[extropy-chat] RE: Transhumanist Community

[Natasha Vita-More]

At 05:35 AM 12/7/2005, Tyler wrote:
>Brandon Reinhart wrote:
> >
> > It seems to me that transhumanist community is in a sorry state. When
> > I look at sites that are well known to transhumanists, I see very low
> > rates of participation and conversion.
> >
> > Some thoughts on possible changes, improvements, and mistakes:
>
>Suggestions are welcomed, sure, but they have greater weight when the
>suggester says what *they* are doing, and what they have done.

I'm sorry - I'm not good at proofing. Let me restate:

I pretty much agree with what everyone has said so far.  There are so many 
forums that the community has become dissipated in overlapping 
directions.  What is amiss is a planned design, or architecture for 
multiple directions for transhumanism's growth.  Also, rather than 
accepting diversity within transhumanism, transhumanists had, from seven 
years ago up until very recently, been pitting one sub-transhumanist group 
against another.  What I envision is a reuniting of the community in 
working together to achieve a vision for all of transhumanity and separate 
goals.

For example, rather than one political group against another, why not agree 
that certain polices must be achieved in order to realize transhumanism's 
future.  No one political group can achieve this on its own because the 
world is not dependent on one political theory. Thus, there must be an 
agreement between diverse viewpoints that, in the end, support 
transhumanism.  This will be a mature, intelligent and timely move and one 
that I would like to see happen.

Another example is the varied membership organizations.  There are so many 
membership organizations asking for money and support that it becomes a 
toss up as to which group to give money to and when that money is most 
needed for the organize to move forward and realize its own mission. 
Instead of so many hands in the money pot, there ought to be a 
team-spirited approach to helping each other move along in the unique and 
desired direction of each organization.  This would require not repeating 
the very same work that another organization has already done and is 
striving to achieve.  I see this as being a major problem of 
transhumanism.  Leaders need to work together on the Big picture of 
transhumanism.

What is a good leader?  A good leader is comprised of a strong sense of 
will and a humility.  Most people think of leaders as being charismatic and 
"in their face" types of people.  However this is a misnomer.  A good 
leader is not based on Hollywood's standards for who speaks the loudest. If 
you look at the good leaders over time, it becomes evident that they have 
two seemingly conflicting characteristics will and humility.  We also need 
great managers.  People who see the vision of transhumanism and help to get 
people excited.

What we need right now is a refreshing of transhumanism.  If you would like 
to look at my talk at the TransVision 2005 conference, I tried to address 
this.  I'm not sure how well I achieved this, but at least I am continuing 
to work on it.  Click on the image that says Transhumanism 2.0 at 
http://www.natasha.cc

The good news is that we can change our direction at any time and plan what 
we would like to see happen and make it so through progress and action.

ProAct!
Natasha


<http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha <http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
Cultural Strategist - Designer
Future Studies, University of Houston
President, <http://www.extropy.org/>Extropy Institute
Member, <http://www.profuturists.com/>Association of Professional Futurists
Founder, <http://www.transhumanist.biz/>Transhumanist Arts & Culture
Honorary Vice-Chair, <http://transhumanism.org/>World Transhumanist 
Association
Senior Associate, <http://foresight.org/>Foresight Institute
Advisor, <http://alcor.org/>Alcor Life Extension Foundation

If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, 
then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the 
circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system 
perspective.
Buckminster Fuller


_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat

<http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha <http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
Cultural Strategist - Designer
Future Studies, University of Houston
President, <http://www.extropy.org/>Extropy Institute
Member, <http://www.profuturists.com/>Association of Professional Futurists
Founder, <http://www.transhumanist.biz/>Transhumanist Arts & Culture
Honorary Vice-Chair, <http://transhumanism.org/>World Transhumanist 
Association
Senior Associate, <http://foresight.org/>Foresight Institute
Advisor, <http://alcor.org/>Alcor Life Extension Foundation

If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, 
then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the 
circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system 
perspective.
Buckminster Fuller


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20051207/5424e33f/attachment.html>