From: Waldemar Inghdahl (waldemar.ingdahl@eudoxa.se)
Date: Fri Jun 15 2001 - 19:58:08 MDT
When writing this I am watching the coverage of Swedish television of the street battles raging in the city of Gothenburg, in conjunction to the EU- summit (that US president Bush attended). The luddite, stasist, anti- globalist demonstrators from a global network have pillaged, vandalised and looted the city. They have attacked police officers and innocent bystanders, sending many of them to hospital with grave injuries. The Swedish police force has lost control of the situation to such a degree that police officers have opened fire on them. First reports speak of multiple casualties. I don't think that many of you Americans (and others) understand to what degree you have push Swedish police officers in order for them to shoot to kill.
This is moved by ideas. And the battle for the future stands between ultra-stasism and stasism light. Between reaction and technocracy.
Where is dynamism?
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Wasley <rpwasley@ix.netcom.com>
To: <extropians@extropy.org>
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 9:36 PM
Subject: Re: The problem with transhumanism
> All of the discussion on transhumanist "movements" strikes me as
> anachronistic in the extreme. It is more shades of the nineteenth to later
> 20th century political movements than anything appropriate for the 21st
> century.
Maybe the year isn't 2001, maybe it is 1901.
I mean that we see a lot of similarities. Back then we also saw globalisation, a rapid change in technologies changing society around them. What scope should all of this be used for? What was good? Different ideologies influenced the course of history, and I might say that it didn't go as well as it should have- thanks to the totalitarian ideologies advances.
Maybe there is a technological determinism. But it is negative (in a popperian sense). New technologies tell us which societies are NOT possible given that a certain kind of technology is introduced and applied. Industrialism eroded the possiblities of maintaining a feodal society (that was viewed as the best society by the larger numbers in the 18th century). Remember that industrialism created such diverse societies as the United States of America, Hong Kong, Great Britain, Nazi- Germany, and the Soviet Union. But we think that some of these societies were better, from both a practical and moral point of view. On the basis of what? Our ideas.
The new technologies will offer us the same choices, and among these choices we find transhumanism to be (at present) the best moral and practical alternative. Will the world choose the US of the information age, or will it choose the Soviet Union of the information age? Ideas will determine.
However, in response to Waldemar's question of why the
> transhumanist movement is only a "marginalized movement" is for two reasons.
> Even though there is a general acceptance of the end goals, there are widely
> divergent ideas on how to get there. So in terms of choosing intermediate
> objectives what would we throw our collective weight behind?
So, what are the end goals?
Greater support
> of government's involvement in seeding new technologies or let us get
> government out of it an let the market do its magic?
Think strategically. It isn't this government that we want. We want to influence it to follow our ideas, and in the end it will need other structures.
Secondly, there is
> little political will (this is an observation not a criticism). I have been
> on this list for about a year and have yet see any more than a tepid
> response to suggestions of activism. This is just as well when there has
> periodically surfaced discussion of the need for 'enemies lists', a real
> penchant among some member for guns,
Maybe because transhumanism hasn't had an analysis of contemporary society.
and now quoting Lenin!
You would do well to read some socialist thinkers, like Lenin, Antonio Gramsci, and Karl Marx. This because they were well versed in one thing. Changing the world according to their ideas, and providing the structure for doing this. Personally I think they changed the world in a horrible fashion. But they succeeded even in influencing and dominating the ideologies in the liberal- democratic world. Why? Because in their way they understood the value of ideas.
You would also do well to read the works of liberal thinkers like Friedrich A. Hayek and Murray Rothbard that also discussed the issue of how to change the world according to their ideas. And one cannot say that they weren't successful to certain degree, too.
... and even Robert A. Heinlein's book about political work.
> I mention the lack of political will was not a criticism, but a reflection
> of the larger picture which proposes the question; "What is the motivation
> for a transhumanist activist effort anyway"? The revolution, aside from the
> inevitable dips and valleys is doing very fine thank you in the way that it
> should occur, as an emergent phenomena arising out of the total context of
> our times and evolution. Is it to protect the revolution from being turned
> by Luddite movement so robbing us of our dreams? I think we need to regain
> some of the vision we claim we have and realize that as Ray Kurweil stated
> in his book "The Age of Spiritual Machines (p 182) .....the Ludite movement
> is not likely to fare any better in the next century (21st century) than it
> has in the past two. It suffers from the lack of a viable alternative
> agenda". Well, the transhumanist movement as a political movement would
> fare the same.
Stasism sure has an agenda for a "better, more humane" world which is more "practical" and "moral". But what do they mean with "practical" and "moral"? And if there is no opposition, its agenda might not be good, but it is the only one playing in the arena.
