[ExI] Natasha's Response re: Libertarianism, Extropiansim & Transhumanism
natasha at natasha.cc
natasha at natasha.cc
Thu Jun 23 00:48:05 UTC 2011
You have misunderstood and sorely misconstrued what I wrote. I will
briefly reply below:
Quoting Kevin Haskell <kgh1kgh2 at gmail.com>:
> Thanks, Natasha. Regarding your reply, I needed to re-orient myself and
> just check out the differences between what you were expressing, and what I
> understood Extropy to be as I remembered it, and did it the old fashioned
> way: Google.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Instead of googling, just
go read Max More's writings and go to Extropy Institute's website.
> So, it looks like some fine lines have been drawn in the past few years that
> helped me understand the difference. From your own perspective, and correct
> me if I am wrong, you wish to leave out any externalities which may affect
> the achievement of developing H+ technologies, such as politics, and just
> focus on the actual technologies themselves, and the benefits you would
> like to see them bring.
What? I am a proponent of technology. I said libertarian, not
politics. My focus is more on design, theory, and culture that is
affected by technology.
> Secondly, Extropianism, (as related to but different from Extropism, which
> was another new one for me,) as as an idea seems to favor the positive
> future scenarios as expressed by Ray Kurzweil (who I take it you agree
Not completely. Extropism is Kevin Kelly's hijacking of Extropy but it
is better just to say Extropy.
> not really agreeing with Ben Goertel that H+ tech could just as
> easily lead us into either good or bad future, and we just don't know, and
> steadfastly separating yourselves from the dystopian future scenarios of
> Hugo de Garis.
I do not agree with de Garis's artelict, but I wrote about these
issues/arguments some years ago myself. I agree very much with Ben
Goertzel and that has nothing to do with de Garis' artelict dystopic
> In short, Extropianism has clarified that it expects, with effort, of
> course, a good outcome from H+ tech for both humans and machines, and isn't
> different from Transhumanism, but rather, an optimistic branch that might
> best be described by Kevin Warwick's "Cyborginist" concepts.
Extropy is transhumanism. The Cyborgist ideas of Warwick are not a
worldview and lack the vision of the transhuman and transhumanism.
> Would it be fair to say Natasha, that since you do not like the idea of the
> Singularity, that this is the one main area that you are in disagreement
> with the Extropian ideals?
I never said I do not like the Singularity or its theories. In fact,
I am involved with different working groups on the Singularity.
> Thanks again for sharing your particular thoughts on that, and for inspiring
> me to do my due diligence to get better clarification on general Extropian
> philosphy (and thanks to Max More.)
I'm afraid your due diligence is not accurate and you have
misconstrued what I said. I said that I do not favor libertarian
ideas or the dogma of singularitarianism, not the technological
singularity. Big difference.
More information about the extropy-chat