[ExI] Philanthropy

[Natasha Vita-More]

Samantha wrote:

On 07/01/2011 01:29 PM, natasha at natasha.cc wrote:
> Kelly, why don't you look beyond political borders?  Who gives a 
> flying monkey's ass what the political party is - or ism?!  We have 
> world problems to solve and need smart strategic thinking that 
> arguably understands the transhumanist perspective.  Forgive me, but 
> talking about libertarianism and/or Markism or socialism, etc. is so 
> old world it causes my skin to crawl.  (Actually I would like my skin 
> to crawl, but preferably with nanorobots rather than political
> bot-tlenecking.)

"Sometimes we need to talk about these things because it is obvious people
still have a difficult time thinking about politics and economics in a sane
way or even having a fruitful discussion with others on these 
topics.   Granted the old labels are pretty useless.  However the 
underlying issues are very much alive."

Agreed and thus my email.  It's time to take a Buckminster Fuller approach
and start talking strategic insights that defuse borders that propagate
dogmatic and restrictive thinking.  Take postmodernism for example:  while
it has value for feminists, its rigidity is problematic. Take objectivists
for example: while the theory has value for discerning issues of existence,
its lack of objectivity is problematic.  Take democracy for example: while
the political perspective has value for the inclusive of all voices
regardless of race, color, etc., its lack of logic is problematic. Take
conservatism for example: while the ideological view has value for
historical traditions, its lack of futurology is problematic. Take art for
example: while the field has value for creatives, its lack of insight about
the future is highly and unequivocally problematic.

I have been saying this for 15 years on this list: if we want to be
future-oriented about socio-political issues, then we need a new strategy.

Natasha