Creative Self-Destruction at Humanity+ ?
Call it the Success Paradox. When an organization reaches a new stage of growth, it may experience cataclysmic internal turmoil.
The Success Paradox happens to startup ventures that lack a cohesive management structure: when the company makes a growth leap, say, from 25 to 50 employees, or from 100 to 200 employees, the shift always comes with a good deal of attendant trauma. The camraderie and enthusiasm of the rapid growth phase wanes, replaced by politics, drama, turf wars, infighting, restructuring, disorientation, even disillusionment. Some people depart for greener pastures, others jockey for position in the new organization, and the rest grumble and return to the engine room.
Sometimes, the organization is damaged by the chaos. But sometimes, a new and better-structured organization emerges from the chaos. In other words, the stresses of growth trigger a seismic shift that may cause the whole edifice to tumble down… or end up more stable.

Sometimes the structure implodes
During the past couple of weeks, Humanity + has been experiencing something akin to the Success Paradox. For years, this group has existed as a fanclub for those who support “transhumanism” (which is an inelegant word to describe the extension of human capabilities through technology). Humanity+ wasn’t very big, it wasn’t particularly ambitious, and it did not have much influence on public policy, academic research, funding, public awareness or any other outside group. It was not controversial, nor did it achieve any notoriety or acclaim in the outside world.
During the past year, however, the arrival of a new Executive Director, Alex Lightman, injected energy and greater ambition into the organization. Alex organized summit events in Irvine and in Cambridge, which gathered leading research scientists together with thinkers from other fields. Although some of the core scientists were surprised by the introduction of newcomers from outside the domain of science, the cross-pollinization was a smart move. Alex raised the profile of the organization, and thereby brought it to the attention of policy makers, media executives, marketing whizkids, IT industry, bloggers, pundits and others who, in turn, spread the word to their networks.
The timing was good. Humanity + was bouyed by a rising tide of awareness about the Singularity and the now-daily advances in the fields of robotics, nanotechnology, anti-aging, and artificial intelligence. The organization was positioned at the forefront of this trend, and as a result, Humanity + suddenly was on the brink of becoming relevant to a much broader group. Following June’s H+ conference at Harvard University, the group set its sights higher, on matters of public policy, culture & morality, and the issue of managing growing public perception of the radical scientific breakthroughs.
Suddenly, H+ mattered. Or at least it looked like it had a chance to matter.
And then, just like clockwork, the whole thing exploded.
In recent weeks, three members of the board of directors abruptly resigned. Then Alex Lightman resigned from his executive role in order and decided to run instead for a board seat. And then, last week, the Chairman of the Board at Humanity + issued a message to members instructing them recommending they not vote for Alex but instead direct their votes to a slate hand-picked by him. The jockeying continued over this past weekend. Others are calling upon friends from the past to fill the void. Dark allegations abound about ethical lapses, cronyism, mischief, board-packing.
If this continues, whatever consensus and goodwill existed in June will probably dissipate within a few short weeks. The current Chairman of the board has suggested that he and other board members would resign en masse if they don’t get their way.
Wallace Stanley Sayre once quipped that “The politics of the university are so intense because the stakes are so low.” The same can probably be said of politics inside a bubble where geeks posit hypothetical scenarios for human evolution.
The question remains whether this is merely self-inflicted destruction, or possibly creative destruction. Can Humanity+ recover from the conflict? Or will the organization fall apart?
At the moment, it looks like it could go either way.
Half of the candidates for the Board seats are longtime members of the transhumanist movement, including one person who claims to have coined the term (not something I’d want to take credit for, since it is an ungainly phrase… but then again it is probably better than its precursor, “extropian“. No surprise that this group had a small following in the early days when it bore that Mondo-2000-esque moniker).
Many of these retro candidates have the support of current board members. Which is no surprise, because they represent voices of the past. Familiar names and faces who can reliably be counted upon to help the project revert to the familiar confines.
On the other hand there are some intriguing newcomers who might be able to inject the organization with the DNA to evolve and grow into a new evolutionary niche. These candidates include legendary publicist Howard Bloom.
What determines the fate of organizations who suffer from the “Success Paradox”? In my own experience, the key determinant is whether or not the organization is open to change. Big change. Not just rearranging the deck chairs, but retooling the entire enterprise on a bigger scale. Are people in the organization prepared for new roles, a new focus, a new set of priorities, possibly a completely different organization?
