From: pchaston (pchaston@supanet.com)
Date: Sun May 05 2002 - 12:57:55 MDT
>
> Mike Linksvayer:
> >You bet. Very unfortunate organization name, I don't want the word
> >"transhuman" associated with the above sentiment.
> >
> > Anti-Luddite Front
> > Enemies of Ludd
> > Technology First! <-----
>
> Amara Graps:
> I like the latter one best, because it's more positive. (although
> is it a good idea to have 'technology first' associated with actions
> that will be perceived as eco-terrorism?)
>
> The people that Mike is targeting are a group of people who are
> interested in putting good nutrition in their bodies. Those are
> the people that we _want_ on our sides. That they might be misinformed
> about 'organic', 'biologic', 'okologic', etc. can be handled more
> sensibly.
> Approaches like what he proposes will make enemies. No one will
> see it as a way to educate about the content of foods.
As Western societies tend to view the social consequences of new
technologies as single issues and have little understanding of the points of
view put forward by transhumanists or extropians, should your emphasis not
be upon education and persuasion to construct a sympathetic and broad
constituency amongst the general populace.
Labelling, without a context of explanation, will not work as the consumer
who reads your label will not understand why you have done this.
But then, I despair of those who brand any differing or opposing viewpoint
as "luddite", a lazy term that unifies a complex grouping of organisations,
because it is always easier to insult your opponents rather than debate with
them (except for extremists, who are defined as such by their unwillingness
to engage in rational argument). If you had confidence in your arguments and
the courage to make them, you would win.
Philip Chaston
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:50 MST