• Google
    This Blog Web

October 2011

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          

RSS Feed

Bookmark and Share

Email Feed

  • Powered by FeedBlitz

« A Technological Stampede! | Main | C-R-Newsletter #33 »

August 31, 2005


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Hayekian Liberal

I get a little cranky when people start the 'we need to invent a culture'-meme. I'd like to quote a character from Peter F. Hamilton's Night's Dawn-trilogy: "One does not invent a culture. One nurtures it." What we *need* to nurture is freedom, responsability and a can-know and a can-do attitude.

Pace Arko

Technoprogressives, and I've considered myself one for a very long time even though I didn't really have a label for it, are a rather recent crystalization on the political spectrums associated with stuff like nanotechnology and biotech.

One of the things they tend to be skeptical of is the some of the vague thinking espoused by Libertarian (to use a label in United States political thinking.) advocates of advanced technology. To be frank they are embarrassed by some of the handwaving made by Max More's Extropy group and some of the flakey quasi-religious thinking that has come to be associated with Vinge's singularity idea.

I think they(we) are more in alignment with the traditional left end of the spectrum although some a very moderate and many are very skeptical of the nonsense put forward by Deep Ecology or any form of luddite, left or right.

I think we're closer to the views put forward by the CRN (Government must play a role to protect society from nanotech abuse.) and find Glenn Reynold's (A nanotech advocate and Foresight advisor.) political views distasteful.

Let's put it this way, there are advocates of nanotechnology who were for the invasion of Iraq and there advocates who were against it. Technoprogressives fall into the latter category.

Of course the differences a very subtle and probably wouldn't matter to many outsiders who'll just lump us all, tech-progressives andn libertarians, as nanotech advocates but as these technologies manifest I think the division will matter more and more.

Janessa Ravenwood

Quite likely the differences will matter more as time goes on. Of course, I would say that it matters now in debates among nanotech advocates as each side tries to portray their particular vision in the widest possible spotlight.

I guess I'd be a Techolibertarian as I think govt. response will end up being be a day late and a $ short (I think they're likely to be caught flat-footed, as is usual for them with any new technology), Instapundit is my home page, and I'm for the war.

Pace Arko

The division of advocates into two extremely general political camps is as old as politics itself. The pendulum swings back and forth as each camp tries to correct the excesses and perceived failings of the other. I'm not at all surprised this has happened to nanotechnology advocacy as well. It was bound to.

I'd even argue that it is healthy for this to happen.

The comments to this entry are closed.