I am, like Dale, quite concerned about the "elitism, reductionism, indifference, and exploitation" that exists in some ostensibly "pro-technology discourse" -- even though I've long considered myself an enthusiast when it comes to neat gadgets and nifty machines. And it's not devices I take issue with, but the conclusions about reality (and people) that are sometimes drawn from their existence and how these conclusions are applied to individuals. …
[T]here are… people living in squalid and/or abusive institutional conditions right now on the basis of a test score. This is preposterous. But no matter how preposterous, our present culture functionally enables it through defining… some persons as nonpersons (or sub-persons, or "persons with low mental age") via a number on a test that supposedly indicates their level of awareness or capacity for complex thought. …
The way I see it, anyone who can't tolerate a world in which Deaf, autistic, or otherwise-atypical persons continue to exist is not prepared to deal with a world in which forms and functions vary beyond the dreams of generations of sci-fi and fantasy authors. Anyone who cannot see anything other than the standard set of normative human abilities as a means to a "good start" in life is going to have a seriously hard time with a world of prostheticized and implanted and exuberantly decorated beings such as the very technologies they claim to encourage may bring. …
I'm much more about people choosing for themselves which of their "limits" they'd like to push or overcome via modification…. Too many people in general seem to lack the ability to tell the difference between equality and sameness. As a result, even very well-meaning folks can end up overly dazzled by ideas like "maximizing the utility function of the universe" in ways that ignore and harm individuals who might, you know, have a different take on matters, or who are simply not in much of a position to have their thoughts heard.
Great stuff!
I'll add, very quickly, that I find it helps me personally to try to think about desirable democracy in terms of the complementary ideals of equity (having a stake, having the standing to demand an actual hearing) and diversity, rather than the apparently contradictory ideals of equality and diversity (which seem to demand and decry enforced homogeneity at once).
2 comments:
Anne Corwin wrote:
> I am, like Dale, quite concerned about the "elitism, reductionism,
> indifference, and exploitation" that exists in some ostensibly
> "pro-technology discourse" -- even though I've long considered myself
> an enthusiast when it comes to neat gadgets and nifty machines. And it's
> not devices I take issue with, but the conclusions about reality
> (and people) that are sometimes drawn from their existence and how
> these conclusions are applied to individuals. . .
>
> The way I see it, anyone who can't tolerate a world in which Deaf,
> autistic, or otherwise-atypical persons continue to exist is not prepared
> to deal with a world in which forms and functions vary beyond the
> dreams of generations of sci-fi and fantasy authors. Anyone who cannot
> see anything other than the standard set of normative human abilities
> as a means to a "good start" in life is going to have a seriously
> hard time with a world of prostheticized and implanted and exuberantly
> decorated beings such as the very technologies they claim to encourage
> may bring.
Well. If your "axe to grind" vis a vis the >Hists' acceptance
of human diversity is Aspergers, mine is being queer.
I had an exchange once with a rather prominent >Hist
that went:
------------------------------------------------------------
> For myself, I'll say that it has to be a *better* way. Whether it's a
> different way or a rebellious way is just plain irrelevant.
Rebellious (in that kind of fundamental way) has nothing to do with
it when you're five -- no child could conceive or execute
such a subtle and dangerous joke on its parents.
Different (from the majority) it is indeed, but not by choice --
no animal as deeply social as a human being could conceive
or execute such a subtle and dangerous joke on its tribe.
Better only happens (if at all) after, having survived (those
who do survive -- not all do) a rather more intensely hellish childhood
and adolescence than the mundane hell of the mainstream,
you get an outsider's perspective on a lot of what passes
for normal human existence. Some of the ordinary chains are
melted clean off in that crucible. I guess some artists manage to
turn that into something of genuine value.
> And no, I really really don't want to hear about why you
> think it's a better way.
Your tone here brings back so many fond memories of the
70's and 80's :-/ .
It's the hand I was dealt. Like it or lump it for me,
like it or lump it for you (and everyone else).
------------------------------------------------------------
Later, I discovered the same battle-line drawn among the cryonicists
on the subject of "acceptable" forms of human diversity:
> Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 10:34:24 +0000 ()
> From: Louis Epstein
> Subject: Replies to CryoNet #16528 - #16535
>
> . . .
>
> > Message #16533
> > Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 21:37:28 -0700
> > From: Mike Perry
> > Subject: diversophobia
> >
> > Mike Donahue (#16524) calls attention to the following from Louis Epstein:
> >
> > > > The PF [of PFLAGS, Parents and Friends of
> > > > Lesbians and Gays] are for Parents and Friends;
> > > > the group is dedicated to confusing affection for
> > > > those with the condition with the condition being
> > > > in no way deplorable.