The first question to ask is: is the current leadership even qualified to manage such a massive transformation?
Often what happens in a startup company is that founders exit to make room for professional managers. Or they accept a subordinate role (in R&D, for instance), relinquishing the top role to a new CEO. But this requires humility, self awareness and an ego that is under control. As well as the confidence to turn the controls over to somebody new who may be better equipped to guide the organization through a new phase of growth.
What never seems to work, in my experience, is when a founder or board member attempts to seize control by resisting the new management who have been brought in precisely for the purpose of growing the venture. The result is almost always destructive, and not in a creative way. Once an organization commits to growth, you can’t revert back to the cosy past. You can’t put the toothpaste back into the tube. And you can’t re-bottle the change genie.
For Humanity+, this election is a question of whether the organization seeks to embrace the future or cling to the past. New directors with new perspectives could aid the organization by opening doors to new alliances, new partnerships, new constituents and potentially new sources of funding. H+ is on the verge of becoming relevant to a broader group, and thereby the organization could exert influence far beyond its size, setting forth a rational logic for adopting the new technologies that will guide human evolution. That’s a exciting mission, and a message that is sorely needed in today’s fractious, polarized political landscape.
For an organization that is so clearly committed to a vision of the future, this decision strikes me as a no-brainer.
UPDATE: I got feedback from H+ board members, past and present and future (?), about what they perceived as inaccuracies in this post. I’ve made a few revisions above, which should placate them. However, the bigger story occurred in the comments below, where long-simmering tensions between the board and the executive boiled over into a spectacular row. Had I known that there was so much background tension, I probably would have selected a different example to write about. But in some respects, this outcome illustrates the very point I was trying to make, perhaps more eloquently than I did in my initial post. H+ just hit a speed bump, and it lost a few hubcaps. But the car didn’t veer out of control. At least, not yet.
August 17th, 2010 at 3:39 am
The election was retracted because someone on the board complained about it (?). But I was collecting stats from the polls for my own amusement, and when the poll went down, I posted the stats.
2010-08-16-0204
candidate votes percent
Howard Bloom 21 13
Jamie Bronstein 20 13
Patri Friedman 13 8
Bryan Bishop 22 14
Frederick Gaston 3 1
Victoria Jaguar 16 10
Alex Lightman 7 4
Thomas McCabe 15 9
Max More 31 20
Nick Taylor 4 2
2010-08-16-1121
candidate votes percent
Howard Bloom 20 12
Jamie Bronstein 20 12
Patri Friedman 14 9
Bryan Bishop 22 14
Frederick Gaston 3 1
Victoria Jaguar 16 10
Alex Lightman 7 4
Thomas McCabe 15 9
Max More 33 21
Nick Taylor 4 2
2010-08-16-1144
candidate votes percent
Howard Bloom 21 13
Jamie Bronstein 21 13
Patri Friedman 15 9
Bryan Bishop 22 13
Frederick Gaston 3 1
Victoria Jaguar 16 10
Alex Lightman 7 4
Thomas McCabe 16 10
Max More 34 21
Nick Taylor 4 2
2010-08-16-1201
candidate votes percent
Howard Bloom 21 13
Jamie Bronstein 21 13
Patri Friedman 15 9
Bryan Bishop 22 13
Frederick Gaston 4 2
Victoria Jaguar 16 10
Alex Lightman 7 4
Thomas McCabe 16 10
Max More 34 21
Nick Taylor 4 2
etc..
– Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507
August 17th, 2010 at 4:38 am
Good gracious!! What an impressive amount of misinformation, packed into a single blog post!!
As Chairman of Humanity+, I feel it my responsibility to respond to this in some detail, as much as I hate “airing dirty laundry” in public.
***
During the past year, however, the arrival of a new Executive Director, Alex Lightman, injected new energy and greater ambition into the organization.
***
In my personal opinion, the most ambitious and successful ED of Humanity+ so far was James Clement, who was ED a couple years ago. In James’s reign,
— the org was rebranded from WTA to H+
— $75K+ of funds were raised
— the H+ Magazine was founded
— the Convergence08 conference was held, an event that uniquely brought together Humanity+ and a variety of other futurist organizations
On the other hand, during Alex’s term, by the largest block of funding obtained was obtained by me (with a little help from James Clement), not Alex. And the main accomplishments were the two H+ Summits, which were indeed pretty good conferences!!
