At 12:54 PM 1/20/2008, Ben wrote:
I created a revised version of the essay,
which may not address all your complaints, but
hopefully addressed some of them.
http://www.goertzel.org/Chapter12_aug16_05.pdf
However I would be quite interested in further critiques of the 2005
version, because the book in which is was
published is going to be reissued in 2008 and
my coauthor and I are planning to rework the chapter anyway.
I read the 2005 (above link) essay (Chapter 12)
this evening. It is a fluid, well-written piece.
Thank you Ben for allowing me to comment. I
would like to first give my view as a meta
observation and then focus on a few particulars.
The essay summarizes extropians by focusing on
one person, Sasha, as if he is a prototype for
extropianism. Sasha, however brilliant and
influential in many ways, was not a prototype for
extropians or the philosophy of Extropy. Even
less so is Hans Moravec, on whom the article also
focuses. In fact, because of the principles of
Extropy, no one person ought to be singled out as
a prototype, as it would be incongruous. Second,
the essay critiques extropians from a political
perspective rather than from critiquing it as a
philosophical and social movement. Since Extropy
is a philosophy philosophical and social
movement, it must be first and foremost
recognized, observed and criticized as a
philosophy philosophical and social movement of
transhumanism. Attempts to box it into a
particular political party's or ideology will no
doubt miss the core beliefs and finer points
which politics, by its very nature, misses.
A final note on the meta observation is that you
missed any and all of my own writings on
transhumanism which evidences concepts concerning
a more humane transhumanism and ideas about
compassion, human understanding, and social
issues. I wrote about the importance of
compassion in transhumanism from 1982 forward,
and especially in the 1990s after I joined
Extropy Institute. I am not asking you to give
me any credit for this; I am asking that you not
claim that it was missing from the philosophy of
Extropy because it was indeed there. Not only
did I write about it, Greg Burch [for instance,
in his "extrosattva" posts] and many others did
as well. At the Extro Conferences, especially
Extro5, it was a main issue of several of the talks.
A few of the particulars that caught my eye are:
"This group of computer geeks and general
high-tech freaks ..." This interpretation is
journalistic and lacking in credibility. First,
the founders of the institute are a philosopher
and lawyer. The Board of Directors were authors,
professors, business executives, etc.
"Along the way they want to get rid of
governments, moral strictures, and eventually
humanity itself,..." This phrase lacks merit. I
think a problem with this style of writing is
that it wants to use alarming statements instead
of simply telling the truth. The truth is
usually far more exotic than exaggeration. What
is true is that governments which are tyrannical
and troublesome and of concern to extropians, who
did not blink at saying so. Nevertheless, truer
is the fact that many extropians, including
myself, are thinking about the far future --and
in the far future, governments will be outdated
structures. In the far, far future humanity will
have evolved into posthumanity. This does not
mean that extropians what to "get rid of
humanity" at all. You must remember that extropy
is the core, original philosophy of
transhumanism. As such, humanity is in a stage
of transition. Transition means in the process
of becoming something other. It does not mean "getting rid" of humanity.
Using the term "Social-Darwinism" is inaccurate
because it poisons the well of your readership by
implying that it is a desire for those who are
more fit than others to dominate. This term
makes a socio-economic/political inference,
rather than explaining why extropians want to
self-improve. One of the most important
characteristics of extropians is the desire to
see ALL humanity improve, NOT a select few who can "afford" it.
"... one might call it libertarian
transhumanism." Again, the overemphasis on
pigeon-holing Extropy as a political worldview is
a misnomer and missing the larger scope of the
philosophy which has more to do with human
potential and individual/social change than a political world view.
"...For instance, visionary robotics Hans
Moravec, a hero ..." This paragraph presents a
false dichotomy because it equates comments about
the "far future" to the "near or present." For
example, you might ask me, "Natasha, what is your
dream for the future?" And I might say, "I'd
like to see university students performing
research in space habitats on the Moon." And
then you write, "Natasha is anti-academia to a
remarkable, ultra-radical extreme. She wants to
do away with all universities on Earth and only
have researchers who can afford to travel to the
moon, which would cost $2.5 million dollars. She is an elitist Republican."
In regards to Moravec, let me say that I am very
fond of Hans and consider him to be a remarkable
roboticist. But his expertise is robotics and
AI, not politics. So using him as an icon in
claiming extropians are radical libertarians
because of what Hans says is fun reading, but not a reasonable conclusion.
Please indulge me a little further as I make comments on a personal note:
"... Max's wife Natasha ..." Please do not call
me a wife. I am a scholar, media artist,
futurist and now, according to the New York
Times, "The first female philosopher of
transhumanism." Calling me a wife, however
complimentary, is degrading when you are writing
about a philosophy that I hold dear. Further I
was president of Extropy Institute for a number
of years, and reducing me to "wife" position is belittling.
"... and his wife Natasha ..." Once again, the wifey-poo description.
After writing these comments, I went to my
bookshelf and pulled down the book I wrote in the
1990s Create/Recreate: The 3rd Millennial Culture
about Extropy and transhumanist culture. I
skimmed though more than a dozen of the
collection of essays and was reminded about one
core value of extropy -- that of practical
optimism. I also was reminded that the
underlying concern expressed in each essay was/is
a desire to see transhumanism work to help solve
the many hardships of humanity everywhere.
Thank you Ben. Best wishes,
Natasha
<http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha<http://www.natasha.cc/> Vita-More
PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium - CAiiA,
situated in the Faculty of Technology,
School of Computing, Communications and Electronics,
University of Plymouth, UK
<http://www.transhumanist.biz/>Transhumanist Arts & Culture
<http://extropy.org/>Thinking About the <http://extropy.org/>Future
If you draw a circle in the sand and study only
what's inside the circle, then that is a
closed-system perspective. If you study what is
inside the circle and everything outside the
circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&id_secret=88054658-66dc04
