From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Thu Oct 31 2002 - 06:16:06 MST
Anders wrote:
>
> Most new nation schemes are just idle pipedreams or somewhat
> suspect economic ventures. The virtual nation idea mentioned
> earlier in this thread is far more realistic.
I'm not sure you whether your referring to my initial post or to the links
to Terra Libra.
> Not that virtual
> nations have any pull per se, but witness the growth of prestige
> and power of NGOs the last decade. Probably the smart thing to do
> is to work to create an international NGO with our values, plenty
> of credibility and money.
I think anything larger would necessarily start with an NGO,
internationally, or even nationally. I imagine most western countries would
have similar legal structures for non-profit NGOs as we have in Australia
for incorporated societies and associations and that therefore the NGO
structures would be grounded in a legislative framework and a particular
jurisdiction.
>
> Something like the WTA on par with Amnesty or Greenpeace would be
> far more efficient at enabling and promoting what we strive for
> than any number of freedomships and oceanias.
Agreed. But how do the numbers of extropians and transhumanists compare with
the numbers of members in Amnesty and Greenpeace I wonder and if the former
are far fewer why is that? Is it that the objectives of amnesty (freeing
political prisoners and speaking out against torture) and Greenpeace
(championing "the environment") simpler and easier to grasp than the
objectives of extropians and transhumanists which include but are not
limited to improved quality of life and longevity? Is it that these
organisation have been running longer?
> It would also require
> far less initial capital and uncertain political/legal issues. But
> it would require a very dedicated core of ambitious people willing
> to give all to bring about a great organisation.
I guess my thought is that brainstorming "engineering principles" takes
little capital and is a necessary precursor to building a construct
efficiently and effectively. Would you think that a great organisation is
more likely to emerge organically without being designed and that attempts
to distill optimal design principles to save time and effort are futile?
>The organisation
> would be their careers (and that may be the greatest problem with
> organisations - preventing them from becoming vehicles of
> propagating themselves rather than their or their leaders' goals).
Yes. This does seem to be a substantial problem. Nixon would seem to be one
example of at first a modern failure but latter perhaps of the checks and
balances build into the US structure proving their worth. Free press.
Separate legislature. Adversarial political parties.
> Building and maintaining something like this is not trivial. But it
> is good training if you want to try to build a real nation.
How could you know that? How can we rule out a top down approach where
perhaps a number of existing successful NGO's are brought together to bud
off something close to a real nation in one complicated but orchestrated
move?
When before, in the history of the world, has it been possible to say
without chicanery to rich and poor alike that a better standard of living is
possible for all. Technologically the imminent wherewithal to radically
extend life, creates an opportunity to offer something to the rich that they
do not have, provided we can get the societal mechanisms commensurate with
existant and emergent technological ones. The incentive to cooperation seems
to have never been greater. Whether we are the "last mortal generation" or
"first immortal" depends on our organisational capabilities IMO.
Brett
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:54 MST