[extropy-chat] Politics: Transhumanist Social System

[Samantha Atkins]

On Aug 18, 2005, at 12:07 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote:

> --- "nvitamore at austin.rr.com" <nvitamore at austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Bottom line:
>>
>> Back to Square One:  We need a political agenda and not one that is
>> alienating the core views of transhumanism, and not one that is
>> watering
>> transhumanism down.
>>
>
> What are the core views of transhumanism?  Are we primarily about
> developing enhancement technologies, and making suitable precautions
> for their detrimental (and beneficial) effects?  Or are we primarily
> about creating the environment in which said development can occur?

> Or something else?

I would say, speaking for myself, "something else" or  "both and".    
While I am a techie I find the more difficult questions to be those  
of what kind of world/future we wish to bring into being.  I don't  
believe far-out technology by itself will bring us to a better  
place.  Although certain very optimistic views regarding FAI may at  
last give us a perfectly benevolent,  super-intelligent being to make  
things a lot better.

As far as environment goes I am afraid my position is borne out of a  
rather low opinion of human politics.  Generally humans act political  
so terribly irrationally that about the best I can come up with for  
politically necessary environment is to preserve enough individual  
and private freedom from coercion by the State that the work can  
actually proceed and be made available to those who desire it.   I  
don't believe any political collective will allow much of what I  
would like to see in, for instance, enhancement technologies.   In  
the US look no further than the War Against Some Drugs to understand  
why I have such a low opinion of collective political decision making.


>   Quite a few who call themselves "transhumanist"
> seem to pay at most lip service to the technological side of things,
> although from my point of view it logically appears that the  
> technology
> underlies *everything* we wish to accomplish, and extensive debate  
> over
> the social side (except for the effects of the technology) can be  
> given
> a certain digit when it gets in the way.

I don't think so although I agree in some respects.  If we don't know  
what kind of world we wish to live in then we will likely use the  
technology to  work the current defaults at a higher speed toward  
their outcome.  A lot of our social environment is based on near  
axiomatic understandings that are at least open to question in the  
face of high enough technology.  The technology by itself will not do  
that rethinking for us.   Technology will not answer value questions.

- samantha