From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Tue Jan 07 2003 - 17:44:14 MST
>From Natasha:
> My .....concern with this list has been over the many years to
> diffuse ........the wrongful claims made by some people that
> ExI is a political organization, which it is NOT and claims no
> particular affiliation with ANY one political mindset, platform
> or organization.
One needs only to read the extropian principles to see that
extropianism (defined there as "the evolving transhumanist
philosophy of extropy") aims to be inclusive of people rather
than exclusive of people.
I think, therefore that I do understand what you mean when
you say ExI is not a political organisation. Whilst individual
extropians and transhumanists are doubtless very much
interested in politics I certainly would not expect to see (nor
would I recommend) the forming of any political parties
running candidates in elections on platforms in the name of
transhumanism or extropianism.
But I would actually like further clarification on something
because a couple of points do come to mind.
First, as a class of people, extropians are thoughtful and very
interested in what is going on in the world and they are willing
and able to perceive different possible futures for themselves
and for people generally and to make judgements on the ones
that are better or worst and to work towards making the
better possible futures become realised rather than the worse
ones. Despite the obvious affection of some of us for
philosophical debate and discussion we are not merely
philosophers are we? Are we not also interested in actively
fostering particular types of change? Of seeing to ensure
that good policies rather than bad policies and laws are
enacted? That some memes and not others are promoted?
How can ExI be a meme-engine and not political?
Second, it seems to me that politics is not something that one
can always choose to avoid. If a group has a name, the name
can be used to make a political target of the group or
organisation, regardless of whether that group thinks of itself
as a political organisation or not. (This is analogous I think to
the old compete or cooperate fundamental choice. I may not
*want* to be competitive. But if someone chooses to compete
against me, they *can* remove the option of my cooperating
with them and effectively make me either compete or
unconditionally surrender. Effectively they can *make* me
compete). Is it not similarly the case that ExI, although it may
not see itself as a political organisation, and may not wish to
be a political organisation, could be forced to act politically if
someone or some organisation treats it politically? Perhaps
attacks it or misrepresents it?
There are groups in the world that hold views along the lines
that (I'm setting up a caricature) "There is no "Truth" but "The
Truth" and "our Fred" is The translator and The interpreter of
The Truth". These groups *do* have a political agenda. They
want to remove all dissenters, and all claimants to other truths
and ways of arriving at The Truth than through the revelation
of Fred (or Fred's "delegates" - but don't expect to see any
signed authorisation from now dead Fred :-)).
So where does ExI sit in the world of politics if it is not involved
in politics? Can it really be like a nature watcher in a game park?
Seems to me the meat eating predators can also take an
epicurean interest in nature watchers too.
Finally, if an organisation can be forced to respond politically,
might it not be good tactics to avail itself of political defences
that become available by admitting to being political. There is
in Australia at the moment a particular Aboriginal politician in
a prominent position within the ATSIC (Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Commission) charged with theft or fraud. He is
for the moment refusing to stand down from his position as
deputy head of the commission (whilst inquiries proceed) despite
much encouragement that he do so saying . (I'm paraphrasing)
He says the charges have arisen purely as a result of his political
opponents trying to discredit him. And that he looks forward to
clearing his name in court. Meanwhile he wont give DNA to the
police because, he says, they won't tell him why they want it.
Now here's my point. It seems that only a politician or political
organisation can credibly get away with a line like "this has all
been cooked up by my political opponents. Its completely
groundless". Non political organisations are left blinking into the
media spotlight like stunned to-be-roadkill, usually, completely
at a loss as to what to say when surprised by a completely
unexpected political attack.Pretty safe bet they thought they
were not political either. Maybe, just maybe. It is better to be
overtly political and therefore have the ready media "sound bite"
defence of "this attack is politically based and groundless"
available.
Where does ExI sit in a political world?
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:50 MST