Alternatively, we could drop the “party” label and call TPV something else, for example
or something like that
That’s very creative, Michael !
But i am not prepared to give in this easily against so far only potential criticism. There was a reason it was called Transhumanist Party (virtual), and i assume it was a good one. My aim is to bring this reason into focus, and formulate it in a convincing manner. Only if it turns out the reason was not sound to begin with would i be willing to go back to the drawing board. But we are only beginning a process that may stretch into decades.
Draft Mission Statement:
TPV has been established to enable discussion and promotion of political transhumanism in online media and virtual worlds with the longer range intention of supporting development of virtual democratic governance and the network economy as they evolve in virtual space.
Thoughts?
Sounds good. Virtual democratic governance and network economy need to be defined, however.
There will always be the next ‘what does that mean’ type of question.
Given the fluid, experimental status of most everything in virtual space, attempting to answer every question of this type that arises is unwise, in my opinion.
For now, I’m proposing a separate FAQ style Q&A for reference and flexibility in responding.
Any thoughts?
Ok, I’ve just made a TPV FAQ. The FAQ is a wiki, meaning you can edit it, if you want to add a question or an answer. New users cannot edit the wiki directly, but have to write their questions at the end of the FAQ thread. There are two ways to answer such a question: Either directly, or by copying the question into the FAQ section at the top and writing an answer below that. I think, the latter should be the preferred mode of replying.
Sorry for the late intervention.
TPV represents politics, and what means politics? To avoid an over simplified answer I propose we start taking care of the world itself as the thing we make politics for.
Seeing the global reach of doing politics in the cyberspace one can get strayed from the point that we need to work on tangible matters and not just ethereal bureaucratic issues. Thus I suggest we keep in mind actions.
This way the question is, what actions? Can TPV gather enough power to lobby for some action in geopolitics? Please, when thinking about this refrain from visualizing actions too complex to make the constraint too harsh, so we can all agree than there are things we can do, simple things to start with.
We will start with baby steps once we agree on simple, small actions we can take. And this is important because it will answer the question “what is TPV for?”.
If by proposals we start knowing what we are aiming for, why not to lobby for making the right to body modifications an universal human right? Because I do fear this is an issue that many governments and opposing lobbies will not stay still and would try to take away our freedom.
This is just my point of view, of course. But not thinking in concrete steps of action will drive us to keep the talk on less concrete matters of bureaucracy while we keep seeking what to do, and not doing.
Just a reminder that:
Thank you Michael
“Ok, I’ve just made a TPV FAQ. The FAQ is a wiki”
That mission belongs to TPG.
I understand this point and it is relevant to TPV.
Yes, I wanted to discuss a conflict in the statement
The idea than thinking is divorced from acting is causing a conflict. Not having access to the TPG for taking the ideas into action leave (at least some) members of the TPV into a limbo of inaction.
It did not escaped from my attention than the TPG was not openly accessible in the beginning when many asked to being included into it, and TPV was stated as being “not a replacement but strictly a virtual presence”.
For some, the inaction is not a problem because the only action they want is only in cyberspace, but there are other issues to consider. To split between TPV and TPG and not giving real options to choose is not democratic or participatory, and important issues will remain unattended.
Without the ability to coordinate with other people we are stripped from any solution. And I mean the ability to actions like the one I mentioned. Just imagine how obnoxious is not having the “authorization” for implementing a real strategy to defend civil rights, because unless is “on cyberspace, for cyberspace and only about cyberspace” there is no permission.
Please view this as a gentle criticism. I do appreciate to discuss ideas all the time, I actually left another organization for not being able to speak like this, but ideas are meant to be translated into actions.
To summarize my previous comment, is time to have accessible the ability to coordinate concrete political actions. TPV should provide such a bridge to TPG if it is the one for concrete actions.
There are plenty of things like at least sending open letters to some politicians that we should be doing.
The problem is that geopolitical issues can only be attacked effectively by national parties. There aren’t many transnational political structures. We can’t join the UN as TPV (although that would be cool). TPV might become a geopolitical lobbying group, nevertheless. Its mission would then be to lobby for transhumanist issues on a global scale and everywhere we can get people to.
But perhaps it would make more sense to create a new organization for that, something like “TPT - Transhumanist Poilitics Transnational”. TPG merely is a coordination platform for national transhumanist parties. It’s not supposed to promote global transhumanist politics by itself – at least at this moment.
Even if TPV focuses on virtual politics, this necessary has an intersection with national politics, because the servers that virtual spaces run on are located on geopolitical nations. So, the question is: What can TPV hope to achieve at all? If there is one thing it can do, then it’s facilitating a shift in the thinking of people. If you want more, then… you need a clear structure with which to achieve that “higher” goal.
Not the only one but I agree they might be the best card in hand.
That is one function it can have, and we can have tools to help with that. If TPG is not open, and doesn’t provide the tools, then is only logical to ask it to TPV.
It would be wise to try make the existent TPV or TPG to do this to avoid reinventing the wheel. But of course, if neither assume that role another alternative would be to initiate a partner organization to at least maintain strong relations.
And sorry, but what about ZS?
Yes, it is, but as many inquired from the beginning there are people who want either TPV or TPG to do more than coordinate political parties, and others that want them to do only coordination. This is obviously conflictive, and confusing. And lets think, what kind of coordination we refer to?
Yes, is absolutely necessary to make things clear, and is necessary to create the required structures if they don’t exist. And this doesn’t mean it should not be democratic or participatory, we can come with a solution that includes all the voices about what to do and what not.
Of course, it might take time for the members in the TPG to decide, but at least a response on should be given.
Maximo,
I hear your frustration.
My suggestion is to present your well worded concerns ^^^ to Amon and Zoltan as the primary drivers in TPG.
Michael, does TPG have a presence on 3F?
Maximo,
After more thought, why not go ahead and start a TP International group yourself?
TPG is more of a UN type of organization, plus it doesn’t look like it is in any position to take on the missions you are interested in developing.
No, it doesn’t. I just wonder what would happen if it had one. Probably not much. But it might be worth a try. The question then would become what that TPG category would be used for. As far as I recall, early international cooperation has been postponed until national activity reaches some level of maturity. No much use in organizing national parties on an international level if nobody bothers to actually build up those national level parties. Anyway, I think this strategy is questionable. This is the internet, which means, in the end people will do what they want, no matter what any leaders say. And if they don’t have an inviting platform for that activity, then they will just do something else.
What do you think? Do we need a more active TPG? Or just an active global political grassroots transhumanism group?
Michael,
I wouldn’t be involved in a TP International area on 3F or Facebook unless someone else stepped up to organize and maintain it.
I’m only asking because of Maximo’s interest.
Ty for your response
I prefer to wait and see if Amon accepts to incorporate ZeroState with this role and then I would give the support. It would be much more efficient in this way. Would you ask him Mark?
If is not the case, then I would try the alternative.
We need “activism” to support the Transhumanist Party in every location, is the cornerstone of successful campaigns (even if the plan currently is to make every TP candidate promote all alone).
Activism is also a cornerstone for political lobbying, and this is a card used by many political parties to gain attention, to please followers or to gather more power.
I would also lobby to make the ideas from Transpolitica gain reach as this is a partner group and because the idea behind TP is the same.