My two cents (for anyone who's really addicted to this thread):
A more or less libertarian political program happens to be well suited to the goals of transhumanism today. Free markets and open societies are great for the spread of scientific knowledge and the development of technology. But I don't value libertarianism because I find it morally superior to state intervention.
Robert Bradbury wrote:
>I don't consider it a "wimp-out" to want to
>find the *most* effective strategy for getting
>nanotech, surviving the singularity, promoting
>the increase in diversity necessary to avoid
>"clone wars" and *balance* the desire for
>freedom with the risks and benefits of very
>open societies.
I hope that none of us would call it "wimping out" to take the surest, safest path to these goals, even if that means taking advantage of the current political climate. If a little well-placed state interevention in some areas will help more then it hurts, I'll favor state intervention.
Chris Fedeli