[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
> with,)

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 mailing list