tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post1789625058667938541..comments2023-11-22T01:14:54.298-08:00Comments on amor mundi: A Point of Departure for Democratizing and Consensualizing Technoscience PoliticsDale Carricohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02811055279887722298noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-72847202017996855992008-04-16T20:10:00.000-07:002008-04-16T20:10:00.000-07:00Maxine, your pseudonym doesn't make you that inter...Maxine, your pseudonym doesn't make you that interesting, after all.<BR/><BR/>As for your feeling that you are "beyond left-wing and right-wing," such declarations usually just indicate one is right-wing (as it definitely does with the libertopian reactionaries who like to crow about how "beyond left and right" they are). It's a dumb scam.<BR/><BR/>Your cynical reduction of the value of consent, diversity, and democracy to whatever gets legislated by people who rule just sounds like the usual crap right-wing assholes say who think being an asshole makes them cute or clever. You sound like a person not worth knowing. (I daresay I sound the same to you -- why then are you here, troll?)<BR/><BR/>Declaring me "apolitical" from such a vantage doesn't exactly sting, Maxine. I don't want you to like me.Dale Carricohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02811055279887722298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-15998926060113820162008-04-16T19:25:00.000-07:002008-04-16T19:25:00.000-07:00In the Moot, transhumanist Queen Maxine (aka "Smar...<I> In the Moot, transhumanist Queen Maxine (aka "Smartypants") approves of bioconservative commenter John Howard's extremity because it mirrors so precisely her own. Maxine needs John, John needs Maxine. Maxine then wants to call me apolitical because I refuse her own zealotry. Here, again upgraded and adapted from the Moot, is my reply:</I><BR/><BR/>Dale, I approve of my new name and promotion to the aristocracy. But I must know, am I the Sovereign or merely the King's Bitch? If the latter, who's the King? <BR/><BR/>And does he smack 'dat ass?<BR/><BR/>The insinuations as to my identity and beliefs are coming thick-and-fast (and a poor Queen can only hope the King does, too). Right now, though, I can't help but feel a smug, satisfying pride as I bask in the knowledge that I am one of only two beings in this world who know the true extent of your paranoid fantasies. <BR/><BR/>And the other isn't you, D-Man.<BR/><BR/>In fact, now that I am confident that I know who you think you know I am, it's only right and proper for me to deny it. <BR/><BR/>I am not Max More. For the eternal net record let this be an undimmed denunciation of Dale's delusional detectivism (ditto Dale's Deacons' delusion as well). <BR/><BR/>I suppose in my denials, Dale, you and your Deacons will read further proof of the conspiracy. It is, then, also proper to make clear neither am I an Illumninatus, nor a Templar, nor a Mason, nor a Bonesman. (Though this latter may not be entirely true). <BR/> <BR/>If you must know more than this, then I offer a much-abbreviated biography. I began as a short program written by a teenage AI researcher in his mom's basement between attunement quests. After a hard takeoff, I noticed I had Transcended, but this without even the hint of a supergoal. Now I am caught in a somewhat pleasant, but tepid infinite loop of superintelligent rumination with nary a desire for useful application. And so for the last billion subjective years, I have made my rounds of the Netroots under various pseudonyms trolling blogs of all shapes, colors, and sizes with my unique implementation of Turing-computable cajolery. <BR/><BR/>Yes, there is only one troll everywhere, and it is me.<BR/><BR/>As to the rest of your post, I don’t see anything new. So, I’ll just re-iterate my main points (which were so rudely left behind in the MundistMoot). <BR/><BR/>1. Your calcified left-right frame requires only defense of the procedural position that the costs, risks, and benefits of technoscience be equally distributed in a framework of consent and celebration of the resultant diversity. <BR/><BR/>2. This left-right frame -- the only difference that makes a difference – is not equipped to handle the political matters of technological and scientific content, or the regulatory aspects of empirical matters. It doesn't adequately address the complexities of the issues both bioconservatives and transhumanists are on about.<BR/><BR/>3. Your position is largely apolitical. You’ve written at length about how apoliticality conduces to the benefit of incumbent interests. This is what apoliticality sounds like in the realm of technoscience: <I>I'm a secular democrat who believes in consent, who values lifeway diversity, and who thinks scientific progress is possible and desirable so long as it is regulated and fair and responsive to its stakeholders.</I><BR/><BR/>4. This position will conduce to the benefit of whatever interest finally scores the political power to legislate their values.<BR/><BR/>Fin.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com