Talk:Techno-utopia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] About See also

According to a Wikipedia rule of thumb: 1) if something is in See also, try to incorporate it into main body 2) if something is in main body, it should not be in See also and therefore 3) good articles have no See also sections. --Loremaster 21:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Are these rules of thumb written down on any wikipedia policy pages? Googling this exact text didn't turn them up anywhere, except for User_talk:Piotrus/Archive_11#About_See_also where you asked the user "Piotrus" where he had heard this rule of thumb--did he ever answer you, and if not, what's your basis for thinking this is indeed a widely-accepted rule of thumb? Hypnosifl 01:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Conversations I had with Wikipedia administrators. Like I said, its a rule of thumb not an official policy. --Loremaster 15:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Techno-progressivism?

Hypnosifl argues that in the long term many techno-progressives hope for a techno-utopia or "extropia", and democratic transhumanism is a form of techno-progressivism.

1. I disagree that many techno-progressives hope for a techno-utopia since techno-progressives and democratic transhumanists seek to expand the middle ground between technorealism and technoutopianism. 2. Only extropians (libertarian transhumanists) hope for an "extropia" and extropians are not techno-progressives. --Loremaster 21:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it all depends on what qualifies as a "utopia". For example, if we achieve a genuine post-scarcity economy where no one needs to work, everyone has access to a high living standard and education and so forth, is this alone enough to qualify as a techno-utopia, or do we also need a radical change in how people (or other intelligent beings) relate to each other so there is no conflict between individuals or governments, no crime, even no unhappiness as in the hedonistic imperative? I think the idea of "utopia" is large enough to include more modest aims for the kind of society that should be created, without the assumption that all social problems will be 100% solved. And with this in mind, I think many techno-progressives do hope for a world that could be called "utopian" in the long term, particularly in the sense of no one having to suffer a lack of material want and being able to pursue their own interests.

Also, when I said that many techno-progressives hope for an "extropia", I just meant to refer to the general notion outlined in the article of "an open, evolving society allowing individuals and voluntary groupings to form the institutions and social forms they prefer" as opposed to any sort of "static perfection", not to more specific aspects of the extropian movement's ideology. Wouldn't this general description fit many techno-progressives' ideal of the future? I suppose if "voluntary groupings" is meant to imply a lack of governments this would be more specifically extropian in character, but I don't think it needs to imply that, and particularly in space or in virtual worlds it should be easy enough for individuals to relocate to an area with a government that suited them better.

Finally, if you think that techno-progressivism should not be included on the grounds that "techno-progressives and democratic transhumanists seek to expand the middle ground between technorealism and technoutopianism", then shouldn't you also be in favor of removing "democratic transhumanism" from the "see also" section of this article? (on the subject of democratic transhumanism, please note that I have added a comment to the 'talk' section of that article about an issue we had been discussing, although it doesn't have anything to do with this discussion about techno-progressivism and techno-utopianism). Hypnosifl 21:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

On what do you base your claims regarding the beliefs of techno-progressives? --Loremaster 22:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Largely from my reading of James Hughes' Citizen Cyborg and various articles on left-leaning transhumanism on the internet. Do you disagree with any of my specific comments about their beliefs above, though? Also, I'll just note that I first came across the wiki article on techno-progressivism through the link in this profile which I found when googling "post-scarcity", which says "I am a Techno-Progressive. I believe technology can lead us to a post-scarcity planet, where hopefully post-scarcity humans will acheive sufficient levels of fulfillment in their lives that they will no longer feel the need to kill eachother quite so often." Unless you want to argue that the post-scarcity vision and techno-progressivism are mutually exclusive, this already seems like a reasonably "utopian" goal (as I noted above, 'utopian' need not imply that all problems of society have been solved). Hypnosifl 23:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

1. First of all, although democratic transhumanism is partly utopian and is a radical form of techno-progressivism, techno-progressivism is in part a critique of transhumanism and to a lesser extent democratic transhumanism. I suggest you read The Trouble with "Transhumanism": Part Two and Technoprogressivism Beyond Technophilia and Technophobia if you want to know more about techno-progressivism rather than democratic transhumanism.

2. I would describe as utopian any thinker who creates hypothetical visions of perfect society without actually concerning himself with the manner in which these societies could be created or sustained. This is the major reason why I would not describe a techno-progressive like Dale Carrico as utopian but would one like James Hughes but only in some of his writings.

