>From: "Joseph 1" <neohuman@goldenfuture.net>
>Reply-To: extropians@extropy.com
>To: <extropians@extropy.com>
>Subject: RE: More Green Party
>Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 10:17:28 -0400
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Waldemar Ingdahl wrote on Thursday, June 29, 2000 10:49 PM:
>
> > Remember the basic principles of the welfare state: people are too
> > stupid, weak and evil to decide for themselves. It is better if a
> > technocratic elite does it in their place. Really, if something is
> > an opposition to
> > transhumanism it is the welfare and the attitudes it spread in the
> > population.
>
>I disagree. While that may be the case in regards to Extropianism, I
>see nothing in transhumanism in general that is at odds with the
>concepts of central planning, wealth redistribution, and the Welfare
>State as we know it.
Just the tiny problem that the above is at odds with the basic philosophical
assumptions of transhumanism. It isn't practical, neither is it moral since
it assumes a quite different view upon humans and their abilities. Central
planning, wealth redistribution and the artistocratic welfare state is a
very conservative idea, it implies that people are basically unable to
control their own lives. It isn't about improvement, it is about keeping
people on a certain level (this a rather friendly interpretation). An expert
can do it better, and if people start experimenting with their lives they
will fail. Centralism has shown its fallancies time and time again, since it
is riddled with a massive problem of information. It always tries to
simplify questions in order to put them into their system, so that they can
be processed. If the central bureaucracy doesn't condone a specific
transhumanist technique no one must be able to do it. In a free society a
variety of options are made possible, a plurality of agents may seek out a
number of possible solutions. Of course, this doesn't sit well in a society
riddled by expertoitis, where an elite of experts think themselves as higher
than the strange spontanous way to solve problems of the market, eventhough
it can process more information than a central bureaucracy.
> > In the welfare state
> > you don't have the economic resources to be innovative, people in
> > the welfare states are poor- the government is rich.
>
>I've always been interested in the perceived dichotomy among
>libertarians between the government and the people. Surely the people
>are the ones who make up the government? And I take issue with the
>notion that all innovation comes from individuals; groups (whether
>they be private associations, corporations, or the government) are
>just as capable of technological and social innovation as
>individuals. Moreso; because they have the ability to concentrate
>resources in a rational manner to achieve a specific goal. If you
>want to get from point A to point B, better one sled team moving as a
>unit than a pack of wild dogs roaming willy-nilly.
Maybe because you a raising a pseudo- question. Libertarianism isn't
atomist, quite the contrary. It is the WILLING, uncoerherced cooperation
between individuals that is cherised. But libertarians do remember that
there are no holistic, by themselves existing organisations, they are all
made up of individuals.
And have you ever heard about the risks of putting all your eggs in the same
basket?
> > You'll be just as innovative as other people tell you to be (its
> > not for you to decide, you don't have the means). But being
> > innovative isn't really all transhumanism is about. A nazi can
> > "play a bit with computers".
> > Transhumanism is a much greater stream of ideas that touch all
> > aspects of life. Transhumanism has to interest itself in politics.
>
>I agree completely. Transhumanism in general, and transhumanist
>sub-groups in particular, must interest itself in politics. We should
>be working to ensure that it is we who have our hands on the levers
>of political power, if only to prevent the ignorant and the greedy
>from interfering with our achieving our transformative goals.
>
>Joseph 1
But then again we must understand what our own philosophical basis is.
Otherwise we will propagate ideas that are contrary to our own ideology.
Once again, I recommend Virginia Postrel's book "The future and its enemies"
in order not to fall into the trap of arguing for transhumanism with the
ideas of our opponents.
Ingdahl
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:33:52 MDT