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