From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Sat Jan 04 2003 - 03:02:33 MST
Natasha wrote:
> Damien wrote:
>
> >This merry little piece by former extropian frequent-
> poster Lyle Burkhead (quoted as `Augustine' in THE SPIKE)
> reminded me that it's *not* an egregious libel to claim that
> some transhumanists are racists and fans of Hitler.<
>
> Okay, let's debate this.
I've read the piece Damien refers too as well. Lyle Burkhead
looks to me like the sort of guy you might need to be careful
where you were seen (or more likely overheard talking with)
but on the whole based only on his writting he comes across
to me as a likeable and intelligent guy wrestling as many
intelligent folk do with ways to make progress and to improve
his own and the "human condition". I can imagine he would
get into a lot of trouble, perhaps more than he needs to, and
might express exactly the sort of views that are so easily
distorted in sound bytes and caricatured by the media. But
I can also imagine his sort easily beneath the sort of broad
umbrella of transhumanism I'd approve of. And he to his
credit would not care if I approved.
In an earlier time Lyle is the seems to me to be the sort
who would have gotten himself (and perhaps others
around) him burnt as a witch. The witch-burners would
be wrong but Lyle and associates would be no less burnt
for that.
>
> First, how can a transhumanist be a racist if the very
> meaning of transhumanist runs counter to the very
> meaning of a racist?
Having just read Greg's response to Toth Fejel as well, it is
becoming fairly clear to me that the term transhumanism has
meant and probably still means different things to different
people.
Lyle himself makes clear that there is in his mind a distinction
between types of transhumanists and that he may be a
transhumanist but not necessarily say an Extropian.
I can imagine a person questioning honestly the validity of
racial claims and still being a transhumanist. Only Athena
emerges whole from the thigh of Zeus the rest of us have
to form and review our ideas and prejudices in real time
and over time.
If I am the bell weather for racism then I think the fight
against racism is doing very well. I'm not of course. I still
think its legitimate to consider differences between groups
and races. As it happens its not my area of interest but it
is not invalid per se, or so far as I can see anti-transhumanist
per se to question whether there are racial differences that
are significant.
>
> Or, are you stating that some *people who might call
> themselves transhumanists through an association of
> some specific set of beliefs and goals of transhumanists*
> are racists?
On my reading, Lyle Burkhead, from his own words, falls
exactly into this category. I would therefore say this
statement is true as he is an instance of the class "some
people".
>
> If a person, such as Lyle Burkhead (I don't know him,
> but the name is familiar), or Mr. X, turns adverse to
> and disconnects from a belief system that he once felt
> aligned to, and in his adversity begins to act in a manner
> that is ethically questionable, would you call him the
> same person who he had been in a very different mind set?
I would.
Though that Lyle Burkhead has a *very* different minset
now to that which he had earlier would not seem to be his
view, or mine based on what he says (only) in the link
referenced.
Also I'm not sure I'd want to be connected to a belief system
either, I like Max More's approach to belief systems, as I
understand it. Beliefs are too be avoided if possible and
minimised when not - hence PCR.
>
> Or, would you claim that Mr. X had some sort of mental
> disconnect and that his behavior was more symptomatic
> of anger and [rage] and that because of this behavioral
> dysfunction was emotionally out of touch with reality?
Based only on the reading of the link. I would not think this
description fits Lyle Burkhead (or by extrapolation Mr X.)
>
> Or, would you claim that Mr. X was still the very same
> person he had been and that the identity and affiliations
> he had once claimed were in a state of stasis? -- That he
> was still a transhumanist (if he ever claimed to be, I don't
> know) and that his strain or brand of beliefs, in their
> racist tone, are transhumanist?
He did claim to be at some stages. He wrestled with
whether the label was worth the effort. A wrestling most
intelligent people go through in my view when deciding to
describe themselves with words or isms that carry baggage.
I'd say Mr X is the same person. Aspects of him have
changed but his personhood was not discontinuous merely
because his opinions changed and he varied from time to
time.
Brett
PS: Well before I was aware that there were such things
as transhumanists I was a sceptic (I founded a university
skeptical society) and was for several years a "card
carrying humanist. I must have flagged the interest of the
US sceptics recently some how as they've sent me an
express post offer to subscribe and denote :-)
For several years I was a member of a state branch of
a humanist society. One of the things that put me off
"organised" humanism was the behaviour of others who
also called themselves humanists. Ironically what
motivated the worst behaviours was a concern by some
of the stalwarts of the society that all their time and effort
in building it would be wasted, that the society's name
and reputation would be irreparable damaged if certain
irresponsible practices and people were allowed to do
and say as they pleased. (For the record I do NOT see
ExI in this light). It does not take much imagination to
see that these stalwarts of the society were right to be
concerned but it similarly take little imagination in my
view anyway to see how trying too hard to protect a
"brand" can actually choke of the very vitality of the
organisation itself.
I wish I knew some magic answer that would allow
people to both form societies and leverage the good
that they could do collectively without at the same time
creating brands or flags that can be abused or tarnished
by opportunistic types.
Alas the line between constructive criticism of what one
wishes to improve and empower and running the risk
of becoming part of its destruction is a very hard line to
walk.
In my previous experience with the state humanist
society I reluctantly came to the view that the same
stalwarts that assured themselves they were holding the
society together were in fact only holding together only
their own vehicle. They were in my opinion blocking a
more vibrant and relevant form of humanism. I was
disappointed by that as I thought if ever there was an
"ism" inclusive enough and self-evidently relevant
enough to have appeal to all people humanism
sounded like it might be it.
Reluctantly I had to walk away. I could not have
reformed that particular society (I was concerned with
and focussing on improvements to its processes of
reporting and accountability etc, not personally seeking
a platform, I don't have trouble finding platforms)
without first breaking it well beyond what I could
reasonably have repaired short of making it my life's
work. I wasn't willing to do that. All organisations lose
their vitality when one person has too much influence,
and I had no interest in becoming that one person myself.
Sorry to go off on a tangent, its just that I can empathise
both with those who are concerned not to have harm
come to a good "brand" like ExI that is doing *very*
good work, and yet I also worry that if criticism, even
constructive criticism is limited only to those minor
matters that even a casual reader of the list would not
find challenging then the health and vibrancy may not
be able to be achieved. It could be that there is a level
of constructive criticism of any groups core values and
principles that (whilst needing to happen for its health)
should not happen on a public list.
Yet even that conclusion is troubling, because not all
newbies to extropian thought will be intellectual lightweights
and if the material content gets too low or sanitised these
folk may actually be discouraged rather than encouraged.
But there is also another point. Extropians and transhumanists
are involved in a meme-war with, for want of a better word
the forces of entropy. (FOE :-) ) We don't have to
characterise these forces as persons, we can see them as
the behaviours and actions of persons, but the fact remains
there are strong forces in the community acting against the
memes and objects of extropians and we need robust forums
to counter those forces and marshal pro-active extropic
responses of our own. If this list goes too far down the path
of being a place for casually interested potential extropes
to sample the fare without being put off, it may become less
of a forum of interest to those extropians willing and able to
marshal "political" action however gently that word is
interpreted.
My verbosity not withstanding I am not interested
in hijacking anybody's forum or organisation. I think
the causes I would like to see more effective action
on are causes that are completely consistent with
mainstream extropic thought. I would include for
instance the sharing and propagation of memes
and techniques that could accelerate, responsibly
and ethically the rate at which beneficial biotechnological
innovations and treatments may become available
to people.
Regards,
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:50 MST