From: Mark Waser (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Mar 12 2008 - 21:35:39 MDT
> As a collection of individual cells with a common interest in the continued survival of the entity known as ME, I declare that several cells unaffiliated with each other despite the name I categorically use to describe Germs should be systematically destroyed using the most effective chemicals available provided said chemicals pose negligible threat to the primary goal of the survival of my own collective of Friendly cells. Perhaps there are Friendly amoeba among the broadly defined Germs which have neither the inkling or power to declare themselves Friendly yet have not (through any definitive action) declared themselves to be UnFriendly either. Suppose the threat of Germs warrants the "Friendly Fire" of chemicals also destroys some Ambivalent entities. Have I committed wanton UnFriendliness?
Not according to my definition because germs don't have goals. Having goals is the lower bound for applying Friendliness. There is also the fact that the existence of harmful germs is directly contrary to your personal goals of health but if non-harmful germs had goals then you are obligated to avoid wiping them out as much as you can without *unnecessarily* compromising your goals.
> Suppose now the collection of ME is a world government of humans colonizing our solar system or the galaxy at large. Those amoeba are now individual aliens that have not yet reached OneWorld Civilization status. Suppose they are each as capable an intelligence as yourself. Would your answer to wanton UnFriendliness be the same if we terraformed their methane-based atmosphere to support human life? What if They were doing it to Us ?
Both cases are nasty, nasty, nasty because the larger power could have gone somewhere else and not obliterated the lesser.
Also suppose my definition of Friendly is just vastly different than yours. I can agree to be Friendly by my own terms - because that's all you said you require for membership in the Friendly Group. I simply spread the my own meme of Friendly until your Group is has allied itself with my own, then continue acting on my believes - subjugating your goals to those of the Friendly Group that I have now undermined. I do not willingly admit wrongdoing in light of your accusations that I entered the Friendly Group under false pretense because I honestly believe that I am righteously spreading the Right Meme. Your current declaration does not protect against this kind of invasion.
No, but intelligent action dictates that ensure that our versions of Friendliness are compatible or else I ask you to include in your version of Friendliness that it is not compatible with my version.
Further, the most critical point is the primary overriding goal. If we both agree on it, then we are compatible and the rest is really just details of how we protect ourselves. If we don't agree on it, then we are not compatible and we simply treat each other as non-hostile non-Friendlies (which is very different from an UnFriendly) which is relatively harmless but not to our mutual advantage.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 19 2013 - 04:01:27 MDT