[extropy-chat] Movie review- Renaissance: Paris 2054

[The Avantguardian]

--- Robert Bradbury <robert.bradbury at gmail.com> wrote:

> Stuart, I am not sure whether you may be doing the
> "debate" a disservice by
> focusing on "Islam" (which is a gross label) vs. H+
> (also a gross label).

Actually like I said the debate only drew associations
in my mind to the movie. I am not saying that it is
directly relevant to the debate. It is art and should
be simply appreciated as such, without reading too
much into the politics. (As it happens I can't decide
whether the politics of the movie is truly luddite or
transhumanist disguised as luddism)
 
> The debate and confrontation is much wider than that
> -- it is the one that
> Harris/Dennett/Dawkins are focused on.

Yes, I am aware of that, so much so that I am doing
something about it beyond mere debate. I and others
are forming a memetic antivirus marketed as a
religion. It's primary directive is to outcompete all
others by selling cleverly packaged reality instead of
so-called "truth".

The way I see it, the age of superstition is drawing
to a close whether we like it or not. The next century
will be a turning point for mankind. It all boils down
to a simple decision. The decision is simply whether
mankind cares more for "ideas" or "reality". Needless
to say both are important in the grand scheme of
things.

But nature being the cruel bitch (a georgous one at
that *wink*) that she is, doesn't care what you think.
It only cares about the BEHAVIORS that promote your
thermodynamic stability and those that don't.

Our survival beyond the next hundred years will be in
large part dependent on whether we understand that the
only evolutionary value of "ideas" are in whether such
an exorbiant investment of biological capital supports
our survival or not.

The evolutionary value of intelligence has yet to
prove itself beside the trait of simple indestructible
horniness. Even as we speak, cockroaches could be
having sex on Bush's desk and not even sarin gas could
stop them from doing it. (google "HRDC" if you doubt)
 
>  It is one of
> the fundamental
> questions enshrined in Max's extropian principles. 
> Do you base your
> existence on "rational thought" or not?

I base my existence on reality and thus empiricism.
Rational thought is simply a tool in my shed so to
speak. If I can make enough sense of a "pattern" of
experimental data to put it into words then I will
take the liberty to rationalize upon the "idea" for
what it is and share it for the benefit of all. If I
can't then I will operate on my intution of the
"pattern" for what it is.
  
> You can argue that a movie promoting the "in our
> faces" exhibition of the
> problem may be useful but I would argue that you
> might be better served to
> strike at the heart of the problem.

Well I will leave it to the many brilliant
philosophers on this list to discern the "utility" of
art. For my part, I will contend that "beauty" is its
own raison d'etre. As far as striking at the heart of
the problem, I am gambling much on a memetic "Trojan
horse" so rest assured I am not sitting on my laurels.

> So *long* as people believe and act on the basis of
> nothing more than their
> thought about a thought (a belief) we have problems.

I could not agree with you more. :)


Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Phillip K. Dick


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Want to start your own business?
Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index