if the critique [of superlativity] was more understandable and contained no name-calling, [transhumanists and singularitarians and so on] would have no choice but to focus on developing a rebuttal to your critique
I think you are a bit over-optimistic here. Also, I think there is a deeper Two Cultures sort of problem afoot:
Many people who buy into what I call superlativity regard only what they call "technical" critiques as "understandable" and "worthy" of rebuttal, but such "technical" accounts concede techno-utopianism far too much ground and too many of their most problematic assumptions to allow relevant critique real purchase in my view.
Further, my own focus is rhetorical and cultural -- which seems to me not only relevant but actually key to understanding the problems with especially organized "identity-movement" formations of superlativity (which I call sub(cult)ural) -- and the simple truth is that this very focus itself seems to inspire the charge of name-calling and incomprehensibility.
One needs the patience of a saint to overcome these sorts of structural barriers, and it is hard for me to pretend that Robot Cultists really deserve that kind of effort (especially since patience of this kind is more likely than not to receive no reply but "tl;dr" anyway -- believe me, I know).
As I have said many times, one reaches the point at which the only sensible thing is to ridicule the ridiculous in the hopes that its dangerous nonsense will be bulldozed harmlessly into the margins, the better to make room for the more reasonable to proceed in the clash of their opinions.
4 comments:
Dale, I need a remedial course in what your point is. Could you, in a sentence or two, summarize your critique of Superlativity, and then (this part stumps me more) why you feel it needs to be critiqued, rather than left alone, and what you hope to accomplish by critiquing it?
John, if you want spoon-feeding you can pay me for the privilege like any student. Otherwise, there are dozens upon dozens of essays, conveniently categorized, of varying lengths and difficulty levels, available to your left at the top of the blogroll under the heading "My Writings" for you to explore. Everything you want to know is already there.
Could you, in a sentence or two, summarize your critique of Superlativity
I may be wrong but it seems to me that Mr. Carrico argues that there are marginal groups of technophiles (transhumanists, singularitarians, immortalists, etc) who not only have a faith in technological change that boarders on the religious or cultic but they have technoutopian expectations that are troublingly similar to the supernatural expectations of some religious groups (superintelligence = omniscience, superlongevity = immortality, superabundance = horn of plenty, singularity = rapture, etc).
why you feel it needs to be critiqued, rather than left alone, and what you hope to accomplish by critiquing it?
Mr. Carrico hopes to prevent these groups from becoming mainstream but also use them as good examples to show extreme (or absurd) the technoutopianism and crypto-eugenicism that already exists in modern society can become.
Its like critiquing the racism that is pervasise in the US by pointing that sometimes the rhetoric of some respected journalists and politicians isn't that different from that of obscure neo-nazi groups...
As I have said many times, one reaches the point at which the only sensible thing is to ridicule the ridiculous in the hopes that its dangerous nonsense will be bulldozed harmlessly into the margins, the better to make room for the more reasonable to proceed in the clash of their opinions.
Do you know a good subversive cartoonist you could collaborate with to ridicule Robot Cultism in a cartoon format?
Check out Matt Bors ridiculing bailout profiteers: http://mattbors.com/archives/473.html
Post a Comment