From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Sun May 12 2002 - 10:14:18 MDT
pchaston wrote:
>
> As I am still opposed, at this point in time, to viewing
> extropianism/transhumanism as an embattled philosophy that has to sterotype
> an enemy as "luddites" or "bioluddites", I would ask, do individuals on this
> list differentiate between humanistic-oriented Greens and the MacLeodian
> description of the "Deep Greens"?
A central vision of extropy is that technology is the means by which all
humans can live a more fulfilling life as humans, striving to reach each
individual's potential (and surpassing it as desired). Since natural
life is a form of spontaneous order, it is to be encouraged and
cherished, not dissasembled in some sort of borgian mass assimilation,
wherever in the universe it is found. The dehumanizing vision of a borg
existence as a mere cog in a machine is what Greens fear about
technology. They are simply lacking the vision of the alternative that
we see, or dismiss it as mere wishful thinking at best or deceptive
propaganda at worst. The only alternative they see is a world free of
modern technology, with far fewer people living an alleged 'simpler'
existence.
There are many of green leanings who do want better technology that
doesn't impact the environment as much as older technology. I'd say that
they are the majority of greens. The problem is that the Green movement
is led and its agenda is set by those who are most extreme (which is a
normal phenomenon in politics) and insist that there is no middle
ground. They have PR flacks who try to position their agenda as 'the
middle ground', treading lightly around the real demands and impacts on
human civilization their agenda requires. Those who follow the green
movement are either duped, or willing to be duped, that their agenda
isn't so harsh as it really is.
It is our job to tackle this problem by exposing the lies and deceptions
of Green dogma.
Since we are talking sci-fi, I'd suggest LE Modesett's novel Adiamante
as well.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:01 MST