From: Guru George (gurugeorge@sugarland.idiscover.co.uk)
Date: Tue Nov 11 1997 - 03:45:38 MST
Steve Witham said:
>And these are only preliminary, preliminary thoughts.
It's good to bring this up, and it is indeed part of the 'critical
thinking' side of Extropianism.
Going right back to fundamentals: it seems clear that we must accept
that *any* technological creates new problems as it solves old ones
(this is what we would expect from a Popperian analysis of knowledge).
The question to focus on, as you suggest, is: does it create more, or
more difficult and dangerous problems, than it solved? I think the knee
jerk response of the anti-technological is that it always must
necessarily do so, and that's the bushfire we've got to pour cold water
on.
Also, we must remember that part of the seductiveness of the neo-primitive
position is in the "better the devil you know" argument. e.g., what's
the use of progress if we are increasingly stressing ourselves out by
having to juggle and balance more and more complexities against each
other? Why start that process? Is the increase of possibilities such a
great value when the price we have to pay is that we are unable to take
advantage of them because we're having to devote so much time and energy
to solving the problems that the mechanics of providing them create? What
sorts of answers can we give to those questions?
As an aside, my opinion on Bey is that he is merely clever and ridiculously
vain. Everyone ought to read him, but no-one ought to take him too
seriously. His one great meme is the TAZ, which I think has been
(deservedly) quite influential.
Guru George
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:45:07 MST