> >I do not agree with you, Kathryn. Let me explain.
> >Is the above really interesting?
>Gosh, I didn't know it had to interest you in particular to be a valid
>concern. It sure interests me--from my end things are pretty darned lonely
>and sometimes very stressful. It also interests the five or so women who
>dropped in on the lists last year, had a miserable experience, and wrote to
>me about it. (and left)
I don't know anything about this, since I wasn't a member of the list then. Could you please explain further?
>Also, we are still largely European and Euro-American. There is a big
>expansion ahead, but we are still talking amongst ourselves as if *we*
>comprise all there is to transhumanism! There is a huge set of
>perspectives and experiences left untapped, and we may not get to tap into
>them unless we make some effort.
Yes, you are right. Some of these groups do not even seem to be active on the Internet.
"Effort" could simply mean making
>ourselves known in forums and networks we hadn't previously considered.
>Simple coalition-building techniques. Right now our networking is very
>narrow in scope, tends to be among those we feel comfortable with.
You're right. What forums and networks do you have in mind?
> >We should be looking out for good prospects
> >in general, without looking for a specific gender (what are genders going
> >be in the future, probably intersexuality or serial gender), race (hey, I
> >a mix of Swedish, Italian and Norwegian), age (we should have more 500
> >old members, agree to that).
>I was very careful not to suggest 'recruting' or 'quotas', and yet this
>statement always comes up whenever someone tries to discuss diversity. The
>lurking PC club used to stifle discussion....
Sorry, I too accustomed to the stifled debate climate here in Swiiiden:-) Here it is automatic that whenever discuss these things you propose that the government should a law about it. So sorry, I'm not in the habit to discuss it with sensible persons like you.