RE: Re-crafting the extropian image [Was: RE: Norman Spinrad on THE SPIKE]

From: Ben Goertzel (ben@goertzel.org)
Date: Tue Jun 05 2001 - 19:10:09 MDT


> CurtAdams@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > Of course it's the perception of Extropianism as a cult that's
> > more of a problem. Maybe we can turn this to our advantage?
> > The media seems to have an unholy fascination with cults
>
> My advice is not to try it. The present-day media is almost pure evil.
> Give it another five years and see if collaborative filtering can kill off
> the current crop of parasites.

I assume that "the present-day media is almost pure evil" is a kind of
obscure Judeo-Christian humor ;)

This leads to another interesting idea. Maybe we should become the
media....

Remember when Wired Magazine was sorta cool? Before Conde Nast acquired it
and turned it into a peculiar, occasionally interesting but rarely
provocative product catalog?

Remember how exquisitely well Mondo 2000 expressed a certain moment in
cultural history?

Right now would be a great time to launch a new future tech magazine. We
have the brainpower and literary talent among us to pull off the needed
writing in our spare time, that's for sure. We could launch it as a website
first, and then launch the print version once we had a readership (if indeed
this seemed a wise move at the time).

No party line. Socialists as well as libertarians allowed. Just
interesting subversive thought, with a focus on the future of technology,
mind & society. Profiles of successful business or hot new products will be
much rarer than explanations of fascinating new technologies, or serious
debates of moral dilemmas to do with future tech.

Is it possible to bring deep futuristic thinking to the masses, as Wired has
brought glitzy techno-commercialism to the masses? Who knows? But success
would do wonders for the image of extropians and related animals.

Whaddaya say? Anyone want to start a magazine? ;>

> > but I think many of the posters here would come off quite
> > well in an interview.

This is sort of naive, in my view. Reporters can twist interviews so it
looks like you were saying something quite different than you actually
were -- for the better or for the worse. I've experienced it many times
myself, and in both directions.

Ben



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:07:58 MST