[ExI] Economic liberalism vs. conservatism: Why the debate here?

[Samantha Atkins]

On Feb 23, 2011, at 2:14 AM, AlgaeNymph wrote:

> On 2/23/11 1:35 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> 
>> Absolutely not. Some transhumanists who are subscribed
>> to a mailing list. Do you see all the non-participants
>> non-participating vigorously?
> 
> I do see the same names and the same arguments.
> 
>> A herd of cats attempts to appeal to dogs. (Why, actually?)
> 
> Politicians listen to dogs.
> 
>> A herd of cats cannot form a common front. Particularly, a common
>> front appealing to dogs. The easiest way is to hire a dog with
>> a good track record.
> 
> Oo, I'll keep an eye out for that.
> 
>> A group targeting whom? Advocating what? Advocating how?
>> What is the added value to the target audience?
> 
> These are good questions, this is what we should be asking. :) I'll start with the ideas I have at the moment.
> 
> • Targeting whom?
> Whoever has the moral high ground.
> 
> • Advocating what?
> Transhumanism, of course.
> 
> • Advocating how?
> I'd begin by having us prepare answers to the hardest possible questions we can get asked, particularly in regards to equity.

Which brings you right back to those so bothersome questions regarding ethics, individual rights, what are and are not rights, how that effects economics and so on.  How could we possibly talk about equity without addressing those things?  Yet many here don't seem to have the stomach for it.  

> 
> • What is the added value to the target audience?
> You mean why would they be interested? I'd like to think for the same reason H+ adds value to us but you probably want something more politically specific. My best guess is to find a way to tie H+ to anti-corporatism (*not* anti-business or anti-free market, mind). Still, how to politically frame H+ is a line of questioning we should give some thought.

The difference is lost without again delving pretty deep into those troublesome subjects.