[extropy-chat] Max More's article on Democracy and Transhumanism

[JDP]

Giu1i0 Pri5c0 a écrit (18.11.2003/08:23) :

> This is a comment to Max More's article on Democracy and Transhumanism and
> the ongoing discussion on the wta and extropy lists. Max and several readers
> say that, as transhumanists perspectives look much further ahead,
> transhumanists should not embrace democracy or any current political system
> but rather wait for an entirely new political system developed by posthumans
> for posthumans. Now, I am sure posthumans will have the means to implement
> smart and flexible government systems much better than what we have today.
> For example, if all future citizens (humans, AIs, hybrids, uploaded minds,
> ...) will have augmented brains permanently linked to the net, it will be
> possible to implement direct democracy schemes that would not be practical
> today. But I think this is missing the point: we spend a lot of time
> thinking about the future, but we live in the present, and the future state
> of the world depends on our actions in the present world. The right
> questions to ask are not about long term policies for posthuman societies,
> but about short and medium term policies that can enable the development of
> a posthuman society while improving the lives of today's citizens and their
> children. Here and now, we cannot disagree with Churchill's "democracy is
> the worst form of government except for all the other forms that have been
> tried".http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat

Another point to consider from a memetic (oh how I hate this silly
buzzword) point of view, is that people (at least Europe) are still
traumatized about 20th century events, in such a way that when someone
comes up with new ideas (like transhumanism), they want to know
immediately whether that someone adheres to democracy or not, and if
not they label it as "dangerous".

Max's observation that Hitler was elected democratically is mostly
correct I think (maybe not entirely, as I recall from some
historians), and the more general point that the rule of the majority
can be awful is obviously true (as in lynching).

But the trauma has been linked to non-democracy in many heads, and so,
when you refuse to label yourself democrat, people feel that you are
hiding an awful agenda (even more true connected to transhumanism).

So, I for one totally agreed with Max's contention. But I see the
(memetic) point of labelling oneself as democract.

Should one use statements for memetic reasons that are not the best
ones a truth level, or should one have as a fixed rule to only try to
convince with that which is "the most" true to one? I prefer the
latter, though I can imagine very special situations in which I would
choose the former. Out of such very special situations, I say go for
truth and persuasion at the same time, without compromise.

There is a dangerous naivete in thinking that your point of view is so
superior that you can actually arrange what you officially say for the
good cause. This is how the worst ideologies propagate. You better be
humble, consider the possibility that you are wrong, and just try to
stick to the truth as much as you can.

Also think of the following. When you want to have an impact on
society by creating a movement, who joins your movement matters a lot.
Do you want people with sloppy thinking, who will change idea next
year, or do you want clear thinkers who trust their own cognitive
capacities and will stick with your movement in the long term? Getting
10 of the latter may result in an eventual larger impact than getting
1000 of the former. Sticking with truth, and keeping the memetic
bullshit low, results in a strong build.

Jacques