And we have seen that the forces of stasism have been successful in the past, look at Ming China (and other exampels in Virginia Postrel's book "The future and its enemies")
> If people grumble because of the rate of change that is because they are not
> naturally inclined towards change no matter how fast or slow. They do not
> like being taken out of their comfort zone. They are doing it now because
> they have bought into the system that is creating it and have derived
> benefits from it. However, if we develop a movement that seeks to fulfill
> our vision of the future at the rate of change our impatience demands,
> without allowing people to incorporate that change over time, our paranoia
> will surely become a self-fulling prophecy.
But at what rate is the public's opinion of "too fast"? These perceptions can be changed, either for the public to think that change should be stopped altogether or to perceiving that the current rate of change is all too slow. We have seen that these perceptions have been different in the past, and they will be different in the future. The question is, what ideas will dictate the "correct" rate of change?
> The only real enemies is ourselves. Things are not going to happen any
> sooner than they are, and conversely they will not happen any later than
> they should.
Walk- over.
People cannot live without some ideas guiding them towards what is good, and practical. Both in their lives as private persons nor as citizens of a society. These views are seldom explicit, more often they are eclectically absorbed for the cultural climate in which they live their lives. What determines the cultural climate?
Let me make an example from history:
Socialism has never and nowhere been at first a working- class movement. It is by no means an obvious remedy for the obvious evil which the interests of that class necessarily demand. It is a construction of theorists, deriving from certain tendencies of abstract thought with which for a long time only the intellectuals were familiar; and it required long efforts by the intellectuals before the working classes could be persuaded to adopt it as their programme.
In every country that has moved toward socialism, the phase of the development in which socialism becomes a determining influence on politics has been preceded for many years by a period during which socialist ideals governed the thinking of the more active intellectuals. Experience suggests that, once this phase has been reached, it is only a question of time until the views now held by the intellectuals become the governing force of politics. Now think of what views are dominant among present day intellectuals...
What to the contemporary observer appears as the battle of conflicting interests has indeed often been decided long before in a clash of ideas confined to narrow circles.
Paradoxically enough, however, the stasists have done most to spread the belief that it is the numerical strength, of the populace that "are not naturally inclined towards change no matter how fast or slow" which is deciding (or should decide) the political issues, whereas in practice these same parties have regularly and successfully acted as if they understood the key positions of the stasist intellectuals. Whether by design or driven by the force of circumstances, they have always directed their main effort towards gaining the support of this elite, while the more dynamist groups have acted, as regularly but more unsuccessfully by vainly trying directly to persuade individuals.
Hey, you might say. Isn't that a very collectivist notion?
Well, there is little that the ordinary man of today learns about events or ideas except through the medium of the intellectuals (journalists, teachers, ministers, lecturers, publicists, commentators, writers of fiction, cartoonists, and artists etc.). And outside of our special fields of work we are in this respect almost all ordinary men, dependent for our information and instruction (after all, we cannot be Ph. D:s in all conceivable subjects) on those who make it their job to keep abreast of opinion. In this sense, the intellectuals decide what views and opinions are to reach us, which facts are important enough to be told to us, and in what form, and from what angle they are to be presented. Whether we shall ever learn of the results of the work of the expert and the original thinker depends mainly on their decision.
Outside of his own special interest (growing in gravity depending on how techno naive he/she is) the transhumanist is generally no less dependent on the intellectuals and scarcely less influenced by their selection. The result of this is that even the most determined dynamists derive from stasist sources their knowledge on most subjects on which they have no first- hand information. With many of the more general preconceptions of stasist thought, the connection of their more practical proposals is by no means at once obvious; in consequence many who believe themselves to be determined transhumanists in fact become spreaders of stasist ideas. Who does not know of the transhumanist who in his own field (mainly that of technology) denounces stasism but, when he steps outside that subject spouts stasism like Jeremy Rifkin?
So, why do the intellectuals do this? Are they evil? Well, not the vast majority...
Rather, they generally judge all particular issues in the light of certain general ideas. They also tend to tend to erroneously apply new generalisations which have proved their value in other fields. The conglomeration of these views is what constructs the characteristic climate of opinion of a period, which will be favourable to to the reception of some opinions and unfavourable to others and which will make the intellectual readily accept one conclusion and reject another without a real understanding of the issues.
But all of the above could also be applied by transhumanist intellectuals. If we are to change the current world view among the intellectuals we need to do further intellectual advances, and often advances on points which are very abstract and may seem very remote from practical issues.
I think we should recognize the transhumanist movement and
> enjoy it for what it is (and the reason I have decided to participate), the
> pleasure of interacting with intelligent and informed people who's personal
> visions are fixed on the future.
