>
>To understand the scope of the problem let us contrast our collective
>outrage at the example Stuart has brought to our attention with how
>commonplace is the acceptance of manipulating nature around us,
including
>almost any species we have found "useful" to us (think of breeding
wolves
>into dogs of all kinds, including "toy" dogs).
>
>In such cases at least two factors are at work. First, it is our collective
>desire to control our environment (nature and society). Second, science
>(and technology) is (are) the social processes that make this happen. Of
>course, when the ends are consistent with our ethical believes we see no
>problem either with the desire to control or science as the means to
>achieve such control. However, when the proposal offends our sense of
>ethics we find fault in the group of policymakers and scientists
>responsible.
>
>If any of this makes any sense at all, I think a solution might reside in
>merging science and technology with wisdom of the aboriginals who did
see
>themselves as part of web of life and tried--at least in large measure
>successfully--to adapt to their environment as opposed to changing it to
>fit their desire. "Science for the people" would become the science that
>show us how to live as part of the web of life without a desire to make it
>in our own image; that is to be in harmony with the rest of nature as
well
>with our own kind.
>
>A modern day example is permaculture that tried to mimic nature in
setting
>so modified by humans that is no longer hospitable to the web of life.
An
>ecological socialism of this kind can be the society in which such science
>will flourish.
>
>Kamran
>
>
>On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:18 PM, 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]>
<
[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
>>
>>
>>
>