<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=us-ascii" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19088"></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=906581813-23062011><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>Hi Kevin,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=906581813-23062011><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=906581813-23062011><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>My reasponse below:</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV align=left>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal align=left><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Natasha</SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal align=left><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></SPAN> </P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><A
href="http://www.natasha.cc/"><SPAN style="COLOR: windowtext">Natasha
Vita-More</SPAN></A></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><FONT size=2
face=Arial></FONT> </P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: 207.0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Chair,<A
href="http://humanityplus.org/"><SPAN
style="COLOR: windowtext; TEXT-DECORATION: none; text-underline: none">
</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: #7f7f7f; mso-themecolor: text1; mso-themetint: 128"><FONT
color=#000000>Humanity+</FONT></SPAN></A><BR>PhD Researcher, <SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Univ.
of Plymouth, UK</SPAN></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><BR>
<DIV dir=ltr lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT size=2 face=Tahoma><B>From:</B> extropy-chat-bounces@lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces@lists.extropy.org] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Kevin
Haskell<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, June 23, 2011 5:12 AM<BR><B>To:</B>
extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [ExI] Natasha's Response
re: Libertarianism,Extropiansim &Transhumanism<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Natasha,<BR><BR>Quoting <natasha@natasha.cc><BR><BR>>You have
misunderstood and sorely misconstrued what I wrote. I will<BR>briefly reply
below:<BR><BR>Just to be clear, this is what you originally wrote: "<BR><BR>>
For me, I am not a libertarian, an anarchist or a singulartarian.
I<BR>> am transhumanist and I support Extropy above all else. I
don't like<BR>> Extropy tethered to other stuff that is not expressly focused
on life<BR>> expansion and well being.<SPAN class=906581813-23062011><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial> </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=906581813-23062011></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=906581813-23062011><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial>Precisely. This does not mean that I am not political
or that I do not support the Singularity.</FONT> <FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>I simply do not subscribe to any one political party and I am
not what is known as a singulartarian. There are many theorists, experts,
activists and knowledgeable individuals of the Technological Singularity who are
not "singulartarian".</FONT></SPAN><BR><BR>>Quoting Kevin Haskell <<A
href="mailto:kgh1kgh2@gmail.com">kgh1kgh2@gmail.com</A>>:<BR><BR>> Thanks,
Natasha. Regarding your reply, I needed to re-orient myself and<BR>>
just check out the differences between what you were expressing, and what
I<BR>> understood Extropy to be as I remembered it, and did it the old
fashioned<BR>> way: Google.<BR><BR>>I have no idea what you are talking
about. Instead of googling, just<BR>>go read Max More's writings and go
to Extropy Institute's website.<BR><BR>Well, again, I was just attempting to
clarify the differences between what I 'personally remembered' about
Extropianism and what you had written. That's...pretty much it.
<BR><BR>As to Googeling, the Extropy Institute's website, with Extropy's
principles written by Max More within it, was the very first page that came up
when I did Google it. So, it worked pretty nicely.<SPAN
class=906581813-23062011><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial> </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=906581813-23062011></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=906581813-23062011><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>Yes,
the principles are great and it is good that Max revisits
them.</FONT> </SPAN><BR><BR>Lastly, why do you think I wrote, in my last
sentence, "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 philosophy (and thanks to Max More,)" if I hadn't already read, by
that time, the principles of what Max More had written?<BR><BR>> So, it looks
like some fine lines have been drawn in the past few years that<BR>> helped
me understand the difference. From your own perspective, and
correct<BR>> me if I am wrong, you wish to leave out any externalities which
may affect<BR>> the achievement of developing H+ technologies, such as
politics, and just<BR>> focus on the actual technologies themselves, and the
benefits you would<BR>> like to see them bring.<BR><BR>>What? I am a
proponent of technology. I said libertarian, not<BR>>politics. My focus
is more on design, theory, and culture that is<BR>>affected by
technology.<BR><BR>Okay, thank you for the clarifications.<BR><BR>> Secondly,
Extropianism, (as related to but different from Extropism, which<BR>> was
another new one for me,) as as an idea seems to favor the positive<BR>>
future scenarios as expressed by Ray Kurzweil (who I take it you agree<BR>>
with,)<BR><BR>>Not completely. Extropism is Kevin Kelly's hijacking of
Extropy but it<BR>>is better just to say Extropy.<BR><BR>Fair
enough.<BR><BR>> not really agreeing with Ben Goertel that H+ tech could just
as<BR>> easily lead us into either good or bad future, and we just don't
know, and<BR>> steadfastly separating yourselves from the dystopian future
scenarios of<BR>> Hugo de Garis.<BR><BR>>I do not agree with de Garis's
artelict, but I wrote about these<BR>>issues/arguments some years ago myself.
