From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Mon Jul 22 2002 - 18:03:40 MDT
Jeff Davis wrote:
> Extropes,
>
> --- Harvey Newstrom <mail@HarveyNewstrom.com> expanded
> on Samantha Atkins comment:
>
> "Religous is not necessary to meere authoritarianism
> rearing its ugly head to limit choice. Calling it
> "Talibandry" doesn't really help the problem."
>
>
>>Worse than that, it confuses the issue. Anybody who
>
> thinks that the Taliban, banditry, and bioethicists
> have anything to do with each other is just lumping
> everything they don't like into one category and
> calling it "bad".
>
> With respect Harvey, I disagree.
>
> The Taliban were a cabal, drunk on their own power and
> self-justifying piety, who found joy, freedom, and
> modernity repugnant, and who, when they gained power,
> lowered a cloud of darkness onto their people under
> the license of SUPREME (ie God's) authority. Their
> rule was based on 'ethics', as in Leon Kass's
> (bio)ethics of repugnance.
>
This is at best, extremely strained. All religion says
something about ethics. It does not follow that all ethics,
bioethics included, is derived from religion. It is even more
strained to claim that one subset of ethical concerns,
bioethics, derives from the Taliban version of one particular
religion. It is also strained and singularly unhelpful to claim
or imply that all bioethicists and others who disagree or
remaine unconvinced by the possibilities inherent in
technologies in question and their implications are all seeking
to exercise arbitrary "SUPREME" power.
>
>>This doesn't help resolve the issue.
>
>
> It could help.
>
> This business is entirely political. Now, one could
> approach this scientifically--as in political
> science--as in the science of emotion and persuasion,
> as in the science of crowd control. To counter the
> political influence of a given party, one needs to
> poison their support. To do that you need to send the
> proper message, a message which weakens them and
> strengthens their opposition. Success in politics
> ***IS*** success in emotional manipulation.
>
You could approach it much more directly by showing the people
at large what is possible with the technology. Why control
crowds when you have what the people would most want if they
understood it and its possibilities? Why manipulate politicians
(something we are far amateur at) instead of making the case
clearly and widely. Let the politicians bow to a groundswell of
expectations from the people. If you want to be a manipulator
then you will lose. You have dropped your best assets to take
up weapons you are very much outclassed in.
> In this moment in history 'the Taliban' is a
> strikingly powerful meme equivalent for evil.
Sure. And about as likely to be abused to no good effect as the
halocaust! We have much better.
> The
> parallels between the Taliban's character and
> political power in Afghanistan, and the religious
> right's character and political power in the US are
> striking. The President and his 'bioethics' panel are
> our own little council of mullahs. They should be made
> to pay the political price of bearing up under that
> comparison. The price being a whole load of
> whoop-ass.
>
That is ridiculous and will only make those who try it look like
idiots. Please do not do this publicly! You can hurt causes we
care about a lot.
> 'Bioethics'--I love it--the term, is magnificent!
> It's like 'creation science' only better. The prefix
> 'bio' gives it that scientific flavor, and 'ethics'
> presumptively defines whatever ground lies beneath the
> 'bioethicist's' feet as the moral high ground.
> Certainly their are real ethical issues arising from
> bioscience. That doesn't make Talibandits lurking in
> that protective thicket any less malignant. That they
> actually believe in their righteous repugnance only
> makes matters worse.
>
"Righteous repugnance" can clearly be shown as immaterial and
utterly meaningless to real discussions of the issues without
mis-branding your opponents just for the fun of it.
> "When devils will the blackest sins put on
> They do suggest at first with heavenly shows"
> Othello, Act 2, Scene 3
>
> So I see it as a bare-fisted fight for political
> power. These are not people to be reasoned with or
Then you lose. Automatically.
> appeased. That simply legitimizes them. Bad move.
> They need to be de-legitimized. A child's voice needs
> to be raised declaring the parade of would-be emperors
> as naked, stupid, venal, tyrannical, death-worshipping
> obstructors of progress. America is progress.
> Obstructors of progress are anti-American. Their
Oh great! Another excuse to wave the flag and denounce those who
disagree with you or even question you as "anti-American".
Please rethink this. It is really shabby.
> vision for our civilization stands before us in the
> form of 'modern' Islam: tyranny, poverty, prostrate
> helplessness, and intellectual incompetence.
>
Do you really believe this kind of empty polemic will win
anything but anger and derision, not for your opponents but for
the team employing such?
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:37 MST