[ExI] Cephalization, proles--Where is government going?

[Samantha Atkins]

On 05/09/2011 11:05 AM, Stefano Vaj wrote:
> 2011/5/9 Samantha Atkins<sjatkins at mac.com>:
>> There is a bit too much cultural relativism here.
> Why, this is my trademark, isn't it? :-)
>
>> Not all cultures are as
>> likely to lead to as happy and empowered outcomes.
> Besides the not-so-secondary issue of reaching a consensus on what a
> "happy outcome" may be, if this is true, isn't it better not to put
> all the eggs in one and the same basket, allowing pseudo-Darwinian
> mechanisms to play their role also on societies?

Did I say anything about one being the best? No.  I just made the 
obvious observation that some cultures are less likely to produce good 
outcomes as others.  Do you deny this is true?  Are all darwinian 
competitors equally competent for the challenges of their environment?  
No.  But mechanisms to sort cultures do not have to rely only on 
darwinian wait and see.

> The eminent relevance of the subject for transhumanism is that
> neoluddism stands a chance (well, a very good chance in a stagnant,
> globalised Brave New World...) exactly inasmuch as it is "governed"
> (and enforced) on a global basis.

I wasn't talking about forcing a culture but rather carefully picking 
one's culture and being picky enough to not grant all cultures equal 
respect.

> I maintain that cultural and political diversity not only give us more
>   chances to adapt and evolve, but also keeps each single system more
> efficient, if anything because it requires it to retain and develop as
> much as possible traits that make it competitive with others. Those
> appears to include almost invariably the acceptance of technology and
> innovation and risk rather than not...

Some cultures are known non-starters for the world we currently live 
in.  Why beat around the bush about that?

- samantha