From: Waldemar Inghdahl (waldemar.ingdahl@eudoxa.se)
Date: Tue Jun 19 2001 - 15:39:56 MDT
----- Original Message -----
From: <hal@finney.org>
To: <extropians@extropy.org>
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 8:46 PM
Subject: Re: The meaning of philosophy and the lawn chair
> Waldemar Inghdahl, <waldemar.ingdahl@eudoxa.se>, writes:
>
> > It is a tragic irony of our times that the two worst, bloodiest regimes in
> > history, the Nazis of Germany and the Communists of Soviet Russia, both
> > of whom were motivated by brute power- lust and a crudely materialistic
> > greed for the unearned, showed respect for the power of philosophy and
> > spent billions of propaganda and indoctrination. Today, when looking
> > back we are appalled. Their ideas were so openly morally debased and
> > unpractical, they were nuts! But even so millions followed and died for
> > those ideas. In the US and other Western countries who claim to believe
> > in the superiority of the human spirit over matter, you often find that
> > its citizens neglect philosophy, despise ideas, starve the best minds of
> > the young, offer nothing but the stalest slogans of cyncial pragmatism,
> > and wonder why they are losing the world to the thugs.
>
> Can't you draw the opposite lesson from this, though? It is a bad sign if
> you find yourself resorting to propaganda in order to make your policies
> acceptable. If the most successful propaganda states were Nazi Germany
> and Communist Russia, are you sure you want to advocate joining them?
In my days at school here in Sweden my social sciences teacher once said very good phrase: "you have to win each new generation for democracy". It was one of the best things he said, and it has stayed with me since. Because there has been very successful propagandists in the past: for liberal democracy both in the US and in many parts of Europe (and there still are). The term "propaganda" is a derogatory term for something else- the active spreading of ideas. This can be done by liberals, by conservatives, by national- socialists, by marxist- leninists, by greens as well as transhumanists.
I believe that conflict, and a civilized democratic debate with many views, is a very important part of a democracy. Ideas test each other then: may the best ones win! Wouldn't it be bad if there was only one road towards the future conceivable? But some roads exclude others, and if you want (what you are convinced), the best policy to win you must use "propaganda". Or rather support it well intellectually.
What defined the term "propaganda" of the 20th century, was the sheer force the totalitarian governments put behind it. In all the movies, every radio program, all the newspapers, all the schools the same message was dished out. But having a lot of resources doesn't get your message through necessarily. It is like having a loudspeaker, but people don't understand what you are saying, if the ideas haven't been proliferate in the cultural climate beforehand. The real victory of those dreaded regimes came earlier, with the "propaganda" spread by the intellectual environments that had accepted those ideas.
That is the problem today, the ideas of freedom, progress and dynamism have their champions (and they have obtained some results, or none of us would be mailing on this list, for instance). But the debate isn't fought well enough. As the Swedish libertarian thinker Per Ericson said "we are losing the battle of the schoolyard". Unfortunately, I think he is more right than one would like, dynamist thoughts are having a tougher time than they should in convincing the particularly the young, who should be able to see many of there benefits. This depends on stasist thoughts being more thourghly propagated, at present.
> With effective policies and ideas, you don't need propaganda. People
> will come to see the value in them using their own powers of reason
> and perception. The West neglects philosophy because its ideas work,
> and it doesn't need fancy rhetoric to fool people.
>
> Propaganda is the last resort of a failed ideology. Better to let the
> facts speak for themselves.
>
> Hal
I think that transhumanism would fare well of being ideological. In the long run it isn't tactics, or luck, nor economic conjunctures that determine which ideology that will dominate a country's politics. The most important thing is to have a strong ideological defence for one's ideas, both morally and practically.
Please, allow me to to follow a chain of thought
If freedom is perceived as unfair- for instance if entrepreneurs are not seen to deserve their incomes- people in the long run wont accept the system. In the short run they might be forced to agree that freedom is necessary, and they might even cherish some of the good results, but they will use every opportunity to regulate, taxate or even ban the "unfair" system. What is the "fact" then?
And if people of a more utilitarian bent say that the transhumanist (or any other individual) should only have freedom when it benefits everybody else, you will soon find exceptions where the freedom of the transhumanist wont benefit the whole of the collective. It is the idea that the individual is only a part of a greater plan- the state organism, the race, the common good, the eco- system, history- that has in all times justified the abolition of freedom. Transhumanists must fight such ideas and defend the individual as a goal in himself, not as a tool for others' goal. Imagine, if you will, what could happen in a society with access to advanced technology of genetic manipulation, and the idea that the individual is just a tool for the "common good". Suddenly the technology in itself takes on a much darker aspect, doesn't it?
The focusing on the welfare creating effects of freedom and technology must not obscure the fact that the individual isn't a tool for the welfare of society.
It is always very, very dangerous to duck in a theoretical debate. Every time an ideology has been accused of being too theoretical and too attached to principles- for instance liberalism in the 19th century, communism in the 60' s, libertarianism in the 80' s- these ideologies have met some of their greatest successes. It depends on the fact that the adversaries come with that accusation when they don't have any arguments left, when they haven't understood the ideas, or are unable to find its weak point. Then it is tempting to say that the ideology maybe is good in theory, but doesn't work in practice.
But to give up the theoretical debate is to loose it. It is the theories that interpret reality and direct practical action. The evaluation of the fact if an economic depression depends on the "integral instability of the market" or that "the government's monetary policy is fallacious" will decide the political future- the practical action that seems to be the viable one.
Certainly ideas aren't born in a vacuum, independent of all other societal developments- the connections are many and complex. It is the ideas of the individual that shape the course of action and the society that he lives in- but so does the society too, in a dialectical process.
When I have looked into the history of other ideologies (particularly that of Swedish liberalism) it has always acheived it greatest successes when it has acted on the long term scale to influence the ideological debate. I think this is likely for transhumanism too. But then the transhumanist ideology must be well developed and free from its worst contradictions (which there always are, as in all processual works).
But now we get to that long awaited transhumanist "propaganda" bit, because an ideology doesn't fare well if being just analytical and theoretical. There is no surer recepy for disaster (believe me I' ve experienced myself) than a transhumanism that spits out scientific facts or huge ideological constructs without any pathos. It must be able to talk directly to people and take their problems seriously. The theory is the one that truly concerns itself with practice, and the good theoretician is the one that can show what decisive influence theories has in the lives of ordinary people.
Waldemar
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:12 MST