Tuesday, March 10, 2009
So Many Visionaries
Too many people are described as "visionaries" if you ask me or, worse, seem to nominate themselves for the position. It's almost as bad as the brigade of self-appointed "geniuses" one hears about incessantly in reference to the most quotidian intelligences imaginable. This surfeit of self-fluffing Idea-Man wannabees throng especially among the people who like to indulge in the sorts of futurological handwaving I ridicule hereabouts, it seems to me. And so, just to put my cards on the table, I think it pays to remember that the actual test of a visionary is never properly the promotional or self-promotional attention this designation attracts to the "visionary" fountainhead himself, but must always be the measured by the range, intensity, diversity, and endurance of provocation to critical engagement, collaborative problem-solving, and creative expressivity in others that she is the occasion for.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
-----------------------------------
The leaders of the artilect industries will be no fools.
They would not attain their positions otherwise. CEOs
(Chief Executive Officers, the company bosses) attain their
positions because of their ability to lead, to have the vision
to point the way ahead that the company should follow.
Such people have powerful egos and extraordinary abilities.
I know. I am a Davos Scientific Fellow, so I get invited
to the "World Economic Forum" in Davos, Switzerland, where
I meed people like this.
To get an invitation to go to Davos, you have to be a
"heavyweight" in one of four categories. You have to be
either: 1) the CEO of a billion dollar company, b) a president
of a country, or a minister of finance, c) a media mogul
(such as head of the BBC, editor in chief of the Wall St. Journal,
etc.) or d) one of several hundred invited scientists or
other intellectual experts with a message.
When I get to talk with these men (virtually all men), I am
struck by how big their egos are and by their intelligence
and vision. These qualities are prerequisites for the job.
Some single individual in each giant company has to point the
way and inspire his employees to invest their lives in a
given enterprise. Meeting these "mountains of ego" makes
me wonder how they will react when the artilect debate
gets moving. . .
Firstly, they will be fully aware that if the Terran viewpoint
gets too strong, they and their companies will stand to lose
a lot of money. If they are political leaders, they will
know that the health of the global economy may be jeopardized.
As I mentioned earlier, this century's global economy will
be based increasingly on the artilect industries. . .
Being the visionaries they are, these men will begin to
wonder what they can do about the "Terran Problem," i.e.,
a growing popular backlash against the rise of artilects,
as these artificial brain based products get smarter every
year and begin to threaten humanity's "species dominance". . .
They dare not jump too far ahead of public opinion. . .
by painting too vivid a picture of the incredible intelligence
that artilects could possess late into the century. . .
That would frighten the public and aggravate the "Terran
problem". . .
I believe that the counter force will be based upon one of
the strongest emotions that human beings are ccapable of, namely --
fear, fear of extermination, and the will to survive. These two
motivations, to preserve the economic and political power of
an artilectual industrial empire, with its strong religious
overtones and its godlike visions, will confront a primeval
fear -- a fear of the unknown, and an even more powerful fear,
that of being destroyed.
This clash has all the hallmarks of causing a major and terrible
war, a "gigadeath" war.
-----------------------------------
Hugo de Garis, _The Artilect War_, Chapter 4, "The Cosmists"
The Manly Molecule
by Steve Sailer
http://www.isteve.com/ManlyMolecule.htm
-----------------------------------
When somebody mentions "testosterone," the first phrase that leaps
into your mind is seldom "literary intellectuals." Nonetheless, former
_New Republic_ editor Andrew Sullivan. . . [i]n the "The He Hormone"
(New York Times Magazine, April 2, 2000). . . offered an enlightening,
but also irresponsible and comically chest-thumping ode to the joys of
mainlining The Big T. Sullivan, an HIV-infected homosexual, began
shooting himself up with synthetic testosterone two years ago to counter
lethargy and weight loss. He has since added 20 pounds of solid muscle
and tremendous physical vitality. "I missed one deadline on this article
because it came three days after a testosterone shot and I couldn't
bring myself to sit still long enough," he brags.
Following his bimonthly injections, this one-time Oxford grad student
in political philosophy suddenly starts acting like a Biblical patriarch
gone bad, exulting in volcanic displays of pride, lust and wrath.
Now, you might find the formerly mild-mannered journalist's enthusiasm
for his new red-blooded personality even more alarming than his new
fuel-injected behaviour. Nor are you likely to be reassured by his
excited report that "This summer, with the arrival of AndroGel, the
testosterone gel created as a medical treatment for those four to
five million men who suffer from low levels of testosterone, recreational
demand may soar." Will the world be a better place when all men,
even gay intellectuals, swagger around like steroid-supercharged
professional wrestlers?
Samuel Fussell, another ex-Oxford grad student, offered a more realistic
appraisal of the addictive allure of steroids in his memoir, _Muscle: Confessions
of an Unlikely Bodybuilder_. While steroids were transforming this six-foot,
four-inch 170-pound weakling into 259 pounds of Schwarzeneggerian musculature,
they were also flooding Fussell's mind with rage. He constantly tailgated
and pounded his horn for the fun of provoking other drivers into fistfights.
On an intellectual level, Sullivan understands some of these concerns. Thus, he
tosses in boilerplate about testosterone "use needs to be carefully monitored
because it can also lead to side effects, like greater susceptibility to cancer..."
Still, with all that macho hormone surging through his veins, he really
doesn't have time for such Nervous Nellie qualms: "But that's what doctors
are there for," he snaps.
