[extropy-chat] Politics

[Joseph Bloch]

The way I see it, there are several different types of political debate, 
each of which has more or less relevance to Transhumanist (and 
Extropian) audiences.

* Discussions of PostHuman political organization. I argue that any such 
discussion is inherently nonsensical, since we as pre-PostHumans can 
have by definition no idea what a truely PostHuman society will consider 
to be rational political organization. Our intellects are simply 
incapable of understanding Politics 2.0. They are, at best, imaginative 
speculation, and while such discussions may have entertainment value, 
the participants invariably fall into the trap of imposing such 
hypothetical systems upon themselves, where they have no context, and 
the whole thing devolves into a muddle.

* Discussions of current political ideology. Here are the classic 
left/right, collectivist/libertarian, Democrat/Republican, 
Anti-Bush/Pro-Bush, etc. etc. etc. arguments. The problem here is that 
people preach only to the choir. Nobody has any hope (or, honestly, 
intention) of convincing the other side of the correctness of their 
opinion, any more than a fan of the Patriots is going to have a chance 
of convincing a Jets fan that the Pats rule. (Except, of course, the 
Pats really _do_ rule. *grin*)

* Discussions of specific legislation, current events and political 
movements, and their direct impact on current political ideologies. This 
is largely an outgrowth of the previous category, but can masquerade as 
something more relevant. Ultimately, the framework of the argument 
relies on the underlying assumptions, which are tied to ideology, rather 
than relevance to >H. Example: the discussion about the current Iraq war 
doesn't really touch on >H directly. Rather, it touches on political 
ideology and pre-PostHuman political organization.

* Discussions of which current political ideologies are best suited to 
bring about >H goals. This, I think, could have real relevance to >H 
discussions, and allow a political debate to be held in a manner that 
was particularly useful. It all comes down to a matter of framework; not 
whether or not collectivism or libertarianism or mixed-capitalism or the 
United States or the Soviet Union or Sweden, etc. are "better" or 
"worse", but rather which (if any) of them is more or less likely to 
bring about the PostHuman era.

* Discussions of specific legislation, current events and political 
movements, and their direct impact on >H goals. This is specifically 
different from the third point above, inasmuch as it insists that such 
discussions remain relevant to >H goals. For example, a discussion about 
the Iraq war doesn't fall under this category. A discussion about 
whether the technological spin-offs arising from the war (which 
ultimately could be argued to help the development of >H technologies) 
are worth the geopolitical costs (which ultimately could be argued to 
harm the development of pro->H political systems) would absolutely do 
so. As a matter of fact, because direct calls for action on specific 
legislation can land non-profit corporations into trouble tax-wise (it's 
complicated), I set up two unaffiliated email lists (which have been 
pretty inactive of late, but which I would love to see get a lot more 
use); http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TransAct/ purely for announcements 
and http://groups.yahoo.com/group/transact-discuss/ for more general 
discussion of specific legislation.

Just some thoughts. It boils down to the fact that blanket statements 
about political discussions being worthwhile or not are 
over-simplifications. Some are, and some are not, and I believe that 
there are some political discussions which are absolutely vital to all 
our interests in furthering the advent of the PostHuman world.

I should point out, however, that there is a caveat to my neat and (to 
me, anyway) obvious categorization. There are individuals for whom 
Transhumanism is only a means to a particular political end, rather than 
having PostHumanity as the end in and of itself. That is, some seem to 
see Transhumanism as merely the best way to achieve global Democratic 
Socialism, or the only way that an Anarcho-Capitalist society will come 
about, and thus they focus on the ideological goal, rather than focusing 
on the (post-?)biological goal. Such individuals will continue to pursue 
their ideological goals, and their discussions (and, I daresay, 
activities) will slant accordingly. Alas.

Joseph