What to do?

From: Waldemar Inghdahl (waldemar.ingdahl@eudoxa.se)
Date: Sat Jun 16 2001 - 19:35:36 MDT


If we don't wish to deny the fact that the world presently is seeing a vast technological, economic, communicational and socio- cultural change, and also agree that many of these changes are in fact positive and desireable in their nature, we must enable a corresponding change in the political discussion in our respective countries and in the emerging global discussion. Thus the political discussion, in order to be sensible and constructive, should start from the necessity and immediacy of change. Change should become its natural start point, and not as all too often the keeping of the old, the previous paradigm. It is necessary to raise the level of the debate.

To put change in the centre of the political discussion is the first step towards a work of renewal that must start with the impetus of a mental change, a change of paradigm in our way to think. This is done by undermining the defensive stance that has dominated world politics since 1989. Sure some changes have been done for the better, but always as a last resort (at huge costs and in worsened options for action)- when every possibility to preserve the old has failed. This must be thouroghly pointed out in the intellectual debate. In the new public debate the good change must always be the first option. Transhumanists must create a new hegemony where change and dynamism are seen as the base premise of discussion, a self- evident fact for citizens, intellectuals and politicians that have understood that we live in a time changes, experiments and multiple options, a world where safety lies in the successful and good change.

To achieve this new and change- friendly political discussion is a hard task. Such a discussion is radically different of the narrow and ideologically void political discussion that we are used to. In this new discussion the

So what should we do? We need intellectuals. I use this word according to F. A. Hayek's definition.

The intellectual is neither an original thinker nor an expert. Indeed he need not even be intelligent. What he needs to possess is the ability to speak and write on wide range of subjects; and a way of becoming familiar with new ideas earlier than his audience.

But these intellectuals need to get busy. What they need to (gradually) offer is an explicit programme of societal development, a picture of the future at which they are aiming, and a set of general principles to guide decisions on particular issues. The strength of becoming one of the few explicit general philosophies of policy, one of the few systems or theories which raise new problems and new horizons, must not be underestimated. There are very few playing in the ballpark, at present...
This will also inspire the imagination of other intellectuals. One of the strengths of transhumanism is that it is "the unknown ideal" and if we can turn this into a contrast between an existing state of affairs and the one ideal of a possible future society which transhumanists alone hold up before the public, we will have a good chance of succeeding. We have seen historic precedents on this one. By this way we can even change the political field, by making opponents to become mere compromises or half- way houses between the more radical forms of transhumanism and the existing order.

Being visionary is important, even in this respect. If you can gain strength in the debate and turn the debate in your direction you can change the whole political field. This because many see something as "reasonable" just if it lies in between of the extremes of the political spectrum. This is fallacious, because those extremes can be moved. What was extreme today, may be the mainstream of tomorrow- pushing the political field to choose between moderate dynamism or ultra- dynamism.

But in order to achieve this we need to debate, debate on a higher level of discussion both internally and externally (particularly externally).

Sincerely,
Waldemar



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:09 MST