I agree very much with Ben<BR>>Goertzel and that has nothing to do with de
Garis' artelict dystopic<BR>>narrative.<BR><BR>Right. The point was to show
that Ben held a moderate position of expectations, as juxtaposed with Kurzweil's
optimism and de Garis' negativism. Didn't mean to make you think I meant
that Ben's 'negative' was the same as de Garis' specific negative concept.<SPAN
class=906581813-23062011><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial> </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=906581813-23062011></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=906581813-23062011><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>I
think Kurzweil is not optimistic, I think he is an advocate of
exponential acceleration as a matter of technological fact. De
Garis is not negative, I think he is presenting a particular theory that is
more science fiction than science fact. I think Goertzel is mostly
interested in AGI. But all in all, I think Max More's view
on "surges" is the most appropriate theoretical position on a Technological
Singularity.</FONT> </SPAN><BR><BR>> In short, Extropianism has
clarified that it expects, with effort, of<BR>> course, a good outcome from
H+ tech for both humans and machines, and isn't<BR>> different from
Transhumanism, but rather, an optimistic branch that might<BR>> best be
described by Kevin Warwick's "Cyborginist" concepts.<BR><BR>>Extropy is
transhumanism. The Cyborgist ideas of Warwick are not a<BR>>worldview
and lack the vision of the transhuman and transhumanism.<BR><BR>So, if Extropy
"is" Transhumanism, and this was really the original question I started out
with, why did everyone stop calling themselves "Extropians," (which means
someone who supports the concepts of "Extropy"), and begin calling themselves
Transhumanists? It was just a straightforward question to everyone on the
list about the change in terminology. <SPAN class=906581813-23062011><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial> </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=906581813-23062011></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=906581813-23062011><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>This
is a good question. I never liked the term "extropians" or "extropianism"
because Extropy is similar to a cybernetic approach and within this
approach is the worldview of transhumanism, which is a philosophy
of Extropy. Certainly other people see that Extropy is the core philosophy
of transhumanism, which is okay too. But all in all transhumanism cannot exist
without Extropy because it is Extropy that presents the concept of continuous
expansion, critical thinking and practical optimism.</FONT> <FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial> One issue here is the topic of negentropy,
which still should be discussed and revisited in the 21st century. I don't
recall any discussions on it for 10 years or so. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=906581813-23062011></SPAN><SPAN class=906581813-23062011><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial> </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=906581813-23062011><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>People
do not call themselves extropians today because transhumanism is a term
that was promoted over Extropy in the late 1990s in order to push the
political views of the WTA and to promote Huxley as being the originator of the
ideas, which is entirely incorrect and a political move by WTA that backfired on
the organization and its principles. Today we are more even minded and
Humanity+ has combined the beneficial work of WTA with ExI and
produced a more even minded organization that is inclusive rather than
exclusive.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=906581813-23062011></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=906581813-23062011><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial>Nevertheless, the term "transhumanist" is not as scary to the general
public as "extropian" and the term Extropy and extropian may gain momentum
in later years because thing change and no one really knows what ideas
stick or terms, etc.</FONT> </SPAN><BR><BR>Regarding Warwick, his ideas
seem to fit quite nicely within the "Transhumanist" conecept. Unless I am
missing something, he is seeking progress in health, length of life, and
development of superior qualities of people through the use and physical
adaptation of technology. In short, he is seeking the evolution of mankind
through technology.<SPAN class=906581813-23062011><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial> </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=906581813-23062011></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=906581813-23062011><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>Well,
frankly these things have been promoted by transhumanists for decades! It
is just recently that the general public has become interested, including
Kevin. While Kevin has been deeply engageding in cyborgization of his body
for a very long time and a forerunner in this domain, the ideas
of transhumanism are now posted it on his cyborg theory.
