Thank you for your thoughtful commentary, Herb. This kind of exchange is 
what I continually hope for from this list. 

It's really is sad how dominant the capitalism/warfare ideology is, even among 
liberals. You have to constantly and deliberately define yourself as "in 
opposition" to avoid these destructive ways of framing things. This is very 
different from the cultural landscape when SftP first got started, when there 
seemed to be greater heterogeneity in outlook at all levels of society (for 
example, a pro-labor union stance was respectable). 

The ruling class has become incredibly adept in casting doubt on every 
progressive gain of the 20th century. Taxes - bad; publicly funded medical 
care - bad (though liberals see a forced-market version of this as a victory); 
reproductive autonomy - under attack; environmental laws - bad; workplace 
safety laws - bad; child labor laws - in question; social security and 
unemployment protection - on their way out; eugenics - on its way back; 
robotized warfare - on its way in. Slavery (maybe they can find a new name 
for it)??

The awful thing is that so little of this is controversial among the general 
(including educated) population.

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 15:18:57 -0500, herb fox 
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Thanks Stuart for your food for thought.
>
>Regardless of tthe reactions this
>article induces (laughter, fear,
>disregard, etc), recognizing that it
>is serious thinking by serious
>minded thinkers provokes one to
>understand what it represents in a
>larger societal context. It is a
>marvelous example of how much the
>hegemonic culture penetrates even
>the most imaginative and well
>meaning thinkers of today. It is all
>clearly laid out in its opening
>remarks. What is accepted as
>immutable: "ordinary behavioural and
>market solutions might not be
>sufficient to mitigate climate
>change." In essence the underlying
>premise is that capitalism is not to
>be questioned; rather humans are to
>be modified to accomodate it. Stated
>in this bald-faced way, one has to
>accept that this is the dominant
>thinking among intellectuals in
>general and among scientists in
>particular. Moreover the behavioral
>modification of humans to accomodate
>capitalism is active in countless
>ways with scientists participating
>enthusiastically usually
>rationalizing their participation as
>being helpful. Historically i have
>in mind Count Rumford, whose
>contributions to themodynamics are
>admirable and whose contributions to
>accomodating the poor to their
>oppression is less discussed. (It is
>also relevant that his understanding
>of heat came about as he engineered
>the boring of cannon.)
>
>One of the ways that we scientists
>in the United States are made
>integral to capitalism and its
>incessant need to participate in
>wars, etc is through the
>generalization of the Mansfield
>amendment concept. I was made
>acutely aware of this recently when
>a colleague asked me to be co-PI
>with him on a proposal he was
>submitting. The proposal was not
>being submitted to the DoD or NSF
>or, whatever, but to an internal
>university source of seed funding.
>Upon reading his proposal, which
>will, if successful ,enable
>significant improvements in some
>fundamental research, i found
>references to how this work will
>enhance such things as detecting
>terrorists and making stealth
>vehicles. Apparently this is what we
>must do to obtain support for
>scientific endeavors. So we do it
>believeing we are using "them." But,
>in fact, they are using us.
>
>We are confronted with the conundrum
>that, in this society, to do science
>that requires material resources
>beyond our individual capability to
>provide, we usually must participate
>in enabling the use of our science
>for anti-human purposes. The article
>demonstrates that at one extreme we
>accept their motivation as ours and
>are creative in propagating their
>values in our science. At the other
>extreme we abandon science, which is
>itself a conundrum, considering that
>one who doesn't practise science can
>no longer be considered a scientist.
>Most of us sit between these
>extremes. We attach some kind of
>ethical value to the very pursuit of
>science and to the production of new
>scientists, and hold ethical values
>regarding society, war-work, etc.
>Consequently we are almost always
>living a contradiction of ethical
>values.
>
>All this leads me to wonder if
>practicing scientists and engineers,
>are the ones who are going to make
>over the pursuit of science into a