> >
> > Though not homosexual myself, I strongly disagree
> > with those who consider the condition in some intrinsic
> > way deplorable. The future should offer more options
> > all around, and, I suspect, will show ever greater
> > diversity in what was formerly the (merely) human
> > population. Those who have problems now with people
> > who are "different" may have more than ever in the future.
>
> I have already noted what I
> consider the disturbing school
> of thought that worships diversity
> as a good in itself rather than
> accepting it as a condition that
> has problems to overcome.(And noted
> that diversity-worshippers have a
> knee-jerk opposition to diversity
> of opinion on the value of diversity).
>
> It is regress, not progress,
> for consensus on standards to
> disintegrate. And I regret refusal
> to face the functionally deficient
> nature of sexuality directed toward
> persons of one's own sex.
http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=16538
Louis Epstein's cryonet article prompted one
Mike Darwin (Mike Federowicz), a prominent figure in the
cryonics movement who also happens to be gay, and an
example of a member of that culture who ordinarily
keeps his own homosexuality pretty low profile
(apparently because he is not interested in spending
time and energy getting caught up in "gay identity
politics"), to take up the cudgels in an extended
article, "Homosexuals, cryonics, and the
'natural order'":
http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=16562
Ah well. Of course, for those drawn to >Hism because they
think it is (or will be) a source of **power** (as was
the case with so many drawn to Scientology):
------------------------------------------------------------
["Social dominators"] say [that] ultimately complete equality
is a pipe dream. Natural forces inevitably govern the worth
of the individual. And people should have to earn their places
in society, not get any free rides. All that society is obliged
to do, if fairness is an issue, is provide a level playing field.
The poor can pull themselves up by their bootstraps if they
really want to. Lots of people have, haven’t they?
You have probably heard these arguments before, and some of them
make a certain amount of sense. But I don’t trust the social dominator
when he says them because I know how he reacts to other statements
about equality. Namely:
-- People have no right to economic equality. All of us should
get as much as we can, and if some don’t get enough, that’s
their problem. (Agree)
-- Everyone should have an equal opportunity for economic success.
Those born into poor circumstances should be given extra help to
make the “playing field” level for them. (Disagree)
-- If the natural forces of supply and demand and power make
a few people immensely wealthy and millions of others poor,
so be it. (Agree)
-- “Access programs” to higher education, which give people from poor
backgrounds extra financial support and counseling while in university,
are a good idea. (Disagree)
-- Nobody should get extra help improving his place in society. Everyone
should start off with what his family gives him, and go from there. (Agree)
-- There is nothing wrong with the fact that powerful people get
better treatment by the law than poor people do. (Agree)
-- Since so many members of minority groups end up in our jails,
we should take strong steps to make sure prejudice plays no role
in their treatment in the legal system. (Disagree)
-- If powerful people can get away with illegal acts because
they can afford the best lawyers, and because they have
“friends in high places,” so what? It’s just natural. (Agree)
-- The “one-person-one-vote” idea is dumb. People who make bigger
contributions to our society should get a lot more votes than those
who do nothing. (Agree)
-- Equality is one of the fundamental principles of democracy, so
we should work hard to increase it. (Disagree)
-- "Equality” is one of those nice-sounding names for suckers.
Actually only fools believe in it. (Agree)
-- No racial group is naturally inferior to any other. If a group
does poorly, it is usually because of discrimination. (Disagree)
-- If everyone really were treated equally, I would get less and
I would not like that. (Agree)
Given all of this, do you really believe the social dominator who says
people should have to earn their success in life? He’s quite willing
to let the children of the rich get rich merely through inheritance.
Do you trust him when he says he’s in favor of a level playing field?
He’s against programs that would give the disadvantaged a better chance.
Does he really believe the poor can pull themselves up by their bootstraps,
or is he content to let them face an uphill struggle that very few can
overcome? It doesn’t bother the social dominator that masses of people
are poor. That’s their tough luck. And some racial groups are just naturally
inferior to others, he says. Justice should not be applied equally to all.
The rich and powerful should have advantages in court, even if that
completely violates the concept of justice. Who cares if prejudice plays
a role in the justice system? He certainly doesn’t. The “right
people” should have more votes than everybody else in elections.
And so on.
If you stare deeply into the souls of social dominators, they believe
“equality” is a sucker word. Only fools believe in it, they say. And if
people took equality seriously, if society did try to provide equal
opportunity for all, and if the playing field really were made level
so that bootstraps could be pulled up and multitudes of lives bettered,
the social dominator knows he would get less. And he very much dislikes
that notion. He says so.
-- Robert Altemeyer, _The Authoritarians_, Chapter 5
"Authoritarian Leaders"
http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/chapter5.pdf
( http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/ )
Anne Corwin also wrote, in the above-linked blog entry:
> One of the things I'm finding difficult to deal with
> in some of the discussions I tend to end up in is the
> apparent tendency on the part of many others to cling
> to rigid, abstract ideologies.