But when we think of cyorg, it is Manfred Clynes' vision and
cybernetics. I do not know why Kevin does not call himself a
transhumanist but it seems that is may be because he is deeply invested in
the term cyborg for his work. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=906581813-23062011></SPAN><SPAN
class=906581813-23062011></SPAN><SPAN class=906581813-23062011><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial> </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=906581813-23062011> </SPAN>Since you define Extropy and
Transhumanism as being the same, and wrote "I don't like Extropy tethered to
other stuff that is not expressly focused on life expansion and well being,"
then you and Professor Warwick appear to be working for the exact same
thing. <SPAN class=906581813-23062011><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial> </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=906581813-23062011></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=906581813-23062011><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>Yes,
Kevin is and yes he promotes the term cyborg and yes he should be more
respectful of transhumanism and Extropy I think.</FONT> <FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial> But what the heck! Stelarc ignores it as well,
as do others who are deeply invested in their own theories. That should be
respected. The only problem is I think it is undermining to claim transhumanists
are not focused on smart futures.</FONT></SPAN><BR><BR>> Would it be fair to
say Natasha, that since you do not like the idea of the<BR>> Singularity,
that this is the one main area that you are in disagreement<BR>> with the
Extropian ideals?<BR><BR>>I never said I do not like the Singularity or its
theories. In fact,<BR>>I am involved with different working groups on
the Singularity.<BR><BR>Forgive me. I thought that since your wrote "For me, I
am not a libertarian, an anarchist or a singulartarian" that you meant you
didn't like the theories of Singularity, and certainly am surprised to hear that
you are working with Singularity groups. Are you making a distinction in the
language, meaning that humans can't be "Singularitarians," but can just work for
the creation of the Singularity? <SPAN class=906581813-23062011><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial> </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=906581813-23062011></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=906581813-23062011><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>For
goodness sakes, of course! Someone who works on the Singularity and
writes about it, etc. is not necessarily a
"Singularitarian". </FONT> </SPAN><BR><BR>> Thanks again for
sharing your particular thoughts on that, and for inspiring<BR>> me to do my
due diligence to get better clarification on general Extropian<BR>> philosphy
(and thanks to Max More.)<BR><BR>>I'm afraid your due diligence is not
accurate and you have<BR>>misconstrued what I said. I said that I do
not favor libertarian<BR>>ideas or the dogma of singularitarianism, not the
technological<BR>>singularity. Big
difference.<BR><BR>>Natasha<BR><BR>My "due diligence" comment, if you read it
again, above, was directed at my clarification of the general Extropian
philosophy, not what you said. I was merely thanking you for the
inspiration to check. Please re-read that if you were not clear about
it.<SPAN class=906581813-23062011><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial> </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=906581813-23062011></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=906581813-23062011><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>The
philosophy of Extropy is crucial for transhumanism. It is
deeply integrated in the worldview of transhumanism.
</FONT> </SPAN><BR><BR>Regarding you, I was attempting to clarify your
personal views, which is why I asked you to correct me where needed. You
did so.<BR><BR>Incidentally, let's be clear on what you originally wrote.
You never originally stated that you did not favor the "dogma" of
Singularitarianism, and that you did support the 'technological Singualrity,'
you merely stated that you did not consider yourself a
Singularitarian. <SPAN class=906581813-23062011><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial> </FONT></SPAN><SPAN
class=906581813-23062011> </SPAN><BR><BR>Big difference. <SPAN
class=906581813-23062011><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial> </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=906581813-23062011><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=906581813-23062011><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>You
are correct and I could have said this, but it seemed obvious to me. I
apologize. </FONT> </SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=906581813-23062011><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=906581813-23062011></SPAN><SPAN
class=906581813-23062011></SPAN><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT
size=2>I<SPAN class=906581813-23062011> do not favor the dogma of
Singularitarianism because it is a about "isms" and not the Technological
Singularity as I learned of it from Vernor Vinge and as Extropy
Institute introduced it as its conferences in the
1990s. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=906581813-23062011></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=906581813-23062011>I am very interested in and lecture on the Singularity
but I do not call myself a Singularitarian because I do not think
that superintelligences will kill off our species and I do not think
that Friendly AI is the answer, it is just one theory. I do think that
humans will merge more and more with machines and that humans will integrate
with AGI. I think we will have to learn how to accept new intelligences
that are not offspring of the homo sapiens sapiens species and that will be
both difficult and rewarding. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=906581813-23062011></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=906581813-23062011>The central issues about the Technological
Singularity is about how we adapt to our future, how we make wise choices,
how we diversify and how we help others understand what this means and to
prepare for it. It will happen, but most likely in surges rather than
hitting a wall.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=906581813-23062011></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=906581813-23062011>Best,</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=906581813-23062011>Natasha </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>