Meta: Too far Re: [extropy-chat] Re: Iraq and legality again

[Joseph Bloch]

Natasha Vita-More wrote:

> Frankly, a true and correct vision of transhumanism would not be 
> nationalistic, but for the future - whatever organization of people 
> and governing/ruling of society takes place.
>
> Just like pitting one country against another, pitting one political 
> position against another is lacking in scope and sorely missing the 
> thrust of transhumanism.
>
> This is precisely why I oppose the forced democracy of WTA and the 
> insistence by James Hughes, Mike, or Dirk -  or any of us that one 
> political position is better than another and that people have to fit 
> neatly into a political box.  All of them - us - have positive things 
> to offer to the world and it would be good to see them realized rather 
> than used to dismiss and/or criticize others within our community.
>
> What we need to do is to get futuristic and learn how to rise above 
> this 20th Century inability to resolve conflict.


I confess I (uncharacteristically) disagree on one level, Natasha, but 
agree on another.

Once we have achieved a PostHuman era, I agree completely that 
contemporary definitions of nationalism and political philosophy as a 
whole will be tossed out the window (by the PostHumans, that is). Once 
the first handful of us achieves the transition to true PostHuman 
status, we will begin to evolve political and social structures that are 
so beyond the imagination of us poor pre-PostHumans as to make our 
current speculations the stuff of kindergarden games.

And yet, we remain pre-PostHumans, and as such are constrained to act 
within our current limitations and psychological and social constraints. 
Our focus must perforce be not to puzzle out what sort of 
politico-socio-economic structure should or will be in place in a 
PostHuman world, but rather which contemporary structure is most 
conducive to bringing it about.

I say that if wrapping Transhumanism in the flag (whichever flag) will 
make it more palatable to the masses, and thus more likely to be adopted 
as a world-view and common vision, then wrap away! If that means that an 
America inspired by a Transhumanist vision melded with the American 
Dream ends up being the most effective way of bringing about the >H 
future, then so be it. If it means that a China inspired by a 
Transhumanist vision melded with a fusion of Chinese nationalism and 
post-Maoist ideology ends up being the most effective way of bringing 
about the >H future, than so be IT.

Nationalism, like anything else, can be a means to an end. In our case, 
that end is a PostHuman existence. We cannot, by definition, say what 
that existence will be like. But we can, with at least a modicum of 
insight, say which contemporary ideologies are most likely to bring 
about the PostHuman era.

My money is on the mixed capitalism of the United States, ultimately. 
Others may have different thoughts as to which nation(s) are most likely 
to usher in the >H era. Vive la difference! Let the better strategy win. 
I hope we'll all be friends during, and after, the competition.

Joseph

Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": 
http://www.humanenhancement.com
New Jersey Transhumanist Association: http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta
PostHumanity Rising: http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/ (updated 6/14/05)