[ExI] Purpose of list was a few bits per second

[Giulio Prisco]

It is not a binary, black/white, either/or choice. We can and should
have both watered-down interpretations of transhumanism formulated in
such a way as to be more appealing to the masses, AND true hardcore,
radical and visionary interpretations of transhumanism. What is
important is that these two "souls" of transhumanism collaborate
behind the scene, instead of fighting each other like it happens now.

I understand that in some cases transhumanism should be presented as
bland technoprogressivism - what I don't accept is mistaking means for
ends, and renouncing transhumanism for the sake of PCness.
Transhumanism is bold, visionary, disruptive, revolutionary and unPC,
and it must remain so.

Diplomacy and war are very different - but every nation has a
department of foreign affairs for diplomacy, AND a department of
defense for war. They have a common interest, and they (should)
collaborate behind the scene, and choose when to use diplomacy or war.

G.

On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 3:15 AM, Mike Dougherty <msd001 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 5:19 PM, Max More <max at maxmore.com> wrote:
>> Keith's view certainly does not reflect my own. I see some good reasons for
>> going beyond talking to a few other people and attempting to get
>> transhumanist ideas more widely and fully appreciated in the mainstream. In
>> fact, I think we are seeing that happening. Among other reasons, more
>> mainstream acceptance of (or at least understanding of) transhumanist idea
>> will influence public policy and perhaps the direction of technological
>> advance.
>>
>> So, in my view, you are *not* in the wrong place, in relation to this issue.
>
> How much of transhumanism is inevitably manifested and how much is
> caretakers' willpower?
>
> Are there parallels that could be examined in recent technological
> history for examples of mainstreaming H+?
>
> Did anyone have to force TV into the mainstream?  Sure there were
> early adopters, but once the critical mass was achieved the spread of
> television was practically unstoppable.  TV no good?  VHS?  Cell
> Phones?  Personal Computers?
>
> How much does transhumanism have to be watered down in order to be
> palatable to the masses?  Would you be excited to craft a bland
> version geared towards the lowest common denominator currently
> represented in the mainstream?
>
> Perhaps Keith's suggestion maintains transhumanism's unique flavors
> for those who come looking for what it offers, rather than turning it
> into a mindless mush for the sake of greater consumption?
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>