Re: Optimism [Was: flame wars]

From: Natasha Vita-More (natasha@natasha.cc)
Date: Thu Jul 17 2003 - 08:52:56 MDT

  • Next message: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky: "Re: Optimism [Was: flame wars]"

    At 11:15 AM 7/17/03 +0200, Anders Sandberg wrote:
    >On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 07:38:09PM -0700, Spike wrote:
    > >
    > > Dynamic and practical optimism
    > > has been more difficult in the last couple years,
    > > has it not?

    >Interesting point. I think this is part of the truth (I see the average
    >mood of the computer science students at the Institute every day), but
    >it is also a hint that we might be better off without "fair weather
    >extropians". There was a technological determinism-optimism of 90s
    >transhumanism that I have come to think of as both naive and
    >passivating. It is not dynamic optimism: it is passive optimism. If
    >the singularity is coming and Wired is always right, what use is there
    >of doing anything except cheerleading?

    I think we have been very practical, that is why we have moved from being
    naive cheerleaders of a possible future and now learning ways of actually
    making our ideas come to fruition by careful application and choosing our
    battles wisely.

    I don't think that our optimism is passive, I think it is a more matured
    sense of reality and rather than running here and running there trying to
    produce this and that and get so many members and have so many conferences
    .... (like a mouse in a cage running on the treadmill), that many of us are
    actually getting to the next levels of how to communicate, where to
    communicate and what to communicate.

    For example, being conserving energy and considering emotional
    sustainability, it is far better to not debate each and every biotechnology
    Luddite. Consider the recent debate with Greg Stock and George Annas. Greg
    was cool and stayed with the point, while Annas's augment zigzagged from
    space exploration to sodomizing children - totally off topic. Because of
    this, he lost a lot of credibility in the debating circle. His insults,
    finger pointing and sneering at Greg were so unappealing, while Greg stayed
    calm (maybe a bit too calm), and even if he missed the opportunity to nail
    Annas on some of his ridiculous points, he did conserve his dignity. Greg
    came out as the winner of the debate.

    In sum: I'd rather be quoted in one paragraph of reason in a 3-page
    article about hyperbole.

    >Dynamic optimism is about actually doing something constructive. Sure,
    >the IT sector is not doing great. But then we better invent new killer
    >apps or find ways of using the existing in better ways. With cheap
    >programming labor many new projects can be implemented that were too
    >expensive before. Cryonics doesn't work? Too bad, let's find another
    >solution. People are not acknowledging Drexler in nanotechnology? Write
    >papers that do. Investments went bad? Start over, a bit more cautiously.
    >Biotech is under regulatory and luddite attack. So? Go out and defend
    >it!

    Yes. Practice practical optimism.

    >Personally I am *more* optimistic about the transhuman future today than
    >I was just three years ago. We are finally starting to grow up.

    Me to.

    Natasha



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 17 2003 - 07:00:50 MDT