>From: Eugene Leitl <eugene.leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de>
>Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org
>To: extropians@extropy.org
>Subject: Re: Bugs in Anarchy was: Bugs in Free-Markets.
>Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 04:48:38 -0700 (PDT)
>
>Waldemar Ingdahl writes:
>
> > We are still a movement that hides in the basement, we' re not getting
>out
> > in the public forums, after so much time. Actually the trend does seem
>to me
> > to go backwards. Rereading old issues of Extropy magazine was
>interesting,
> > but frightening, the discourse was on a higher, more informed, level.
>
>Maybe it's just me, but it seems a few years ago the list discussion
>*was* at a higher level.
And the membership of a least the Swedish Transhumanist Association has been
"around 60 persons" for a bit too long.
> > In my last days in the Swedish Transhumanist Association I often found
> > myself writing e-mail about 30 or 40K long explaining basically
>"Economics
> > 101" to others, constantly trying to re- invent the wheel to keep the
>
>My hunch is that economics will be eventually reinvented, becoming
>essentially a formal physical/information theory. There's nothing
>basic about the economy. Everyone who thinks the field is mature is
>imho totally mistaken. Of course, we're not exactly throwing around
>equations and results from numerical models, when discussion markets &
>Co. I frankly admit to not knowing what the best system is, hence I
>usually keep my trap shut when such high-falutin' stuff is being
>discussed.
Frankly, isn't this a dismissal of economics as a scientific discipline?
Isn't it possible to observe how economics work in practice? Aren't there
any basics in economy, can it work in every possible way? Why do some
societies achieve economic success, while others don't? Can we find the
explanation to this? I personally question the too holistic and positivist
view of the presently dominant neo- classical school that is unfortunately
too much scientistic, prefering myself the individualist, praxeological view
of the Austrian school. But neither school would say that the other one is
irrelevant. The results of economics are very important. What economical
system will produce the best economy? What do we mean by the best? Questions
that are indeed very important to a transhumanist! What system will favour
progress and dynamism in society? What will the institutions of the various
systems be like, and will they favour the transhumanist ideology?
Knowing and learning about this is very important to a transhumanist, even
if he is involved in natural sciences and technology. That is why myself
have tried, correspondently, to learn as much as I can about computer
science, biology, chemistry etc. If I don't, I wouldn't be a very good
economist at all (as Friedrich A. Hayek would have said).
Being silent in the debate isn't a solution either, good theories don't win
the debate by themselves, and making a paraphrase of Pericles (the Athenian
statesman) "just because you do not take interest in economics, doesn't mean
that economics will not take interest in you".
There is of course a political side of this (but there is in all sciences,
even natural sciences, otherwise Gallileo Gallilei would never have had an
unfriendly meeting with the Inquisition, and Stalin wouldn't have been
nominated "the most important scientist of all times" in the Soviet Union).
Which system is practical and moral? And if we don't give people those
answers others will! And I don't think we'll see much possiblities to
develop transhumanism in certain economic systems. And we cannot build an
advanced technological civilisation by ourselves, we need a transhumanist
world, to make full use of the capacity of the economy to obtain our goals.
Then again, which system is best? Are there better ones than the ones we can
observe at present? Are transhumanism's goals even economically attainable?
> > My experience says that one of the problems are that the transhumanist
> > movement established itself, from the beginning, as an activist
>movement.
> > Activism is important, but it is a later stage in the development of a
> > political movement. Looking on how other movements established
>themselves
>
>Transhumanism is based on science and technology, right?.
Partially, it is also (as its forerunner humanism) a moral system (and I
dare say political because of its ideological considerations), isn't it?
Thus it makes a valiant attempt to do something that few philosophical
systems have even tried. Integrating the value of science and technology
into the fields of morality and political theory (the other example I come
to think of on a hunch is marxism) giving it an immense potential.
But transhumanism also tries to explain why it is morally good and practical
to use technologies, to develop oneself, to learn more, to be tolerant about
others choices ("long live all wetware, ban all hardware?") etc.
In themselves nanotechnology, genetics or AI computer programs are not
transhumanist technologies. They could just as well be used by, for
instance, a fascist ideology. What makes them specifically transhumanist is
the ideas of how these technologies ought to be taken into practice.
Frankly, I think that the fields of metaphysics and ontology (epistemology)
are relevant to transhumanism too, in order to reach values in morality and
political theory. But here perhaps we have more help by the approach of
science, based on aristotelianism (with modifications indeed, but that is
another discussion). But if we base ourselves on the "scientific"
("aristotelian") views in metaphysics and ontology it will generate certain
values in morality and political theory too, in order to avoid philosophical
discrepancies (once again there could be multiple answers here, but we could
at least see what answers wouldn't be possible).
This makes transhumanism a much deeper philosophy, that will instill more
ethusiasm in people (and even make them live as transhumanists), instead of
a bland technocratic view ("what are we going to use all that technology
for, and why is it good?")
This is the
>true cutting edge, and there all the work is being done. Everything
>else is, well, words and memes.
But those words and memes will influence very much if that science and
technology will ever develop. And please do not forget that it is called
transHUMANISM. Man is a very important part of this, since it is humans that
will use and value these facts or technologies. This is the part of
humanities and social sciences, to explain what human society is and even
what it could be like (I am not being positivist here, rather taking a more
Popperian approach).
