Meta: Too far Re: [extropy-chat] Re: Iraq and legality again

Samantha Atkins sjatkins at mac.com
Thu Jun 30 11:14:33 UTC 2005


On Jun 29, 2005, at 5:59 PM, Joseph Bloch wrote:

> Natasha Vita-More wrote:
>
>
>> Frankly, a true and correct vision of transhumanism would not be  
>> nationalistic, but for the future - whatever organization of  
>> people and governing/ruling of society takes place.
>>
>> Just like pitting one country against another, pitting one  
>> political position against another is lacking in scope and sorely  
>> missing the thrust of transhumanism.
>>
>> This is precisely why I oppose the forced democracy of WTA and the  
>> insistence by James Hughes, Mike, or Dirk -  or any of us that one  
>> political position is better than another and that people have to  
>> fit neatly into a political box.  All of them - us - have positive  
>> things to offer to the world and it would be good to see them  
>> realized rather than used to dismiss and/or criticize others  
>> within our community.
>>
>> What we need to do is to get futuristic and learn how to rise  
>> above this 20th Century inability to resolve conflict.
>>
>
>
> I confess I (uncharacteristically) disagree on one level, Natasha,  
> but agree on another.
>
> Once we have achieved a PostHuman era, I agree completely that  
> contemporary definitions of nationalism and political philosophy as  
> a whole will be tossed out the window (by the PostHumans, that is).  
> Once the first handful of us achieves the transition to true  
> PostHuman status, we will begin to evolve political and social  
> structures that are so beyond the imagination of us poor pre- 
> PostHumans as to make our current speculations the stuff of  
> kindergarden games.

I don't believe we will get to posthumanity if we do not change some  
of  these things as soon as possible.
>
> And yet, we remain pre-PostHumans, and as such are constrained to  
> act within our current limitations and psychological and social  
> constraints. Our focus must perforce be not to puzzle out what sort  
> of politico-socio-economic structure should or will be in place in  
> a PostHuman world, but rather which contemporary structure is most  
> conducive to bringing it about.

What if none of the contemporary structures are at all adequate?

>
> I say that if wrapping Transhumanism in the flag (whichever flag)  
> will make it more palatable to the masses, and thus more likely to  
> be adopted as a world-view and common vision, then wrap away! If  
> that means that an America inspired by a Transhumanist vision  
> melded with the American Dream ends up being the most effective way  
> of bringing about the >H future, then so be it. If it means that a  
> China inspired by a Transhumanist vision melded with a fusion of  
> Chinese nationalism and post-Maoist ideology ends up being the most  
> effective way of bringing about the >H future, than so be IT.

And if doing so leads to an arms race that ends up using most of the  
tech for aggression abroad and draconian oppression at home and we  
end up through war destroying ourselves or at least most of the  
necessary infrastructure then that is just too bad.

- samantha



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list