From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Tue Jun 19 2001 - 01:41:14 MDT
This response branches out from the post I responded to
originally to Waldemar's more general posts on perceived
problems with transhumanism.
Waldemar Inghdahl wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Samantha Atkins <samantha@objectent.com>
> To: <extropians@extropy.org>
> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 5:30 PM
> Subject: Re: SV: Political views?
>
> > Waldemar Inghdahl wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > Instead of fighting over if there should be a government or not, at this stage, it is better to put the energies into winning ground for a broader and more visionary political discussion, instead of the narrow and ideologically void political discussion held today. A discussion where it is necessary to think big, in order to think small. In other words the contrary to the technical, administrative (with cynical notes) inside the boundaries of the 20th century nation- state corporativism that is prevalent today. A discussion where this 20th century project became so prevalent that all discussion of principles became erased. The goals became completely paramount, the only thing left to discuss was the best way to administer the system- reducing politics to administration.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > But the above answer simply assumes there should be government
> > and that it is should be the that which "thinks big", does it
> > not? Why should the central discussion be political per se
> > rather than something else like technological, visionary,
> > generally memetic and so on?
>
> Because politics is the implementation of a specific morality in society. There cannot be a neutral "technological" or "visionary" (such a vague, no- impact term) discussion. The meaning inherent in these terms is given by morality and ideology.
I mispoke. And perhaps I put words in your most. What I meant
was to ask Why should such a discussion require the involvement
of centralized government at all?
Visionary is so much vague as it is largely absent from all too
many discussions. Visionary as in possessing a unifying vision,
as in being coherent and fully engaging.
I am not sure what you mean by saying that the meaning is given
by morality and ideology. Are these separate? Do they have
common roots?
>
> If transhumanism further fails to give a cultural context to the technologies and cultural developments it is discussing, it will further devolve, while others give the context of the new millenium. Where is the transhumanist Manuel Castells?
>
TBD, most likely.
> It itself the term "politics" hasn't anything to do with the present administrative system. It is the application of a specific morality on the society in which it is present. Today, we must assume that there is a government, with an enormous amount of control (which has actually gotten bigger thanks to increased regulations and higher tax revenues)- but this government isn't necessarily the end point.
>
But how will simply assuming it and playing by its rules
(presumably) in order to use its power result in anything much
beyond perpetuating and strengthening it regardless of whether
that really helps what we wish to see develop? Are you
advocating more work within this system or something different?
> Side note on memtics. Memetics has often in transhumanist circles > been seen as an apologetic term. "Memes" will spread on their own, it is often assumed. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. The friends of liberty and progess cannot allow themselves to just float around. Without active hosts the transhumanist meme will surely die.
>
This I very much agree with.
> >
> > The "20th century project" actually succeeded hugely as it
> > brought us to the place where we have this many options and
> > pssibilities. I agree though that the same game is not
> > appropriate now.
>
> Many of the positive effects you're discussing were derivating from the 19th century project. The 20th century project was a reactionary approach. Centralization, technocracy, nationalism, collectivism and homogenisation. That' s why we are back in 1901 today, the leap forward was to leave the 20th century's culture and ideology behind.
>
Really? So, the entire electronics revolution was just left
over stuff from the 19th century? The same for the dramatic
increase in life expectancy, the increase in knowledge, the
increase in living conditions worldwide and so on? This seems a
bit strained and perhaps unneccessary to belabor one way or the
other.
> > > That's why I call myself a dynamist primarily. We' ll have the >discussion about minarchy or anarchy after we have gained a lot of >pull in the debate, and change many things in today's society. But >not now- today we have to fight techno naivism and cybergnosticism >in our own ranks, and concentrate on raising the level of the debate.
> > >
But the very nature of who weilds power, what power is and so on
is essential to the debate.
> >
> > What do you mean by these terms precisely (or as much so as
> > possible)?
>
> Dynamist- stasist. Terms from Virginia Postrel's book "The future and its enemies"
>
I have read her book and I find the analysis a bit lacking.
Dynamism simply as lack of any particular control except that
which dynamically emerges does not seem to me to be the end and
be all of all that is good.
> Minarchy- a small government that is only preoccupied with protecting the lives, freedom and proprierty of its citizens.
>
> Anarchy- dispense even with the above. Order is preserved by other means.
>
> Techno naivism and cybergnosticism, see my previous letter "The problem with transhumanism".
>
It is actually these last two that I wanted a more concise
statement of than your previous letter.
You seem to say that the first is thinking that technology alone
is sufficient. That is certainly a valid point and a trap some
some of the time fall into. But there are also voices here that
continuously point out that technology alone is not enough. We
still require a vision of where we are and where we wish to go
if we are to actually navigate a future rather than being adrift
clutching our techno-toys.
That said though, news of technology breakthroughs is very
important because these are tools that allow us to transcendent
the current condition.
What do you see as the big conflict in terms of what it will
require and what and how it might be resolved?
I disagree with your cybergnostic statements generally. If we
are *trans*humanists then we care deeply about and are committed
to transcending human limitations of today. This is not merely
a step AWAY by any means. But I agree it takes vision and acts
of integration and creation to define what we are stepping
toward.
Constructive criticisms are welcome but broad slams against
others does not serve your avowed purpose.
What we are doing most certainly does have eschatological
implications as we are designing the endtime of what was and
creating our own heaven or hell that ourselves and our
descendants will live with and in. I think it behooves us to
think of what we are about that seriously.
Technological innovations are paradoxical in that major
innovations often come from one or a handful of researchers even
if they take a much larger involvement to become common-place
realities in the majorities lives. Much in technology is not
that terribly gradual at all. The pace is accelerating. Big
innovative leaps are fueled in large part by the quantity,
quality and density of ideas and communication. The density is
high today and getting higher. A very small set of further
combinations, extrapolations and extended discoveries and
integrations can have extremely large effect.
That said I do agree that many of these discoveries and
integrations will suffer if they are too privately conceived and
pursued.
It strikes me also that we spend much too little time conceiving
of exactly what we want to create in terms of a living future
and what steps we can take to bring it into being. We generally
speak of a few technologies or of the wildest consequences and
possibilities or circle around one another trading political and
philosophical positioning signals. That clearly isn't enough.
A reason some of us hesitate to involve ourselves with
"political reality" is that it is largely an insane asylum.
Personally I am "cybergnostic" enough to doubt seriously that
unagumented human beings can come up with a feasible and
rational morality from which to fashion a workable ethics and
thus a rational politics. My instinct is that we must make room
for the augmentation and transcendence of these limits in all
ways practical including, yes even, the political. But
especially we must envision what it is we wish to bring into
being. And we must see the needs and implications implied by
that vision and do what is required to acheive it. We cannot
afford to become so steeped in today's politics that we have no
time to vision what is beyond these limits and create it.
Sitting in front of my computer I can touch many more people
than I can appear in person in front of. The right tools for
the right age.
I agree that transhumanism/extropianism must gain intellectual
(and emotional and yes, even spiritual) strength. I may
disagree on particulars.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:11 MST