But without these disciplines we cannot understand ourselves as individuals
or as societies. And how can we develop technologies for people that we
don't understand? And of course, if these disciplines show that
"transhumanist technologies" will have a negative impact on society (mind
you, a too big part of the present discourse in these disciplines are saying
just this), people will choose other values. "Virtual reality alienates
people to one another and brings about the collapse of true intrapersonal
contact, would you like to be alienated"? Nope. There a transhumanist view
can show that this wouldn't have to be the case at all, rather it could be
used to enrich intrapersonal contacts. A society that finds, for instance,
genetics, immoral and unpractical wont develop it.
And if we don't understand what transhumanist ideas are, how can we value
them?
See nuthin' wrong with that
>either. However, I'm getting a bit tired of this activism thing, at
>least in science goals are clearer, and there is a clear metric of
>progress. Otherwise one might wind up looking a bit like these
>stick-dry Objectivist Institute dudes, or the Sceptics Society. You
>know. They're there, but they're not quite there.
Will it be like that forever? Scientific philosophy could change, and
politics (the way of realising morality in society) influences sciences too.
Shutting oneself in the Ivory Tower isn't a good solution, then people
outside might really turn into angry peasants, that do not see the value or
practicality of science (if the scientific institutes wouldn't dry up much
earlier because of lack of scientists).
> > [mucho interesting ruminations snipped]
> > A change of strategy is at hand, I think.
> > Like our opponents say, this is World War IV. And if we don't
>understand
> > this and form ourselves into a better fighting force they will win,
> > unopposed.
>
>I don't see the instrumentality of the continued us-them
>polarization. First of all, this could really eventually lead to
>radicalization, including violence on either or both sides, which
>would seem monumentally dumb. Even our opponents can't help
>contributing to the cosa nostra by not dropping out of the
>economics/rat race. Why don't you give them a break?
I think that you grossly underestimate the power of ideas in a society. If
you consider the idea that cloning is immoral and unpractical you would try
to stop those lunatics too from developing it, wouldn´t you? These ideas are
gaining ground since there isn't any alternative, and people will follow bad
and old ideas if there aren't any new or good ones. All the while a small
bunch of transhumanists sit in basements saying that "nanotech is cool, huh,
huh, huh". I wouldn't take those ideas of how my future should be seriously.
I wasn't talking about MINDLESS activism (which unfortunately is the way
many see activism today). The WW4 will be fought inside people's heads, over
the ideas that they value or discard. It will probably not come to armed
fighting, if our opponents win, transhumanism will have since long stopped
being a relevant idea in people's opinions and in the cultural climate.
Armed revolutions seldom happen, ideological revolutions are much more
common. And the important force (at first) in that war, are the gatekeepers
of information: the intellectuals, and the majority don't sympathize with
us- actually quite the opposite in too many cases.
And they wont give us a break. They might want to "drop out of the rat
race", but they certainly wont let us keep going- since we could endanger
them with our unpractial and immoral behaviour.
No equivalent of
>neoludd PETA is going to pump you full of lead in the parking lot in
>front of your house yet,
The word is "yet". But watch them gain political power since no one
contradicts them. But it perhaps wouldn´t have to come to that, since my
transhumanism would be impossible to practice in a negative cultural
climate.
and I see no diabolical mad scientist world
>domination plans to be conducted in remote mountaintop castle
>laboratories being hatched here, so why can't we all get along. Some
>folks are concerned about electrosmog, or genetically engineered food,
>so what. They might not be scientifically schooled, and thus their
>opposition lacking rigeur,
Aren't there any scientifically schooled such persons? They are not
stereotypical hippies all, you know. And without transhuman scientists
taking action in the debate, even charlatans will be believed.
but their concerns are valid. Instead of
>"you ludd, no good", how about some gentle education?
Why should I consider some gentle education in something I regard as immoral
and unpractical? It is just bunk! Why should I permit the development of
technologies that endanger the whole of humanity, I don't want to die! Why
should I face the possiblity of letting my children growing up in the
callous, mechanized society were a blind technology steals the caring ties
between humans? After all, present technology could give everyone an
incredible living standard if we just redistributed the riches, this could
be done without all the dangers present in technological development. The
scope of transhumanism is certainly that of creating an elite that will live
on the few resources left.
Explain to me how you can be a proponent of such a monstruos ideology?
I meet this often (even increasingly in some very important parts of the
cultural climate).
-"Discussing genetically modified foods today is like discussing child
pornography"
VP of Novartis Seeds in an interview on Swedish television.
Novartis has finally dropped out of the kiddie porn business
For instance, we
>do know about the rodent long-term mememory problems when irradiated
>with cell-phone-type EM, and we do know that humankind tends to
>generate pests, by introducing organisms from remote areas of the
>globe with slightly differing fitness from those occupying a given
>niche, so that blanket assertions that release of genetically modified
>organisms into the environment could not lead to a yet another
>irritating man-made pest could be a bit premature? Not to speak about
>seed-total herbicide packages, leading to monopolization of markets,
>reducing ecological and economical diversity.
So why don't we ban that? What is it good for?
Sincerely,
Waldemar Ingdahl
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:37:19 MDT