From: Anders Sandberg (asa@nada.kth.se)
Date: Mon Jul 29 2002 - 02:21:48 MDT
On Sun, Jul 28, 2002 at 11:45:59PM -0400, Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>
> On Sunday, July 28, 2002, at 07:34 pm, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>
> >Seems my earlier comments about the Unabomber being the patron saint of
> >the luddite movement were dead on accurate. They certainly are listening
> >to him on an ongoing basis. I predict that more luddite terrorism will
> >follow.
>
> This is a reasonable guess. However, I haven't heard about Kaczynski
> lately, while the Luddites have been quite active in recent years. The
> cause and effect may be backwards from what you suggest. The stronger
> neo-Luddite movement have created a new market for Kaczynski's
> ramblings. In other words, I think you give the man too much credit.
> Another guess would be that advancing technology is scaring people all
> over.
While the Unabomber articulates their ideas clearly, he isn't a
necessary force for them in any cases. These ideas are circulating (and
have been circulating) in society for quite some time.
Basically it is an ideological awareness of "green" ideology. While I
consider these views abhorrent, we should learn from them. The real
victories of the greens (I use the term loosely here) have been when
they have shifted the moral framework for debate - it doesn't matter if
the current bioethics comission allows GMOs or they are shown to have
evonomical benefits, as long as you make society think GMOs are
unethical and worrysome, since that view will determine the *next*
bioethics comission, the next market analysis and so on.
I don't think luddite terrorists are an important threat in the big
picture. They are individually dangerous, but their effect on society is
far smaller than the efforts of the large number of ideological but
non-violent luddites that write, debate and influence society. It is
those we *need* to counteract (see Greg's Extro 5 speech).
One important way is to be ideological ourselves: let's for a moment
ignore all claims of efficiency, sustainability, historical
inevitability and profitability about "our" technologies. That is just
arguing from within other paradigms, which can be an useful rhetorical
method but is not enough - we want to show not just why they are
practical, but moral. Instead, look at *why* we want these developed,
legal and used. I would say the core idea is something like "we want to
use technology to maximize human potential, because life is worth living
and experiencing" - the humanist core of transhumanism. We can refine
this and build on it. By arguing for not just the practical benefits but
showing how they fit in with a view of the world, a view of humans and a
view of what is right, we can also shift culture.
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/ GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:45 MST