From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sun Apr 28 2002 - 19:23:22 MDT
Greg Burch wrote:
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins
>>Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2002 4:32 PM
>>
>>So, how do you counter their arguments onces you are through
>>labelling and pigeon-holing them?
>>
>>- samantha
>>
>
> I assume your use of the terms "label" and "pigeonhole" was somehow
> meant to be critical. I'll address that first. The only way to get a
It was first meant to be descriptive. But yes, I don't think
such labels necessarily help us creatively deal with those
opposed to what many of us would like to see.
> grip on phenomena as complex as culture and politics is through the
> development of systems of classification, hopefully ones that represent
> models of the substance and dynamics of those phenomena that are more
> correct than not. As I explained in my talk last summer, these three
> terms represent my perception of the broad front of opposition to
> progress. This model represents a lifetime of study in the humanities,
> in many cultures. Although work in the humanities can never be as
> rigorous as that in the "hard sciences", it does help to make
> falsifiable predictions. In this case, I have made one and it seems to
> be verified, i.e. that "anti-transhumanism" would create a united front
> of these three broad cultural phenomena.
Well, in all honesty, I think a lifetime of study should be able
to yield terms a bit less broad and generally considered
inflammatory.
>
> As to how to counter them, I know of no more complete a response to
> these various kinds of anti-progressive forces than has been synthesized
> in the extropian community and the extropian principles, which is why
> I'm here. So much for the "arguments". The issue is not philosophical
> argument, but political and cultural action. And unfortunately, the tip
> of the advancing wave of science and technology has now prodded into
> vocal action the forces arrayed against progress in the human condition.
I find that overly broad. When science steps into areas that
most people have not considered as changeable and they do not
have the skills to think them through or a clear view of where
the possibilities can lead, it is very easy to get paranoid and
to oppose. That does not mean that all such people are genuinely
opposed to progress in the human condition as such in the least.
But if we start out believing that they are so opposed it is
much less likely that we will dialogue with them or reach them
or even make much an attempt. That is dangerous.
> These forces are entrenched, powerful and have the benefit of tens of
> thousands of years of historical precedent and experience on their side.
I do not agree with such an assessment. People are not a 10,000
year old trend although individuals may certainly be swayed as
such. It is people as individuals that need to be addressed
imho and not a 10,000 year old trend.
Both conservative and more adventurous segments are needed in a
healthy society. The default with something new and potentially
extremely disruptive is to hold off. This is not altogether a
bad safety. We will move forward to the extent that we can show
the benefits outweigh the risks and that the uncertainties and
dangers can be understood and safely dealt with. It will take
getting enough people to see this to win the day. At least it
will this side of revolution, becoming criminals or starting our
own country.
> To date, the cultural forces in favor of continued progress through the
> "transhuman barrier" are not well organized. On the other hand, they
> have the powerful force of the market on their side: Even though
The "market" is a two-edged sword. If corporations believe it is more profitable to continue to push older technology rather than new technology that may even make their previous product line obsolete, then they will oppose the practical application of new breakthroughs.
> specific kinds of research and development may be outlawed and
> stigmatized, the tectonic forces of innovation will continue to work
> steadily to find cracks in the barriers thrown up by the
> bio-conservatives. So, I continue to be optimistic, even if the current
> period seems to be marked by defeats.
>
I am also optimistic. But I am more so when we talk of
converting our people "defects" into assetts as much as possible.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:41 MST