>
> Basically, it seems sometimes like everyone is looking
> for a proper "ism" to adhere to and execute in their
> navigation of reality and of the various ethical dilemmas
> and decision cases it presents.
"Our abstract system of morality is primarily metaphorical,
since it uses metaphors like Moral Accounting, Morality Is
Strength, and Morality Is Wholeness. . . Because experiential
morality is the grounding for all of these metaphors, it
is also the grounding for moral understanding and moral
reasoning. . .
Because experiential morality is the basis -- the foundation --
of all abstract metaphorical moral conceptions, we can ask
a very interesting question: Is there ever a conflict between
some metaphorical moral system and its basis? Or is there
always harmony between a given metaphorical moral system
and its basis?
The question is important for a good reason. One sometimes
gets the sense that an abstract, metaphorical moral system
is somehow losing touch with what morality is all abo0ut:
losing touch with its basis, experiential moality, losing
touch with whether or not human beings are flourishing. . .
on a one-by-one basis. . .
Nurturant Parent morality contains within it something that
does not permit it to lose touch with experiential
morality [, namely] the priority of Moral Empathy. . .
Strict Father morality is rather different in this respect.
Moral Strength, not Empathy, is at the top of its value
system. Right up there are Moral Authority, the Moral Order,
and Retribution (just punishment). Moral Empathy and
Nurturance have lower priorities in the Strict Father system.
Not that they are missing. But they must give way to moral
authority, moral strength, and retribution.
This means that one does not empathize fully with the morally
weak, such as welfare recipients without the self-discipline
to get a job, unwed mothers without the self-discipline to
refrain from sex, and so on. It means one does not empathize
fully with those who violate moral authority and break the
law; in other words, you don't empathize with criminals.
It also means you don't empathize fully with those lower in
the moral order -- species becoming extinct, rainforests,
the nonwhite poor of other countries. . .
This is where this metaphorical moral system loses touch with
the nonmetaphorical, literal, directly experienced foundation
of all metaphorical moral systems. It is where this system
of metaphorical morality loses touch with common humanity."
-- George Lakoff, _Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think_,
Chapter 23, "Basic Humanity", pp. 381 - 383
"Intolerance is just as prevalent at ...[either]... end of the political
and economic spectrum. Economist Murray Rothbard, who avers that
the Libertarian party was founded in his living room, compared
the intolerance of communists with that of Randian Libertarians. . .
'an ideological cult can adopt the same features as a more
overtly religious cult, even when the ideology is explicitly
atheistic and anti-religious.' . . . Loyal followers [of Ayn Rand]
often found themselves outcast heretics for the minutest of infractions,
such as listening to the 'wrong' music or not properly
denouncing an irrational idea. Moral absolutism leads to
moral absurdities, turning acolytes into apostates. . .
Contrast Rand's Old Testament-style morality with that of Jesus
on the matter of moral judgment. Here is Rand's position:
'The precept: "Judge not, that ye be not judged" . . . is an
abdication of moral responsibility: it is a moral blank
check one gives to others in exchange for a moral blank check
one expects for oneself. There is no escape from the fact
that men have to make choices; so long as men have to make
choices, there is no escape from moral values; so long
as moral values are at stake, no moral neutrality is possible.
To abstain from condemning a torturer, is to become
an accessory to the torture and murder of his victims.
The moral principle to adopt . . . is "Judge, and be
prepared to be judged."'
Actually, what Jesus said in full (in Matt. 7:1-5) was:
'Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment
ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete,
it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou
the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not
the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say
to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine
eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite,
first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then
shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy
brother's eye.'
The principle Jesus extols is not moral neutrality or a moral
blank check, but a warning against self-righteous severity
and a rush to judgment, as explained in the Talmudic
collection of commentary on Jewish custom and law called the
Mishnah: 'Do not judge your fellow until you are in
his position' (Aboth 2:5); 'When you judge any man
weight the scales in his favor' (Aboth 1:6) . . .
Why should absolutism necessarily lead to intolerance? Is
it just that people who prefer absolute systems of morality
tend to be intolerant by temperament, or is there
something built into the systems themselves that leads
to intolerant attitudes and behavior? An answer can be
found in the difference between the binary logic of absolute
morality and the fuzzy logic of provisional morality.
The basis of most ethical systems is Aristotelian binary
logic: black or white, right or wrong, moral or immoral.
Ayn Rand well represents this position: 'There are two
sides to every issue: one side is right and the other
is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is
wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by
accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in
the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order
to pretend that no choice or values exist.'
Nonsense on stilts. Philosophy often only tells us the
way the world should be. Science tells us how it really
is, and science reveals a very fuzzy world with multiple
shades of grey."
-- Michael Shermer, _The Science of Good and Evil_
( http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0805075208 )
pp. 242 - 244
Post a Comment