"We're Going To Save Them All"

[Emperor_Norton_II]

Previously on DU, I posted this thread, during which I said this:

Welcome to the real world my ass. You're living in a little fantasy where the people you don't like are all greedy scum and irredeemable. So you can pretend to actually care about the Good People while ignoring all the Bad People.

Fuck that. We're going to save everybody. Because they all deserve a shot at real happiness. Yeah, even the Freepers. Especially the Freepers; they're horribly stunted and twisted through no real fault of their own. We're going to save them from themselves, even if they curse us for it. Because that's what we do. That's the whole motherfucking point of this excercise.

If we start deciding that the Good People live and the Bad People die, then there's no real difference between us and George Bush except in out choices for Good and Bad. We are all in this together.

For saying this, I was soundly denounced for being, in turns, crazy, totalitarian, and scary, or maybe all three at once.

Here's my question: Why is that so scary? Isn't that sort of the point of progressive ideology, to save everybody? Certainly I thought it was the point of the environmental movement, to save the ecosystem - and thus the planet and everybody who lives on it - from our prior bad decisions.

I am not a misanthrope. I don't believe that the human race is naturally corrupt or "evil," that 1/3 of the entire population are nothing but scum, or any other of the shades of Original Sin that have percolated down through the ages. I tend to agree with the idea that every human has inherent worth and dignity, and yes goddammit, this includes the members of Free Republic, the Republican Party, and even George Bush.

We don't - or at least we're not supposed to - pick and choose who gets to live happily and who dies horribly. We may not like the freepers - and they're not terribly likable - but we're not going to let them rot simply because we don't like them. To do that is to invite moral equality with the people we profess to oppose.

However, questions of moral and spiritual rectitude aside, my motivations here are utterly pragmatic. I have a simple goal in life, to be able to find a nice quiet place where I can plant a vine and tree and none shall make me afraid. I can't exactly do that if you lot decide that sniping at each other is more important that making the planet a good and clean place.

I think in our wanderings down the road of partisan politics, many of us have forgotten something: we're all on the same planet. When it comes to the people who live here, we can't ignore any of them without putting the whole at risk. That doesn't just include the people we like, it has to include the people we dislike. All we do when we ignore them is encourage resentment from them and blindness from us. We all know well where that road leads us; we've seen it happen again and again all through human history.

If we ignore those we dismiss, then their hatred will build to the point where it will destroy us. That goes for every single person on every side of the political debate. It's not a question of who's right or who's wrong, who's good and who's evil; it's a question of do you want to continue to live, or not?

We have to save them, because in saving them we save ourselves. And if you don't think we as an aggregate are worth saving, well... unshakable misanthropes and nihilists are strongly encouraged to off themselves.

[DrWeird]

1. Can we save this new age science fiction stuff for the lounge?

Or maybe meeting room?

[Emperor_Norton_II]

3. Gee, and here I was thinking you didn't like me.

I mean, you'd think that something involving the core of progressive thought deserve space in General Discussion. Silly me. :eyes:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. Nothing scary to me

Here's one of the Ten Sufi Thoughts from Pir-o-Murshid Hazrat Inayat Khan-

There is One Brotherhood, the human brotherhood which unites the children of earth indiscriminately in the Brotherhood of God.

So of course we must save them all.

Peace, brother.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

5. Scary to a lot of people, though -nt-

[htuttle]

4. You mean even the Screwheads and the Doomed?

They will probably need some Grandmotherly Kindness before they see the error of their ways, however. Kind of like how Ed Gruberman was taught...

We're living on the Planet of the Apes. Is that funny or serious?

[Emperor_Norton_II]

6. The answer is "mu"

It's all in how you look at it, and reality is what you can get away with.

[Sufi Marmot]

7. Specifics, please...

It's difficult to evaluate the relative merit of vague notions and unrealized concepts such as anarcho-transhumanism.

How do we need saving? Who decides what is "happiness"? Is "happiness" the most important goal of human experience?
What if someone denies me free will in order to make me "happier"?
Do I have the right to choose suffering if I don't inflict that choice on others?

Are we talking only about a sustainable environment here, or a more concerted push towards someone's idea of a utopian society?



-SM, who seems to remember reading about a debate like this in a book by Aldous Huxley...

[Emperor_Norton_II]

8. Generalities unite!

It's difficult to evaluate the relative merit of vague notions and unrealized concepts such as anarcho-transhumanism.

The link back to the earlier thread was more a historical thing than an attempt to continue that specific argument. But, if you feel the need...

