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

natasha at natasha.cc natasha at natasha.cc
Wed Sep 30 00:04:11 UTC 2009

Quoting Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com>:
>>> I do see, and agree with, your comment that "cyborg" has been
>>> appropriated by feminist and other poststructuralist theorists. What's
>>> the equivalent you have in mind?
>> The equivalent I have in mind is the chrysalis that I mentioned.
> I must have been unclear, again. I was asking what the equivalent is of
> males having appropriated the inherently sex-neutral idea of a
> technological singularity. Is it just the "camera angle of men" and
> other instances of men usually being the speakers? > What does it mean to
> say that singularitarians are avoiding "social issues"?

I think that it has a similar situation as Alcor.  Alcor's conferences  
tend to be repetitious and more about machinery than application and  
fun.  Content of course ought to be about superintelligence because  
that is fundamental, but superintelligence is not only programming  
computers.  If so, we would have a vast field of wearable technologies  
and HCI projects, not to mention simulations and virtuality.  Surely,  
everyone discusses consequences and risks, but what how will this  
affect life and what steps to take; what about linguistics and symbols  
and reframing consciousness and perceptions; what are the visuals what  
stories, what new roles will be available;  what relationship does  
education play, what about outreach on a global scale; what risk  
factors are worth exploring in developing new fields of study and  
inquiry, what is a non-singularity; is it transdisciplinary enough and  
if not, why; who can debate the key advocates on equal footing; how  
has it changed since Vinge; what are examples of earlier, historical  
singularities; what is the far vision of the Singularity; what does  
"future studies" really have to do with the Singularity (most  
futurists are short-term); how does it approach topics such as those  
present at Devos; ... designing the future is exciting, exploratory,  
engaging, and we need a WOW-factor - stimulation - experience.   
Experience design to alter perceptions.   

> The chrysalis
> figuration is intriguing (it reminds me of the feminist "wise crone":
> as you put it, "it is well-known to women as a transformation stage
> from being fertile, reproductive organism to transforming into
> non-physically reproductive BUT intellectually productive, wise
> organisms") but it seems to imply a teleological pathway--like
> menopause--from where we are to a kind of predetermined transcendence
> (pupas don't *decide* to become butterflies, nor can they choose not to
> be).

Yes, it has telos, but not necessarily predetermined.

Insects don't really have much choice or alternatives in determining  
their futures.  We do.


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list