[ExI] [ieet] Singularity - Non-Gender Specific
asyluman at gmail.com
Tue Sep 29 22:51:23 UTC 2009
The probable truth, I would think, is that whatever forces and life events
compel one to be interested in the Singularity were experiences primarily
dominated by males when they were growing up in the fifties through the
seventies--sci-fi, comic books, and the like. Futurist television programs
(e.g. The Jetsons) were set in the male-centric mode of the time and thus
set a precedent.
When you try too hard to find a modern pattern, things fall apart. The
cause is as old as Kurzweil himself.
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 6:46 PM, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com>wrote:
> On 9/29/2009 5:00 PM, natasha at natasha.cc wrote:
>> Can you give some examples of phallic singularitarianism? What
>>> currently is "gender specific in its promotion"?
>> Visually, the camera angle of men - mostely from the bottom up to
>> enlarge the form/figure. I think that both the Singularity Institute and
>> University are too focused on fast-track futurism rather than social
>> issues as well as human, transhuman, posthuman issues.
> Seems we're going in circles here. I asked if you meant there were too few
> women involved in promoting the idea, and you came back with "I am not
> asking why more women are not discussing the Singularity. (Why is it that
> is women are mentioned, there has to be a giant leap to sex symbols?)".
> I do see, and agree with, your comment that "cyborg" has been
>>> appropriated by feminist and other poststructuralist theorists. What's
>>> the equivalent you have in mind?
> The equivalent I have in mind is the chrysalis that I mentioned.
> I must have been unclear, again. I was asking what the equivalent is of
> males having appropriated the inherently sex-neutral idea of a technological
> singularity. Is it just the "camera angle of men" and other instances of men
> usually being the speakers? What does it mean to say that singularitarians
> are avoiding "social issues"? The chrysalis figuration is intriguing (it
> reminds me of the feminist "wise crone": as you put it, "it is well-known to
> women as a transformation stage from being fertile, reproductive organism to
> transforming into non-physically reproductive BUT intellectually productive,
> wise organisms") but it seems to imply a teleological pathway--like
> menopause--from where we are to a kind of predetermined transcendence (pupas
> don't *decide* to become butterflies, nor can they choose not to be).
> Damien Broderick
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat