Thursday, March 06, 2014
Existenz Publishes "The Future of Humanity and the Question of Posthumanity"
Existenz has published its volume on The Future of Humanity and the Question of Post-Humanity, which includes what is probably my own most fully elaborated published critique of transhumanism Futurological Discourse and Posthuman Terrains. When I find the time -- probably over the week-end since I'll be preoccupied with teaching later today and all day tomorrow -- I will be creating a forum here linking to the original panel discussion from which the volume originated, linking to all the pieces themselves, as well as to various online responses to the essays (please let me know about any such responses and discussions you discover, and not only for responses to my own essay but to any and all of them) and facilitating such responses (the best of which I will consider publishing here as guest posts if you like), and eventually my own responses to each of the contributions as well.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
> Existenz has published its volume on The Future of Humanity
> and the Question of Post-Humanity, which includes what is
> probably my own most fully elaborated published critique of
> transhumanism Futurological Discourse and Posthuman Terrains.
Just a couple of spelling mistakes I noticed while glancing
through this:
"Exxon-Mobile" -> "ExxonMobil"
"Eugene O'Neil" -> "Eugene O'Neill"
You know, C. S. Lewis was no dummy, but one unfortunate effect
of citing or even mentioning him in a context like this is that
some people (who ought to know better) will simply roll their eyes and
**assume** that that author (the one mentioning or quoting
Lewis) is some sort of Luddite bioconservative religious
fanatic. It's unfortunate, but there you go.
With this week off its rather a privilege to have the time to dive into articles of a certain length, first your own just now and the transcription of Chomsky's recent speech over Salon (http://www.salon.com/2013/08/17/chomsky_the_u_s_behaves_nothing_like_a_democracy/).
Of your own article, the following stands out in the context of the two: "For now, let me simply point out that democracy in my understanding is the effort to provide non-violent alternatives for the adjudication of disputes as part of the experimental implementation of the idea that people should have a say in the decisions that affect them".
The current determination of our present in different but similarly secretive and anti-democratic ways by a group of scientists (Arendt), free marketeering futurological hacks (you) or technocrats (Chomsky), bolstering their concentrations of knowledge, wealth and violence, has produced a RECD so far removed from the non-violent arbitration of disputes you define.
Where is the peace movement today? How do we introduce the stakes of non-violence over national interests? This is my current, call it naive, preoccupation.
The famous long overdue email still to follow, my dear friend.
I teach The Abolition of Man in a couple of my courses and have come to know it very well and appreciate it very much. You are right that many will dismiss as uncritically technophobic anybody who takes up the piece. I think it is equally true that many (probably just as many) will assume me to be congenially technophobic for the same reason. Readers making either assumption are in for a bit of a surprise, of course, since I deploy the essay sympathetically in one section only to criticize it in a later one as bioconservative. The typos are especially galling, tho', since I can no longer do anything about them.
I am the last one to deny how dysfunctional, secretive, plutocratic, corporate-militarist our notionally representative democracy has become -- universal automatic voter registration and public financing of election campaigns; the introduction of term limits, income disparity limits, and a common good clause in corporate charters, and then steeply progressive taxes to fund via universal healthcare, education, income, and support a scene of informed nonduressed consent to the terms of everyday commerce will probably be required to save the republic. To do so would be the work of a generation. American history provides plenty of resources for hope in the turn of the last century -- on the one hand the rise of extractive corporate trusts, regulative capture, procedural obstructionism of progressive legislation, the rise of naval adventurism, phony wars, and imperial conquest in, for example, the Philippines, an unaccountable security/police state justified by a war on terror (the terror of anarchists, immigrants, and labor organizers) -- and on the other hand, the rise of muckraking citizen journalism, the rise of progressive organizing, a transformed multi-ethnic electorate including both sexes (a growing number of states preceding the Constitutional amendment), populist Georgist and socialist economic ideas forming the basis of a commonsense that would flower much later in the New Deal... I think despair is enervating to organizing, and so when one contemplates the present plutocratic capture of so much of our regulatory and election processes it remains important to recall that wholesome democratic accomplishments like the non-violent succession of leadership, the separation of powers, the subsidiarity of federalism, the accountability of juries and regular elections, the catastrophically stressed but still real provisions of the welfare entitlements arising from the New Deal and the Great Society, the connection of taxation to representation are all tattered but intact. Peace or at any rate civitas is embedded in these practices and the institutional scene they materialize, all too easy to forget, always at the ready to provide a foothold for organizing to propel us forward from. The multicultural Obama coalition is ascendent, majorities are opposed to war, social democratic policy prescriptions in the service of equity-in-diversity are at the ready and widely supported by activists and experts. Things can change quickly (as queer activists what could be plainer to the likes of us?), we have already witnessed the turning of the tide. All the unnecessary death, suffering, and waste is demoralizing, but plutocrats are real stakeholders with a lot of money at their beck and call, heartbreaking compromised reform is the price of the ticket, one has to keep pushing. If it were not for climate change, I must say I would be positively bullish about the prospects for planetary democracy in my lifetime.
Admittedly the latest rounds of war-mongering had not sat well. So reform and keeping up the good fight it is!
Indeed we posited a queer politics once upon a time and now 14 year olds LGBTQs can seek protection from bullying at their high schools, come out in normal family conditions, remain protected at their jobs, some recognition of partnership, even get married--who would have thought!? That might be the extent of a "planetary" movement for our generation--and we know the limits of that global approach.
As you say the multi-cultural reality of the US already insists upon change, and speaking with my close friend Melissa, the justice system is under a complete and very real revision, finally dismantling the vestiges of automatic sentencing and of course unjust drug laws among others.
Now since only comparing points in your article rather than commenting on its own many merits, let me say that I had a chance to share your arguments (to the best of my ability) on the superlative that is mythological aspect of technology over a discussion with friends including some engineers. It is interesting to witness how deeply engrained the myth is, but when people get talking, and with your research behind it, one can get a group of people to stop talking about the magic Technology that will save the world one day and start talking about the real engineering investments and solutions to actually existing problems, maybe diverting a little cash to environmental activist groups doing the work we are no longer prepared to do ourselves.
So as a teacher, your hard work has made its way to Switzerland to a bunch of engineers, hoping to crack through some myths on the subject.
In Buddhism and its central belief in teaching as transmission, it might be said that one of your "manifestation selves" is alive and well in Switzerland--it's been nice being with you!
Enough said. Hope you're doing great.
let me say that I had a chance to share your arguments (to the best of my ability) on the superlative that is mythological aspect of technology over a discussion with friends including some engineers. It is interesting to witness how deeply engrained the myth is, but when people get talking, and with your research behind it, one can get a group of people to stop talking about the magic Technology that will save the world one day and start talking about the real engineering investments and solutions to actually existing problems, maybe diverting a little cash to environmental activist groups doing the work we are no longer prepared to do ourselves. So as a teacher, your hard work has made its way to Switzerland to a bunch of engineers, hoping to crack through some myths on the subject.
Day made.
Post a Comment