[extropy-chat] Group Hug

[Brett Paatsch]

"MIKE TREDER " wrote:

As an original and current WTA Director, and as a member of the Executive
Advisory Team for the Extropy Institute, I've been dismayed and disheartened
by the recent unpleasantness between people within the two organizations. It
is unnecessary, unseemly, and counterproductive. In a silly fight like this,
there are no winners, only losers.

It seems patently obvious to me that we have so much to gain by working
together and so much to lose by defeating each other - why can't we keep our
eyes on the prize? The tendency of some to be offensive and provocative, and
the tendency of others to be defensive and destructive, can only lead to
ruin for us all.

I can easily find fault on both sides, although I prefer to focus on our
common and complementary strengths instead of dwelling on what divides us.
I've urged James Hughes and Nick Bostrom to exercise leadership by being
inclusive and conciliatory; I've counseled Harvey Newstrom and Bruce Klein
to show restraint and to seek compromises that satisfy everyone's primary
needs. But my efforts to be a calming influence seem to have had little
effect.

Still, we must try. Let's remember that none of us are transhumans yet; we
are only imperfect humans dreaming of and working toward a better future.
Our leaders, representatives, and fellow members are subject to flaws and
failings, as are each of us. But there are no monsters running loose, no one
is trying to become a dictator, and those who issue criticism are not crazy
or evil. We're just folks (at least until the Singularity).

I appeal to everyone - WTA members, Extropians, transhumanists of all
stripes - to refocus on our highest priorities. Let's begin by making
positive statements about what we must stand for; remember why we came
together in the first place; stand in a virtual circle, hold cyber hands,
sing a couple of inspiring songs, have an Internet group hug, and then get
back to work.

------

I suspect your sole question in that post ("why can't we (sic) keep our
eyes on the prize") may have been rhetorical. Yet if your dismay and
disheartenment is genuine perhaps it was not.

If so, I suggest you examine your premises.

First, I suggest you consider in what sense there is a "we".

Perhaps consider the tragedy of the commons. If virtual communities
are easy to join and organisations are easy, relatively to attain positions
of ostensible authority in then they are also easily corrupted and hijacked
by people with egos (I don't say that pejoratively - we (I mean living
people) all have egos) and low personal investment.  Perhaps when the
cost of of entry are so low it is easy for the brands to be debased.
Perhaps you have some illusions about the elite nature of the folk that
frequent the same places you do. Perhaps.

Second, I suggest you consider in what sense there is "a prize". And how
even if "we" could be operationalised, "we" in your terms would go after
that prize.   Can you get consensus in your view from the folks you see
as the "we" on even the "highest priorities"?R (R = Rhetorical). Note
priorities are plural not singular - like "the prize".

I don't have time to engage in this discussion too deeply, in fact, I'm
probably done with it now. You can take or leave my comments as
you see fit.

Group Hug? - Isn't that what litters of baby rabbits would do in the
face of fierce adult rabbit-politics and a universe that wasn't explicitly
configured for their comfort?R

If so, perhaps its the ones that don't need the group hug as much that
are the fiercer rabbits, and don't really give a damn for rabbit politics
they just grow to see it as funny, and perhaps even to wonder if maybe
they are slightly foxy, like the politicing older-rabbits seem to be with
each other, because after all the stakes are very high when one is a
rabbit.

Regards,
Brett Paatsch