From: Natasha Vita-More (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Jan 10 2002 - 09:12:01 MST
At 01:37 AM 1/10/02 +0000, wrote:
>Whilst the finer details of Dr. J's paper have been gone over here, I'm
>glad to see that the "middle" ground, guy-on-the-street aspect of
>Transhumanism is being addressed. "Democratic" is a word most people
>relate positively to.
That in itself is a very different issue. The points of the paper which we
addressed where the negatively planted commentary which is both inaccurate
and subjective. Thus, James could have said reference such points he makes
as "In my opinion ..." or "It seems to me ..."
Frankly, I do not like being used inappropriately and I certainly do not
like having my values placed along in the same cell with anti-humanity
ideals. I think Eliezer stoutly and appropriately addressed his concerns
with James estimation of the Singularity. If I had time, I would have
taken apart sentences and paragraphs, which I will do, and which I promised
James I would do, at a later date.
Inasmuch, the paper is not *middle ground*.
Now, moving forward:
Have you read FM-2030? He, above all else, represents the middle person on
the street - guy or gal. His ideology is focused largely on politics and
his book reflects his particular philosophical approach to
Transhumanism. It may not be your approach, or mine, but there is no doubt
in my mind that it was written for the "people" -- everyone who he believed
was or could be interested in the nature of transhumanity.
In respect to democracy, the democratic aspects of Transhumanism has a bit
of a background which James did miss in his paper, if he represents
democracy as being of the people, and a political party which has changed
over the years and which does not hold strict party policy as it once
did. When we consider politics of the people, let's consider the lateral
landscape which is inclusive of a number of parties, and I would not elect
to outcast the Republican party. The Republican party has many
advantageous ideas and promises for the person on the street - from Rodeo
Drive to South Central.
While I am no longer a Green elected official, my platform was
"Transhumans" and it was for the "people" *and* the focus was environmental
issues and the use of smart technology. We may laugh at the Green party,
but here in Southern California is a pretty darn good means to infiltrate
the public arena. My former political colleague is now mayor of Santa
Monica, a very "people" oriented community and a globally visible community.
However, here issue is not just politics, but authenticity. In that we
cannot label any transhumanist group with a political lean unless and until
such group makes a declaration of such. The bigger issue here is pitting
one group against another by inference. Is such inference is weak then the
premise needs to be addressed.
When I think of the politics of transhumanism, I think of a future oriented
sensibility, not based on 20th Century political dogma. In that the basic
understanding of transhumanism is a better world for humankind, it would be
paradoxical not to enrich a transhumanist philosophical outlook with a
positive intention for "people on the street", if they are willing and
wanting. And even if they are not, certainly a banner of welcoming of
humanity exists within this sentiment.
Founder, Transhumanist Arts
Art Director, Digital Design
http://www.natasha.cc http://www.extropic-art.com http://www.transhuman.org
"I'd rather be inebriated on a classic life than a 1996 classic Merlot."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:33 MST