Anders Sandberg wrote:
> "Corwyn J. Alambar" <email@example.com> writes:
> > I am not an advocate for censorship - self- or externally imposed -
> > even though at first blush it seems that way. With the essay by Joy
> > and the favorable responses, however, is it wise to continue to feed
> > the flames? Choose your word and phrasings wisely, so they say what
> > you mean - nothing less, nothing more. Talk of "raping" a planet
> > carries images that are unpalatable to even some of your fellows.
> Amen to that.
> It is interesting to think about how much of this jargon is completely
> joking or ironic, and how much is actually an ill-considered subtext.
How can one help but to ridicule statements that are made in ignorance of the
facts at hand? The posts yesterday about the connection between Kazinsky's
primitivism and the anti-tech humanism promulgated at Harvard (and in US
academia in general) pretty much explains to me why someone like Bill Joy could
find so much credence in Kazinsky's writing: He had already been
programmed/inculcated in this anti-tech humanist mindset in college. One of the
interesting things, at least to me, that I think that nobody in the Bill
Joy/Unabomber debate has noticed, is that the Unabomber's technique actually
demonstrated the reverse of what Kazinski was trying to get across. He claimed
that the death and destruction and ecological and human devastation was the
result of technological society, when his bombs were extremely primitive,
demonstrating that a primitivist society is just as capable of sowing death and
destruction across the land.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:14:08 MDT