From: hal@finney.org
Date: Sun Jun 24 2001 - 22:42:43 MDT
I want to raise two concerns about the use of propaganda, identification
of opponents or enemies of our goals, the "memetic battle" which seems
to lie ahead.
The first is that, in my opinion, the current situtation is very
encouraging overall. Our ideas are being heard, they are seeping into
popular culture. And what we have to offer is tremendously attractive.
Essentially it is the fulfillment of all of mankind's age-old dreams:
perfect health, perfect life, perfect beauty, remaking ourselves to
reach all of our goals. People are beginning to see that this is where
our technological society is headed.
Given this inducement, the task of those who would oppose technology
is overwhelmingly difficult. They have to basically sell death, sell
misery, sell poverty and squalor. Sure, they put their own spin on it,
but more and more, people are growing savvy to the implications.
Look at the response to Joy. Yes, he got a lot of attention, but there
has been no major positive response to his call. No one is talking
seriously about banning research into any of his pet perils and quoting
him for support. Or see the article I sent a few minutes ago about
Republicans voicing support for medical research into stem cells.
These are old men who are beginning to realize that their political
posturing could cost them their lives and health. Pandering to the
religious right is suddenly not so attractive any more.
I don't mean to overstate this, because clearly there are potential
problems and reversals ahead. But we should not get so locked into
the struggle that we lose track of the tremendous forces which are on
our side.
The second point is one I have made before, that I feel we should work
toward a new methodology for addressing the genuine difficulties which
some people have with aspects of future technology. The language of
battle, of conflict, is not the appropriate metaphor for addressing
this problem. We should not seek to vanquish our opponents, to defeat
them in debate or in politics.
We are facing enormous changes in the decades ahead. Yes, we can hope
for all the good things I have listed above. But there are parts of our
philosophy which have not percolated, things we understand that no one
else does yet. We know that along with all of these changes, we have
the ability to do much more, to change ourselves beyond recognition.
And we know that the drive to reach our goals, to perfect outselves, will
carry us beyond a point where most people today would be comfortable.
The future is not going to be Star Trek, it will be something strange
and unimaginable, because that's what happens when you give people the
power that we will have.
Given this, I believe it is morally incumbent upon us to make sure
that the choices everyone makes, the paths we follow as a society, are
fully informed. Rather than trying to fight those who propose caution,
we need to recognize that they are responding in a natural way to a
difficult and challenging situation.
This is not a battle. It needs to be a dialog, a conversation, in which
issues are raised openly and discussed in a constructive way. Only in
this way can we find our way to the unimaginable future without falling
into a conflict that tears the world apart.
So I would encourage people to try to stop thinking in terms of enemies
and conflict, propaganda and debate. Let us be open rather than closed,
flexible rather than dogmatic. We want to add one more voice to be heard,
not to suppress others from having their voice heard as well.
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:16 MST