[ExI] [ieet] Singularity - Non-Gender Specific

Damien Broderick thespike at satx.rr.com
Tue Sep 29 20:46:57 UTC 2009

On 9/29/2009 2:45 PM, natasha at natasha.cc wrote:
> I am not asking why more women are not discussing the Singularity.  (Why
> is it that is women are mentioned, there has to be a giant leap to sex
> symbols?)

What? You were the one talking about popularization and "promotion" 
(although it's true you also wrote "non-gender specific in its 
promotion"). I just asked if that was one aspect of what you saw 
missing. (I mentioned Jolie and Madonna because as well as being on 
every cover they are notable for their much-publicized adoption of 
causes [pun intended].)

>> When
>> Malcolm Gladwell writes a book about it, and is hailed as a genius for
>> "inventing" this great new idea (as Ray Kurzweil has already been, on a
>> smaller scale), it'll be in the New Yorker and work its way down. Maybe.

> It is a darn shame that you are not recognized for your seminal works.

It's got nothing to do with me; it was Vernor's idea, 25 years ago.

>   But maybe a woman will come along and take the Singularity and make it
> about humanity's metamorphosis.

I still don't see why you think it's not already that. Can you give some 
examples of phallic singularitarianism? What currently is "gender 
specific in its promotion"? Just the fact that Eliezer and Ray are boys? 
But you, Amara and Sarah aren't. You must be saying something deeper 
than that.

Damien Broderick

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list