From: Jacques Du Pasquier (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Feb 06 2002 - 03:43:11 MST
I found it wasn't bad. I think the concept of listening (input),
discussing (processing), and voting (output), in succession, was quite
a good idea, and I thought it was a nice use of the web to let people
think about something.
I thought designing web sites with such limited content and guided
interaction could be a great way to spread particular idea. People
could say : "you know what nanotech is ? no ? well have a look at that
address" ; and instead of finding there a whole book or series of
article, there would be limited content and a guided interaction with
a beginning and an end, taking the user by the hand, a conveying a
simple but accurate version of the ideas.
You could even have a (private) institution that becomes well-known
for providing useful popular simple-but-accurate presentations of
concept, that could be referred by people in democracies. Think
"therapeutic cloning" for example.
Why the hell don't political parties do that ? (Or maybe they do ?)
In Switzerland, they have a direct democracy as you know, which means
people vote very often on very many things. Before each voting day,
citizens receive a booklet with a description of each topic to be
voted on, with a presentation made by the gov., but also a
presentation made by political parties defending opposite viewpoints.
It is not too long, and every "good citizen" is supposed to take some
time to read it and make up his mind, before to cast his vote.
Alex Ramonsky a écrit (6.2.2002/09:27) :
> I was wondering when someone would notice this...half expected to see some
> more of you guys on it...The UK media does this: it chucks things at people.
> In at the deep end, a little like the style of 'Great Mambo Chicken' did way
> back whenever. Be assured the program isn't aimed at kids...it's aimed at
> the average British person's knowledge of science...and more. It's going to
> cause as many endless debates as GM food did last year. But with one
> essential difference...this programme comes out apparently firmly on the
> positive side of new tech. And, as you say, at least some of the
> 'spokespersons' know what they're on about.
> The debates are going to be heated and over the top for about six months,
> after which things will settle into the traditional British habit of
> -so-who-cares?' Meaning, simply, that people on the whole will forget about
> it all again.
> But which is the best tactic here? -Any publicity is good publicity?
> Or -stay out of the news; stay out of trouble?
> What thinkest thou?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "estropico >" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: <email@example.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 16:45
> Subject: MEDIA, UK: how to build a human
> > On the BBC website, there's a section dedicated to the TV program "How to
> > build a human", mentioned in previous messages as having a borderline
> > transhumanist attitute.
> > At this
> > you can debate the pros and cons of immortality, listen to the experts
> > (watch out for Nick Bostrom) and vote. When I had a look, the ratio was
> > about 70:30 between those that would like to live forever (various
> > and those that wouldn't.
> > The graphics of the site make it look like its targeted at kids (unlike
> > tv program) and you won't find much that you don't already know, but it's
> > pleasant surprise to find an all-out transhumanist in the experts' panel!
> > At this link (http://www.bbc.co.uk/genes/) you can find out more about the
> > program.
> > Cheers,
> > Fabio
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
> > http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:38 MST