some people see the tools themselves as the most important; other see what you use the tools for as most important. I’m interested not in the tools but what they’re used for.

i personally have no interest in technological development, except when it does something that I value. development for development’s sake is … not interesting, and not necessarily a good thing.

When it comes to evangelizing it’s a whole different matter. It’s where I play the luddite, warning about our uncontrolled appetite for more power, newer tools.

The two levels are quite distinct for me. When they cross, it’s only a coincidence brought about by deep values I have, none too easy to describe.

Long live techneoanarchists!

this is kind of a floating definition, i know, but what i’m suggesting is that people want to do *things* (whatever those things are) and they use various tools to enable them to do those things. there are different motivations: and having fun, being happy, reaching intellectual/religious/sexual nnirvana are all possible motivations.

and the argument is that the freedom to use your tools as you wish is the principle that underpins these different movements.

That doesn’t mean that there aren’t a whole bunch of different ends you can put technology in the service of, but it does suggest, rightly I think, that the challenge that alternative uses of technology poses to the structure within which it was developed is not to be underestimated.

I just emailed this to the CRACIN list: I thought people might like this one. The person was referring to the way that municipal wireless networks might be rolled out. “Digital Divide 2.0″ http://ken.ipl31.net/2006/04/01/community-wireless-summit-200…

I stumbled upon your blog this morning and I was quite disappointed by what I read:

During that same interaction I was informed that ISF would fit into a category of “Technoprogressivism” . “a stance of active support for technological development and social progress.” It took me 2 days of having my teeth on edge and feeling uncomfortable with that label - but I realize that we’re not. Or at least, I’m not.

Although I can and will respect your choice not to label yourself a techno-progressive, I think if you took the time to read and understand the rest of the term’s definition on Wikipedia, you would find that techno-progressive is a term that could describe you and ISF quite well.

Yes, I’m for developing new technology - but my motivation is that I don’t want to be left solely in the hands of for-profit market forces. So we’re making sure that there’s a voice (and a pair of hands) in the creation of technology that represents another set of values.

Micheal, what you said is the core principle of techno-progressivism: the democratization of technological innovation.

Asserting that I’m techno-progressive is like saying that someone who identifies a problem in capitalism and therefore works in consumer-protection is a proponent of capitalism.

Wrong. Your understanding of the term’s definition is flawed. “Techno-progressive” simply means “technology-focused progressive”. In other words, a social progressive who wants to put technology in service of social change.

I don’t think it makes sense to call Communautique “techno-progressive” for example.

Communautique is actually the best example of a techno-progressive organization.

As the Wikipedia article on techno-progressivism states quite clearly, “techno-progressives argue 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. Techno-progressivism maintains that accounts of “progress” should focus on scientific and technical dimensions, as well as ethical and social ones. For most techno-progressive perspectives, then, the growth of scientific knowledge or the accumulation of technological powers will not represent the achievement of proper progress unless and until it is accompanied by a just distribution of the costs, risks, and benefits of these new knowledges and capacities. At the same time, for most techno-progressive critics and advocates, the achievement of better democracy, greater fairness, less violence, and a wider rights culture are all desirable, but inadequate in themselves to confront the quandaries of contemporary technological societies unless and until they are accompanied by progress in science and technology to support and implement these values.

Micheal, I think you need to relax because your defensiveness is totally unwarranted.

Although transhumanism sometimes deserves the harsh criticism that it fosters, I find it sad that you are spreading misinformation about techno-progressivism, a sensibility I am convinced you would sympathize with if you took the time to understand it better.

For example, techno-progressives share your hesitancy about technology. This is expressed in our concern for the potentially disastrous consequences of emerging technologies and the most rational ways to reduce those risks.

So I suggest you read Dale Carrico’s essay Technoprogressivism Beyond Technophilia and Technophobia at
http://amormundi.blogspot.com/2005/06/technoprogressivism-beyond.html

Afterwards, we could talk about it more at Laika if you want. :)

Sincerely,

Vladimir

–
Vladimir De Thezier
Agent de developpement, CRITERE
Development Officer, IEET
http://www.ieet.org/index.php/IEET/bio/dethezier/
dethezier@gmail.com