"Without a revolutionary theory there cannot be a revolutionary movement", to quote Lenin again. And an ideology without a programme for seeing its ideas implemented in reality, in the actual society in which its members live, isn't an ideology but a social club. I have nothing against social clubs, they can be fun. But a political and philosophical movements cannot survive well as a social club. It isn't vital, nor intellecutally vibrant. Soon the forces of techno naivism and cybergnostism will make it impractical in the members' own eyes. I think this is the reason behind much of transhumanism's silence. By not engaging in the public debate the ideology looses the interest of its members. It doesn't seem to deal with the real issues of today (because other, more active movements, set what is considered "the real issues").
A much better and productive activist role
> for the transhumanist movement is for everyone to get involved with others
> to create, technology, companies, art, and all forms of positive creative
> endeavor.
But what philosophical purpose do these things have? Nanotechnology can be used in the service of a dictatorial regime, art can be used to damage society. What is the practical and moral use of them?
To become in the community to contribute in some in making the
> world (locally or globally) a better place. Then simultaneously turn within,
> to yourself, love ones, and friends to make your world a better place as
> well.
What exactly do you perceive as "a better world"? What world is more practical and more moral? These are the choices of ethics and politics.
Why do this work under the label of "transhumanism"? Why not under the label of another ideology? Well, because transhumanism has an explicitly particular view of morality, of politics, of history, the present and the future.
It may be that a technologically progressive, free society as we have know it in the two past centuries carries in itself the forces of its own destruction, that progress once achieved is taken for granted and ceases to be valued. There can be little doubt that in countries like the US and Europe the ideal of progress and freedom has today less real appeal for people in general.
I do not believe this. The descriptions made of the world and its nature, by intellectuals of the 19th and 20th century spread this pessism through their ideas. People may well follow old ideas, even if shown to be unpractical and immoral, because there are no alternatives present. So long as the people who over longer periods determine public opinion continue to be attracted by technocratic and/ or reactionary ideas, the trend will continue. If we are to avoid such a development, we must be able to offer a new programme which appeals to the imagination. We must make the building of a free and progressive society once more an intellectual adventure, a deed of courage. What we lack is a transhumanist vision, a programme which seems neither a mere defence of things as they are nor a diluted kind of stasism, but a truly transhumanist radicalism which does not spare the susceptibilities of the mighty, and which does not confine itself to what appears today as politically possible. The liberals of the 19th centur
y didn't aspire to a better kind of absolute monarchy, they aspired to a democratic system. The socialists of the 20th century didn't aspire to a better kind of liberalism, they aspired to a socialist system. And mind you, the technocrats and reactionnaries of today don't aspire to a status quo of the present situation. They intend to instill another kind of society (this one is all too dynamist to their tastes) guided by their ideas. And they sure know how to take action...
Like these other ideologies we are not interested in "a better kind" of today's situation. We are interested in an altogether better situation. Sure, it has some similarities with the present day, but it has its vast differences.
We need an intellectual movement who is prepared to resist the blandishments of power and influence and who is willing to work for an ideal, however small may be the prospects of its early realisation. They must be men (and women, and other genders) who are willing to stick to principles and to fight for their full realisation, however remote. The practical compromises that may be needed they must leave to the activist movement. How to instill this? Through ideological conscioussness and sound institutions. I hope that for instance Eudoxa will provide this, by making a career as a tranhumanist intellectual a feasible career move, but we need more of them. The stasists certainly have their institutions, and they are the one's flying business class (go figure).
Self- improvement, freedom, new opportunities and progress are ideals which may still arouse the imaginations of larger numbers, but a mere "reasonable freedom of self- improvement" (according to whose definition, by the way?) or a mere "relaxation of controls", or a "betterment" without defining what is "better" is neither intellectually respectable nor likely to inspire any enthusiasm. Mind you, just formulating a programme against "deathism" is too narrow in scope. The transhumanist project is much vaster.
The main lesson which the ideologically conscious transhumanist must learn form the successes of the 19th century liberals, and the 20th century socialists is that it was their courage to be visionary which gained them the support of the intellectuals and therefore an influence on public opinion which is daily making possible what only recently seemed utterly remote. Those who have concerned themselves exclusively with what seemed practicable in the existing state of opinion have constantly found that even this has rapidly become politically impossible as the result of changes in a public opinion which they have done nothing to guide. Unless we can make the philosophic foundations of a transhumanist society once more a living intellectual issue, and its implementation a task which challenges the ingenuity and imagination of our liveliest minds, the prospects of dynamism are indeed dark. But if we can regain that belief in the power of ideas which was the mark of transhumanism at its best, the battle is not l
ost. It can be turned into victory. The intellectual revival of transhumanism must start. Will it be in time?
The world is run by people with the motivation to chase their dreams, and when there are no dreams, people decay and stagnate.
Have you chased your dreams lately?
Sincerely,
Waldemar Ingdahl
CEO Eudoxa
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:09 MST