How do we need saving?

Well... in the 10,000 years or so of human history we've been at the mercy of a number of external factors, along with traditional primate power politics. A lot of these things - hunger, disease, the inherent inequities of the hierarchy - we don't have to be at the mercy of, but we choose to do it because we don't really know any other way.

The tools are now, or soon will be, at hand that we don't have to choose it, or have it chosen for us.

Who decides what is "happiness"?

Um... you do. And I do, and everybody else does. We all define happiness in different ways, some subtler than others.

Is "happiness" the most important goal of human experience?

I'd be interested to know what else, beyond pure survival, would qualify as the most important goal of human experience. Seriously, if you're not happy doing something, if it doesn't give you some level of pleasure to do it - work, art, religion, drugs, sex, whatever -
why do it?

What if someone denies me free will in order to make me "happier"?

Well, why would somebody deny you free will to make you happier? More to the point, how would somebody deny you free will to make you happier?

Do I have the right to choose suffering if I don't inflict that choice on others?

Of course, although I'd wonder why you'd deliberately choose suffering. Suffering as suffering isn't inherently noble, it's putting yourself though pain for no necessarily good reason.

I suppose you could be getting off on it, but that's your bag.

Are we talking only about a sustainable environment here, or a more concerted push towards someone's idea of a utopian society?

Somewhere in between. Aiming for a shining city on a hill isn't the most effective of tactics, and it tends to end unpleasantly. At the same time, what's considered sustainable... well, it isn't, not in the long term anyway, and I'd rather like my species to be around for a long time indeed.

I'm not particularly interested in utopia. I want something that works.

[Sufi Marmot]

10. The devil is in the details, etc. etc. etc...

Well... in the 10,000 years or so of human history we've been at the mercy of a number of external factors, along with traditional primate power politics. A lot of these things - hunger, disease, the inherent inequities of the hierarchy - we don't have to be at the mercy of, but we choose to do it because we don't really know any other way. Ok, fair enough, I'm with you on the hunger and disese thing. Inherent inequalities of the hierarchy...hmmm...it seems to me we're always going to have some sort of hierarchy or another since people have different hopes, wishes and dreams, as well as differing abilities to realize them. Unless you visualize a society where everyone takes care of their own wants and needs entirely and there's absolutely no need for work, no economic system, a completely efficient distribution of reseources... :shrug:

I'd be interested to know what else, beyond pure survival, would qualify as the most important goal of human experience. Wisdom, knowledge, altruism, peace... :shrug:

Well, why would somebody deny you free will to make you happier? More to the point, how would somebody deny you free will to make you happier? Well, both those questions were addressed better than I'll ever be able to in Brave New World. One can certainly envision scenarios where people have significant, irrevocable choices made for them by people who claim to be acting in their best interests, who want them to be "happy", or at least docile. I think it was this concept that maybe raised both eyebrows and hackles in your other thread. For example, would you endorse genetically reprogramming the human genome of the next generation of humans to eliminate some of our more aggressive tendencies, as is alluded to on the website of your previous thread. Or another example - would our experience as human beings be lessened if we never ever felt pain or sadness? Should we all be encouraged to take mood-stabilizers and anti-depressants to make us happier, more productive citizens?

I'm just curious of how much of a distinction you make between the personal and the societal - I'm much more comfortable pursuing philosophies and technologies that allow people greater individual freedom rather than those that can be inflicted on people en masse. And yes, I realize that we do some of this already, per your example of the environmental movement, but in a free society there at least has to be room for discussion, compromise, and choice.

Somewhere in between. Aiming for a shining city on a hill isn't the most effective of tactics, and it tends to end unpleasantly. At the same time, what's considered sustainable... well, it isn't, not in the long term anyway, and I'd rather like my species to be around for a long time indeed. I'm not particularly interested in utopia. I want something that works. Ok, so define works. That's a subjective concept.

-SM, rapidly losing coherence, I fear...

[Emperor_Norton_II]

9. kick

A little evening egoboo...

[Ardee]

11. save me from this argument

:eyes:

Do you wish to save people from themselves?

Do you or those you are "saving" decide if that is what is really happening?

How do you decide who needs saving and in what order they should be saved?

How best can one spend ones efforts once one understands who and why someone else needs saving?

How many of these someones we are saving is an acceptable kill ratewhile we are saving them ?

One person helps one person one community helps itself etc. When you get further along than that I believe that stuff begins to creep in to those noble saving graces.