Re: MEME: Leaderless Resistance

From: Anders Sandberg (asa@nada.kth.se)
Date: Mon Mar 17 2003 - 02:58:18 MST

  • Next message: Reason: "RE: MEME: Leaderless Resistance"

    On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 07:46:01PM -0700, alexboko@umich.edu wrote:
    >
    > So, I ask the question I've been asking in one form or another on this forum
    > over and over for years, but never as concisely as now:
    >
    > What do we do?

    [Complex answer. Short form: extend the current narrative by
    professionalising transhumanism]

    You mention http://www.hf.caltech.edu/hf/b3/scenarios/, and I think it
    is a good example of what we have to do. If you examine the scenarios it
    is very obvious (to us) that they totally ignore the possibilities so
    dear to us. Instead these scenarios are variants of the standard futures
    people usually think of (you will find variants of these scenarios again
    and again in the future studies literature) - people are very much
    trapped in a standard narrative of what the possibilities are (things go
    on as usual, we revert to barbarism or we end up with a world state) and
    cannot see things outside it. A bit like when Herman Kahn outlined
    different future world systems in 1970, and completely missed the
    possibility of Soviet imploding. That was simply not part of the range
    of thinkable things.

    [ We should also be aware that we are ourselves often trapped in a
    narrative of our own. On Transvision 2000 I had a mini-lecture about my
    distrust of the "railway to the future" standard view of the future
    among transhumanists. We have plenty of things that are unthinkable to
    us, but thanks to the existence of another, dominant future paradigm we
    are at least often reminded of many things that we would otherwise have
    ignored, like to justify the ethics and practicality of the
    transformations we believe in. ]

    Now, scenarios like the above are powerful because they make people form
    images of different futures and can energize them into acting to make
    them real or avoid the truly bad ones. Never underestimate the power of
    a great story. That is why _Limits to Growth_ has been so influential,
    despite lousy science and predictive power. If new scenarios of the
    future can be made part of the range of the conceivable, they can also
    be discussed, analysed and promoted/rejected.

    As long as transhumanism is inconceivable it has no chance. So we have
    to make it part of the big narratives. This is where my standard
    arguments (you have all heard them before) about writing, writing,
    writing for the meme-carriers come in. Describe you views - in fiction,
    as engineering sketches, as simple essays, as books, as corporate
    reports, scenarios, as artworks, as political speeches, as academic
    papers, conference proceedings - and make sure they end up published. If
    people hate them, great, then you can get into a debate with them about
    why they are good or bad (one way of getting published with an
    unconventional view is actually to criticize one current position or
    view from your perspective - it acts as a hook to get you published and
    part of the debate). If people love them, continue by discussing the
    next steps of making things real. Concentrate on getting these ideas
    conceivable to the people that work with ideas and communication; they
    will both spread them further and be influential critics/helpers.

    Right now we are in no position to make laws, influence policy or fund
    research. But that will change as soon as these ideas become relevant
    and are taken up by new mainstream groups. We might very well end up
    with our current institutions and networks supplanted by new >H
    institutions, something we personally might find disagreeable if we are
    not early adapters and efficient risers (it happened with internet and
    nanotechnology). But if these new institutions embody our ideas, we
    should be happy. Transhumanism in suit works.

    On the really practical level, we have to find better ways of
    communicating. I think part of it is the professionalisation of
    transhumanism. Instead of having it as a hobby, we should make it our
    job. It is great earning money and influence from doing what you like.
    So the issue for each of us is how to either integrate transhumanism
    into current jobs, or how to create jobs for ourselves that promote
    transhumanism. It can range from being an academic over think tanks to
    physical training.

    -- 
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Anders Sandberg                                      Towards Ascension!
    asa@nada.kth.se                            http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/
    GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 17 2003 - 03:01:35 MST