>Thank you, Waldemar, for raising these questions. Many of them
>echo a conversation that Nick, Anders and I had regarding public
>image and media. (Although I must say I have no clue who the
>'transhumanist left' is. Could you explain that?)
Perhaps I should clarify myself. Transhumanists from the ex. left. I think that the three big 19th century ideologies (conservatism, liberalism and socialism in alll their different forms) are posing answering increasingly irrelevant questions. That does not mean that everything about them is dead and that everything in them is completely uninteresting but they can only survive by changing radically to fit the new problems around them, and in the long run they cannot reform enough since their basic premises are so dated. But, they are still in power on many commanding heights and they seem willing to fight the future to maintain a society that fit their agenda. So that's why there has to be a discussion about these things. The alternative to the future isn't an idealized form of the '60s, it is the Kosovo anarchy.
>Yes, we are moving into the mainstream conciousness, and media
>will be the primary tool for that. I am preparing a series of
>strategy 'backgrounders' for transhumanists interested in getting
>media coverage. These will be made available in some manner,
>as a sort of service that the WTA can provide. It could be that
>working with the media in a professional manner and building
>a track record there could go a long way towards alleviating
>some of the 'dangers' that you foresee.
Super! I am educating myself in the media direction, so maybe I could help out in some way.
>Kathryn Aegis
Waldemar Ingdahl