the mailing list unless they heard from her. Rand never responded.


why?? Cryonics is so perfectly consistent with her philosophy, what a tragedy that she missed that

anyone with any philosophy of life should find cryonics consistent with their philosophy. so she is one of many who just didn't get it in time

Edited by RighteousReason, 04 April 2010 - 04:21 PM.


#19 Alex Libman

  • Guest
  • 566 posts
  • 0
  • Location:New Jersey, USA

Posted 04 April 2010 - 04:42 PM

I think she was frozen in secret, and there was a fake funeral with an empty coffin to throw KGB off track.

CYBORG AYN RAND SHALL LIVE AGAIN !!!

Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users