Ron, No fingers crossed. I do see a connection between this essay and geoengineering, even though the essay topic was about a different disruptive technology. Both technologies challenge our sense of what it means to be a human being. What the essay points out is that smart government responses can persuade societies there is more to gain from accepting sensible use of a "scary" technology than from banning it. My view of the likelihood of transhumanism is irrelevant and to my knowledge NRDC has no view on the matter. The relevant point is that societal acceptance of technologies that appear threatening can be achieved by credible assurances that the government will establish safeguards that result in a net positive outcome. David
Sent from my iPad On Jul 28, 2015, at 8:33 PM, Ronal W. Larson <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Dave, cc list 1. Thanks for this link. I think you might have had your fingers crossed re today’s message below. That is, despite your first sentence, I suspect you might really see a connection between geoengineering and transhumanism (TH). 2. Believing that to be the case, and this being the first time I recall ever seeing the TH term (and also knowing too little about NRDC and TH), I have spent the last several hours learning about it. I started with the Steve Fuller chapter you provided, surprised most by its recommendation to consider tying TH to the military. 3. Obviously we now have the question for this list whether there might be a favorable link between geoengineering and the military. I’m not willing to commit on that idea yet, but I can see some benefits for both the military and biochar with a global array of militaries favoring and working on biochar - presumably for TH reasons. 4. I got my best understanding on TH by investing $.99 in the book for which this Fuller chapter is the last. See http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B010ODV0QK?ref_=kcp_mac_dp So far I have only read the Fuller chapter, and the first two chapters (can read these for free) - but so far believe the $.99 was worth it. I have already learned there is a US TH political party with a candidate. Later googling also showed quite a few connections (so far all positive) between biochar and TH. 5. For the benefit of the whole list, I hope you will expand on your own views on TH and geoengineering (and NRDC concepts, if you wish), perhaps with biochar as a “geo” example. Ron On Jul 28, 2015, at 1:12 PM, Hawkins, Dave <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Not about geoengineering but relevant. IEET Link: http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/fuller20150723 Can transhumanism avoid becoming the Marxism of the 21st century? Steve Fuller Transpolitica http://transpolitica.org/2015/07/08/prolegomena-to-any-future-transhumanist-politics/ July 23, 2015 Is there any politically tractable strategy for transhumanism to avoid the Bismarckian move, which ultimately curtails the capacity of basic research to explore and challenge the fundamental limits of our being? My answer is as follows: Transhumanists need to take a more positive attitude towards the military. Revisiting Marx and Bismarck In ancient Greek tragedy, the term hamartia referred to a distinctive feature of the protagonist’s character that is the source of both his success and his failure, typically because the protagonist lacks sufficient judgement to keep this feature of his character in check. (Original Sin is the comparable Biblical conception, if Adam is seen as having overreached his divine entitlement.) The propensity for projecting the future, often with specific dates attached (as in the arrival of the Kurzweillian ‘singularity’), is transhumanism’s hamartia. But transhumanism is only the latest self-avowed ‘progressive’ movement to suffer from this potentially fatal flaw. Karl Marx notoriously predicted that the proletarian revolution would occur in Germany because its rapid industrialisation made it the most dynamic economy in Europe in the second half of the 19th century, housing the continent’s largest and most organized labour movement. However, the widespread publicity of this quite plausible prediction — starting with The Communist Manifesto — led Bismarck less than two generations later to establish the first welfare state, which exploited Marx’s assumption that the state would always support capital over labour, thereby increasing wealth disparities until society reached the breakpoint. Bismarck effectively refuted Marx by treating his prediction as a vaccine that enabled the political establishment to regroup itself – effectively developing immunity — through a tolerable tax-based redistribution of income from rich to poor that provided a modest but palpable sense of social security from cradle to grave. On the side of the poor, Bismarck capitalized on the tendency for people to discount risky future prospects (i.e. a Communist utopia) when given a sure thing upfront (i.e. social security provision). ----snip---- Sent from my iPad -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
