I wasn't basing what said on polling data, which I believe can be used to
support disparate views of the public's credulousness. The expressed
viciousness Republicans are now willing to vote for is more rabid than
anything I remember from the days of Nixon or Ford, and the opposition
of non-Republicans of the 1960s to the belligerent international policies of
a Democratic president (one who delivered genuine, rather than meager,
domestic benefits) was quite impressive. I wasn't claiming everyone goes
along with all the awful things I mentioned, only that many of these are
now "uncontroversial," that is, not excluded from public policy discourse
(like torture used to be).
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 18:38:16 -0500, Sam Friedman
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Stuart,
>What is your source for the claim I pasted below? This goes against
most if not all poloing dat
>
>
>
>
>The awful thing is that so little of this is controversial among the general
>(including educated) population.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Stuart Newman <[log in to unmask]>
>To: SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE <SCIENCE-FOR-THE-
[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Wed, Feb 29, 2012 1:10 pm
>Subject: Re: Science for (improving) the People
>
>
>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
>>>>
>>
>
>
>