Now, none of Sullivan's breathless revelations will come as a surprise to sports
fans. High levels of natural testosterone plus steroid supplements are a big reason
so many star jocks are star jerks. Pro teams and universities are constantly bailing
out players and paying hush money to the women they beat and rape while in the
throes of what bodybuilders call " 'roid rage." Yet, in the unworldly world of
_New York Times_-approved intellectual discourse, it's rare indeed to hear anyone
invoke biological differences to dismiss feminist orthodoxy so bluntly as the
Brave New Sullivan: "Since most men have at least 10 times as much T as most women,
it therefore makes sense not to have coed baseball leagues. Equally, it makes sense
that women will be under-represented in a high-testosterone environment like
military combat or construction. ... [G]ender inequality in these fields is primarily
not a function of sexism, merely of common sense."
But, don't worry, ladies, this born-again endocrinal evangelist knows how you can
overcome your Glandular Gap: "A modest solution might be to give more women access
to testosterone ..." Androgen Andy, however, doesn't mention one irreversible side
effect that sometimes afflicts female bodybuilders: "clitoral hypertrophy." What's that?
Well, for the benefit of my readers who are eating breakfast, I'll spare you the
graphic details and just say that it's exactly what you think it is. Still, the
massive impact of sex hormones on society was fully explained at least as far
back as 1973, when City College of New York sociologist Steven Goldberg's classic
_The Inevitability of Patriarchy_ finally appeared. It had previously been rejected
69 times, which won it a place in the Guinness Book of World Records. The feminist
backlash Goldberg endured indicates why more popular intellectuals preferred to
remain oblivious to the obvious. Lacking Sullivan's chemical cojones, they just
didn't have, well, the balls.
If feminists actually represented the best interests of women, they would be
worried that Sullivan's cheerleading will lead to more women getting pummeled by
steroid-stoked men. But to admit that testosterone is dangerous would be to publicly
admit that the fundamental feminist theory -- that differences between the sexes
are entirely the fault of society, not of biology -- is flapdoodle. So, _Slate_
columnist Judith Shulevitz expended 2,200 words downplaying the dangers.
Hey, it all just might be a placebo effect!
She rightly notes that there have been few controlled laboratory experiments
involving large doses of testosterone. But Shulevitz doesn't explain why not:
Few insurance companies would allow researchers to dabble in such reckless
science. The chance is far too great that a subject would go home and beat
the hell out of his wife.
So, if you're a guy who's tired of getting sand kicked in your face, why not
buy some virility in a vial? . . .
-----------------------------------
The He Hormone
By Andrew Sullivan
http://www.bluffton.edu/~mastg/The%20He%20Hormone.htm
-----------------------------------
The behavioral traits associated with testosterone are largely the
cliché-ridden ones you might expect. The Big T correlates with energy,
self-confidence, competitiveness, tenacity, strength and sexual drive.
When you talk to men in testosterone therapy, several themes recur.
"People talk about extremes," one man in his late 30's told me. "But
that's not what testosterone does for me. It makes me think more clearly.
It makes me think more positively. It's my Saint Johnswort." A man in
his 20's said: "Usually, I cycle up the hill to my apartment in 12th gear.
In the days after my shot, I ride it easily in 16th." A 40-year-old executive
who took testosterone for bodybuilding purposes told me: "I walk into a
business meeting now and I just exude self-confidence. I know there are
lots of other reasons for this, but my company has just exploded since
my treatment. I'm on a roll. I feel capable of almost anything."
When you hear comments like these, it's no big surprise that strutting
peacocks with their extravagant tails and bright colors are supercharged
with testosterone and that mousy little male sparrows aren't. "It turned
my life around," another man said. "I felt stronger -- and not just in a
physical sense. It was a deep sense of being strong, almost spiritually
strong." Testosterone's antidepressive power is only marginally understood.
It doesn't act in the precise way other antidepressants do, and it
probably helps alleviate gloominess primarily by propelling people into
greater activity and restlessness, giving them less time to think
and reflect. (This may be one reason women tend to suffer more from
depression than men.)
-----------------------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0_Idu_p2w8
Whenever I get a notification of a new follower on twitter, I check their profile to see if it's just a spammer that needs blocking. I had one guy add me recently who describes himself as a Futurist, as well as an expert in something like 7 different (unrelated) fields, and then finished his bio off with "Keynote Conference Speaker."
Who the fuck adds "Keynote Conference Speaker" into their bio unless they're desperate to land a gig as such? I found it unsurprising that Futurist was the first item in the bio.
Oh yeah, that whole "meaningless credential" thing is big in futurist circles. I frankly have a lot more respect for people who just describe what it is they actually do in terms of, say, hobbies and interests than in people who try to make up impressive-sounding titles for themselves.
And from my own flirtation with futurismical subculture, I can also say that one of the things that disturbed me the most was how people in that subculture gave *me* what felt like way too much consideration and leeway as far as what my own "expertise" was. I kept wanting to tell them to stop asking me about this or that Big Huge AI/Nanotech/Etc. question and go ask someone who was actually working on the science. I mean, I read about that kind of thing in the capacity of a hobby, it isn't what I do for a living or anything I've studied to an advanced level. I think a lot of people probably get seduced into thinking those subcultures are actually full of experts because, so long as they toe certain lines, they will probably get flattered and treated like "experts" themselves.
Post a Comment