> I don't mean to argue basics here, to suggest that Schlesinger's
>specific fears aren't misguided ones, but do we really want to
>deny that changes of extraordinary magnitude are going down and
>that it may be useful to talk about them and even engineer their
>flow here and there to bring about the best results we can manage?
Yes, talk about them, engineer their flow here and there, but not
as part of a central authority.
>Postrel goes on to distinguish what she calls "stasists" from
>"dynamists", those who shrink from change as opposed to those who
>seek change, and drawing the ideological battle lines here seems
>to me to encourage a thoughtlessness in the face of the future
>that is reckless and hopeless.
I think you have this wrong, Statis refers to a centralized
planning authority, versus a decentralized/local knowledge way of
making decisions. Extropians are by definition dynamists.
>From the Article:
"Do we search for stasis- a constrained, regulated, engineered
future? Or embrace dynamism- the open-ended, evolving future?
Maybe a re-reading is in order?
Don't believe what they say about decaf..... ;)
Brian
Member, Extropy Institute