3. I don't think the opinion of some self-described techno-progressive rank-and-file should be taken serious in order to access the compex and subtle views of a majority of techno-progressive intellectuals and activists.

--Loremaster 00:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Since I'm no expert on techno-progressivism, you may be right that democratic transhumanism would be considered "radical" by most techno-progressives, but the articles you link to don't seem to support this claim. I would characterize democratic transhumanism in terms of an enthusiastic attitude towards the potential of technologies which enhance our bodies and brains (the 'transhumanist' part), combined with a stress on the need for the benefits of these technologies to be widely distributed instead of just available to an elite, and for decisions about how to test and implement these technologies to be made in a democratic, open and transparent way (the 'democratic' part). This seems almost identical to the definition of "tech-progressivism" given in your first article:

Tech-progressivism: A stance of active support for technological development in general and for human practices of genetic, prosthetic and cognitive modification in particular. Tech-progressives believe that technological developments can be profoundly empowering and emancipatory when they are regulated by legitimate democratic and accountable authorities to ensure that their costs, risks and benefits are all fairly shared by the actual stakeholders to those developments.

It is important to note that both bioconservatism and tech-progressivism, in their more reasonable expressions, share an opposition to unsafe, unfair, undemocratic, undeliberative forms of technological development, and both recognize that such developmental modes can facilitate unacceptable recklessness and exploitation, exacerbate injustice and incubate dangerous social discontent.

Likewise, the second article says:

Technoprogressivisms assume that technoscientific developments should be and can be democratizing, sustainable, and emancipatory so long as they are regulated by legitimate democratic and accountable authorities to ensure that their costs, risks and benefits are all fairly shared by the actual stakeholders to those developments. Technoprogressive stances variously support such technoscientific development in general, and tend to take up strong positions of support for informed, nonduressed consensual human practices of genetic, prosthetic, and cognitive modification in particular.

If techno-progressives take up "strong positions of support" for "genetic, prosthetic and cognitive modification" as long as it's done in a democratic and open way, then what is it about democratic transhumanism that you think they would see as radical?

I would note that the second article also suggests that techno-progressives support a guaranteed minimum income for all, to create a world in which "in which many worked for profit, surely, and in which many more would work voluntarily in projects that are especially important or satisfying to them, or provided unique benefits for them." This sounds like it's getting close to the ideal of a post-scarcity society where no one has to work unless they want to, especially if increasing automation causes the minimum income to continually rise over time...I wonder whether the author of the article would consider a true post-scarcity society in which money was not even necessary for most personal goods to be particularly unrealistic or "utopian" as a long-term goal.

On the subject of utopias, while it is true that most utopians haven't given much thought to how to get there from here, I don't really think this should be considered part of the definition of "utopian"; the Marxist ideal of a perfect communist society seems quite utopian to me, for example, but most schools of Marxist thought have pretty explicit ideas about how the transition to this type of society is supposed to occur. Hypnosifl 22:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Since I don't really have the time nor the interest to debate this further, let's end this dispute by agreeing that "post-scarcity" and "transhumanism" (both "democratic transhumanism" and the "Hedonistic Imperative" are currents within the latter so they don't have to be listed) are mentioned in the article while "techno-progressivism" will not be. --Loremaster 23:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That's all right with me, although if anyone else wants to bring back the "See Also" section I wouldn't object to that either. Hypnosifl 23:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

If I might just add something, I'm not sure if the Technocracy Movement should really be classed as "Techno-Utopian", they have always denied that they are "utopians", although I suppose it all depends on what you define as a Utopia. They advocate a Post scarcity/Abundance economy run by a Technical Administration of Scientists and Engineers etc. They don't usually refer to a Technate as a utopia, but just as a far better society than the current one (but they do not make the claim that 100% of problems will be solved or that it would be the best society Ever possible, just the best with current Technology). But the important thing (and a major difference between them and other similar movements) is that they have done allot of research and have extensive plans on how to implement what they advocate. I have no idea if they can be classified as "Techno-progressive" or some other term either though. --Hibernian 11:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Technocratic movement

I've deleted the mention of the Technocratic movement until we can cite as source that describes them as techno-utopian. That shouldn't be too hard for those interested in restoring the mention to find. --Loremaster 00:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)