>pursuit of science for the people.
>It may be that "the people" in the
>process of reorganizing society will
>call upon us to break oour ties to
>the curently hegemonic class and
>serve instead the people, while
>providing us the resources to do so.
>It is my fervent hope that my
>students will find that including in
>their proposals reference to war
>usefullness and terrorist supression
>etc will make the proposals
>unacceptable, while reference to
>enhancing the value of human life,
>reduction of environmental threats,
>etc will make them acceptable.
>
>Tell me. please, brothers and
>sisters, what can we do here and
>now, as scientists, that will
>advance the practical realization of
>Science for the People. For the
>article is but an exaggerated, gung
>ho, manifestation of the integration
>of science into the motivation and
>maintenance of institutions of the
>most advanced, creative, inhuman and
>destructive form of social
>organization known to history.
>
>herb
>
>On 2/27/2012 6:24 PM, Stuart Newman
>wrote:
>> Thanks for these comments, Claudia. I originally thought this might be a
>> Swiftian "modest proposal" as well. But then I recognized the name of 
August
>> Sandberg, a prominent Trashumanist:
>> http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/our_staff/research/anders_sandberg
>> and looked up Liao and Roache and found that they are also philosophers in
>> the transhumanist Future of Humanity Institute, though Liao seems to have
>> moved to NYU. They're not kidding.
>>
>> Transhumanism is easy to ridicule, but it is an extension of 20th century
>> eugenics, which also looked like a crackpot venture, until it was not.
>> Transhumanism has gained some traction at the Google-sponsored 
Singularity
>> University in California. I've written a bit about the history of these
>> movements in the attached article.
>>
>> Stuart
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 13:01:59 -0700, Claudia Pine
>> <[log in to unmask]>  wrote:
>>
>>> To be honest, after the first few paragraphs I concluded it is a
>>> tongue-in-cheek satire on all of this expensive, techno-driven chatter
>>> about how we should change the planet - or here, the people - rather 
than
>>> take the simple solution of changing our stupid, shortsighted, ethnocentric
>>> and profit-driven behaviors.
>>>
>>> After all, their proposals that we genetically and pharmaceutically alter
>>> human size, appetite, etc., on a massive scale are no more ridiculous
>>> ("worthy of ridicule") than the equally massive geoengineering proposals
>>> that the authors are ridiculing.  Either approach would require so much
>>> money, so many kinds of complicated and untested technologies, so much
>>> coercive and centralized government, compared to the simple solution of 
us
>>> just stopping any substantial combination of the ridiculous overpopulation,
>>> overconsumption of resources, and overproduction of waste that we now
>>> engage in, for few reasons other than careless habit and thoughtless 
greed.
>>>
>>> But then, I kept reading their carefully laid-out arguments. They seem to
>>> be serious! They advance various examples or experimental data that they
>>> suggest backs up the feasibility of their proposals. Of course, the work
>>> referenced is heavily cherry-picked. It's highly selective, and ignores
>>> many, many other considerations, requirements, and implications, that 
would
>>> come into play if you started giving people a drug that causes them to eat
>>> less beef because it makes them nauseous when they smell it.  Needless 
to
>>> say, few current hamburger fans would agree to take this drug - and even
>>> fewer fast-food chains would agree to add it to their beef!  Talk about pie
>>> (or beef pie) in the sky.
>>>
>>> So I'm torn. Do these authors realize they've written a total farce? Is
>>> this article meant as a complete, Jonathan Swift-style satire of the whole
>>> techno-optimistic silliness that has so many scientists and politicians
>>> constantly proposing trillion-billion-dollar engineering fixes to far
>>> simpler problems of everyday human behavior?
>>>
>>> At the end, I have taken it as a brilliant satire, whether it was intended
>>> as that or not.  It's like Mitt Romney saying "and my wife drives a couple
>>> of Cadillacs" thinking that this shows he understands the ordinary
>>> wage-earner. Whether the speaker is aware of it or not, his words
>>> demonstrate how out of touch with reality he is.
>>>
>>> I'm absolutely delighted Stuart Newman posted the link - thank you, 
Stuart!
>>>
>>> Claudia Pine
>>> Idaho, USA
>>>
>