I see posts on this list all the time about how various
governments pass stupid laws and otherwise trample on things
that we like or want- why not try and fund our own organization
for stopping these problems?
dalec@socrates.berkeley.edu wrote:
>
> On Sun, 4 Jan 1998, Twink wrote:
>
> > I think there is a great deal of apprehension on this list toward the words
> > "movement", "ideology" and the like. I don't think it does much good to
> > do all kinds of handwaving, denying, and neologizing to avoid such terms.
>
> This may be, tho' for me it is not so much that I am apprehensive about
> movements or ideology, as that I think these words have meanings and I'm
> simply not sure extropianism as I see it functioning in the world behaves
> particularly *like* a movement. If it wants to be a "movement", I'm
> curious to see just what its agenda finally amounts to.
>
> > >I am not sure if it makes much sense to think of extropianism as a
> > >movement, given the forms it seems to exhibit most characteristically over
> > >the five years or so I've been looking it over. More like a constellation
> > >of spaces in which a group of people discuss certain idiosyncratic
> > >preoccupations (most of which I share)....
> >
> > I think you are too close to it. Step back and you will see the forest where
> > there were only trees. You might also be able to see some of bad parts of
> > the movement, and help to make repairs.
>
> I don't know what you mean when you say I am too close to it. Certainly I
> agree with you that this is a discussion about seeing the forest as well
> as the trees. I don't see how I'm diagnosing "bad parts" of the
> "movement," and I can't see how to recommend "repairs" when my question is
> about what extropianism is functioning *as* in the first place. As a
> clearinghouse for ideas about technological development and life-extension
> practices, extropian fora seem to function admirably well.
>
> > [snip] What we need are people not to speak
> > out for a particular idea, but for "technology as good" for technotran-
> > scendence, and growth. Having an actor or actress do this would make
> > the ideas reach even more people.
>
> "Technology is good" is as good a transhuman slogan as WIRED's recent
> "change is good" -- that is to say, it is no good at all. Good technology
> is good. Foresight in the face of exponential technological development
> is good. Extropians seem to have a more robust sense than even most
> conventional technophiles of just how sweeping technological
> transformation may soon get (even if you are wary about the likelihood of
> a singularity), and this puts us in a position to make a real difference
> in preparing the world for these changes and ameliorating the worst of the
> damage they might cause while embracing their benefits. *This* insight is
> worth building a movement around, imho.
>
> > A format that might come to mind is... A child is dying of some hormone
> > deficiency. Clone sheep are producing the hormone through the wonders
> > of genetic engineering. Show this stuff in action. Show the child living
> > another day. Have the well known person read the copy and cry and
> > cheer at the appropiate moments.
>
> This would likely be of benefit (although I have some issues about the
> unquestioning instrumentalization of nonhuman animal species in scenarios
> like this), but I fail in any case to see how it is more than incidentally
> "extropian," if "extropian" denotes a movement with a discernible agenda
> beyond broadly humanistic optimism with a background in sf. How would
> propaganda favorable to cloning connect up with right to die legislation,
> competing security agencies, jupiter brains, and the like? Cloning
> doesn't need extropianism, except insofar as cloning is a stepping stone
> toward something like a singularity. This is why I agree with you that
> this is a discussion about the forest *and* the trees where extropianism
> as a movement properly so-called is concerned.
>
> > This might get a lot of the fence sitters on your side and the masses, who
> > then can be used to bully politicians into not outlawing cloning. It seems
> > worth a try.
>
> I can't for the life of me figure out what fence-sitting amounts to in
> regard to what extropians want *as extropians*. Who are the
> fence-sitters? Those who think the future won't happen? Those who don't
> realize the changes are going to be big ones? Or the ones who aren't
> actively in the labs and boardrooms doing the research and drumming up the
> capital to incubate these changes? By all means, it's worth trying to
> keep cloning legal in the face of unreasoning fear. That would be a good
> thing. But is that enough on the face of it to make it an *extropian*
> thing?
> _______________________________________________________________________________
>
> Dale Carrico | dalec@socrates.berkeley.edu
> University of California at Berkeley, Department of Rhetoric
> _______________________________________________________________________________
>
> It is impossible to make significant change by force.
> The only way to make significant change is
> to make the thing you want to change obsolete. -- R. Buckminster Fuller
> _______________________________________________________________________________
> "Death, where is thy sting-a-ling?" -- Noel Coward
> thing. Is that enough on thge face of it to make it an extropian thing?
--
The future has arrived; it's just not evenly distributed.
-William Gibson
______________________________________________________________________
Visit Hypermart at http://www.hypermart.net for free business hosting!