Also, I think we still have not put our core agenda in good shape. The transhumanist worldview is far less rich, complex and with connections to current issues than the anti-enlightenment views we are struggling with: compare the few paltry pages and texts we have with the massive environmental literature and its accompanying vision of a certain natural order, shored up by ties both to romanticism, the left and many consumer interests! It is not just a case that they have been doing it longer, the core worldview is rather consistent and easy to adapt to new situations - given a situation, any situation at all, and you can put it into the great narrative of environmentalism. It is far harder to do what with transhumanism, which makes it harder to make transhumanism an
integral part of other debates.
So, Anders EXACTLY what would you recommend to turn the tide? Can Pro-Act with little or no funding really be the catalyst to change things? And could Pro-Act somehow gain major corporate funding?
And aren't there already organizations sponsored or even created by megacorporations to advance a very pro-tech agenda? Wouldn't there funding levels be in the tens of millions?
Why is the "weight of the world" on our shoulders with this?
What do you see as the end results, if we fail to rise to the challenge, both short-term and long-term?
I would like to agree with Robert on this one, but I tend to think Anders is right. We may end up living in a "botched future" if the challenge is not met. Sort of, but not really, the 2020 or 2030 we always dreamed of.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:23 MDT