X-Message-Number: 15802
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 15:48:48 -0500 (EST)
From: Ruthanna R Gordon <>
Subject: Re: "Rebels Against the Future"

Doesn't anybody actually *think* about these things?

Okay, now that I've gotten that out of my system, maybe I'll be able to
explain where I'm coming from.  There is a dichotomy being set up here, a
'war for the future.'  Much as I'm sure it would be good for my
self-esteem to be screaming and fighting on one side of it, I believe
there is a middle way.  I myself seem to think between these two
worlds.  I am an immortalist and an environmentalist.  I am an extropian
who believes that advanced technology is absolutely necessary if we are to
survive, but I also believe that the sort of power currently wielded by
megacorporations (and constantly growing) is utterly inimical to the
freedom of the individual.  And I believe that it's actually possible to
be cautious about the impact of new technology without being a complete
luddite.

The idea that technologies should be banned because they have negative
consequences is as absurd as the idea that they should be wholeheartedly
embraced merely because they have positive consequences.  A tool is a
tool.  Many people predicted that computers would lead to the ultimate in
centralized fascism (see any number of SF stories featuring rule by The
Computer, all written before the advent of the microchip).  Instead, it
has led to a decentralization of information distribution that has
*empowered* large portions of the masses.  The Seattle protests of which
the gentleman you quote speaks so highly could not have occurred without
the internet to organize over-the people there admitted as much
themselves.  As for on-line shopping, it is possible to 'shop locally'
even there-you can buy books from Powell's as easily as Amazon.

Likewise, nano- and bio-technology are our only hopes not only for
immortality, but for anything other than a passive solution to the
problems of the ozone hole, nuclear waste, etc.  However, if we don't
anticipate and work to prevent their negative consequences before they
happen, we may end up with shorter lives and worse environmental problems
than we have now.  The Foresight Institute (whose attitude and work I
highly approve of) does not have a 'shiny happy everything's going to be
all right' attitude towards nanotechnology.  Their caution has probably
already averted an uncounted number of irrecoverable disasters that
wouldn't have happened yet even if they didn't exist.  

Both nano- and bio-technology could lead to greater freedom or a future in
which we're all commodified.  Anybody who's either trying to ban them
entirely or who thinks these luddites are the *only* threat to a desirable
future is not working to ensure that they lead to freedom.

Freedom and Long Life,
Ruthanna Gordon     				        
*If God hadn't meant people to have wings, S/He wouldn't have made them*
			      *want to fly.*

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15802