***
Alex organized summit events in Irvine and in Cambridge, which gathered leading research scientists together with thinkers from other fields. Although some of the core scientists were surprised by the introduction of newcomers from outside the domain of science, the cross-pollinization was a smart move. Alex raised the profile of the organization, and thereby brought it to the attention of policy makers, media executives, marketing whizkids, IT industry, bloggers, pundits and others who, in turn, spread the word to their networks.
***
Humanity+ organized the Convergence08 conference in 2008; and in its previous incarnation as the WTA, organized a series of TransVision conferences, some quite successful. The H+ Summits were very fine conferences, but it doesn’t seem rational to rate them as more successful than Convergence08, for example.
Also, while Alex did play the leadership role for the Irvine and Cambridge Summits, my own perception was that in each case the organization was primarily done by others. In the Irvine case, it seemed the organization MindShare ran the practical aspects of the conference, and most of the speakers were recruited by Todd Huffman, myself and other Humanity+ Board members. In the Cambridge case, it seemed most of the work was done by Humanity+ Board members and Harvard students. And in each of these conferences, there were serious complaints that the individuals who did the work were not given credit for what they did. For example, I put in many days of work recruiting speakers for the Irvine Summit (and recruited a large percentage of them, as well as organizing the conference program), yet received no public acknowledgement for this. And, several individuals who spent their time helping with the Cambridge Summit lodged similar complaints with other H+ Board members (though I don’t want to mention their names).
I am not trying to minimize Alex’s role in organizing these two Summits — he conceived them and chose the locations, and did help them along. But my perception was that, in each case, the lion’s share of organization was done by others in a fairly autonomous way, not closely under Alex’s direction.
****
Following June’s H+ conference at Harvard University, the group set its sights higher, on matters of public policy, culture & morality, and the issue of managing growing public perception of the radical scientific breakthroughs.
****
My own perception was that, after the Harvard H+ Summit, Alex began focusing his attention on the issue of getting the US to lift the Cuban embargo. The paragraph above seems rather disconnected from what was actually occurring in the organization.
***
A few weeks ago, three members of the board of directors abruptly resigned.
***
That is untrue. One member, Joel Pitt, abruptly resigned recently. Two other Board members resigned a couple months ago; and my perception was that frustration with Alex was part of their reason for resigning.
***
Then Alex Lightman resigned from his executive role in order to run for a board seat.
***
Actually, what happened was that a majority of the Board asked Alex to resign, and so he did. He did not resign in order to run for a Board seat.
The reason that a majority of the Board asked Alex to resign, was some serious incidents in which individuals outside Humanity+ (but interacting with Humanity+ on business matters) found Alex’s behavior extremely unprofessional and unpleasant.
I really did not want to air this stuff publicly. However, it seems that airing the unpleasant truth publicly, is better than having related, unpleasant falsehoods aired publicly.
***
And then, last week, the Chairman of Board at Humanity + issued a message to members instructing them not to vote for Alex but instead to direct their votes to a slate hand-picked by him.
***
I (the Chairman) sent an email containing a letter authored by myself and other Board members, which EXPLICITLY stated that it was a letter giving the personal opinions of the authors, rather than any kind of official communication. The letter recommended not to vote for Alex for a Board seat. The letter complimented Alex’s skills but said that we felt the combination of Alex with the remainder of the current Board would lead to a lot of conflict, which would not be productive for the organization.
That letter did not suggest any other candidates as preferred ones. In another email that I sent, I did note the candidates whom I personally preferred.
The list on which I sent these emails, is open for any Humanity+ member to use to express their personal views on candidates for the Board seats.
***
One board member has nominated her husband for a seat.
***
Board candidates are self-nominating, in the Humanity+ process. Nobody can nominate anybody else.
***
The current Chairman of the board has suggested that he and other board members would resign en masse if they don’t get their way.
***
Being on the Board of Humanity+ is a volunteer position. Speaking personally, there is a limit to how much verbal abuse, time-wasting and general hassle I am willing to suffer, for a volunteer position in an early-stage organization that isn’t yet achieving great things. I have other things to do, like AI research and earning a living. So, yes, if the Board continues to be as unpleasant a place as it was in the last few months of Alex’s tenure as ED, it is quite possible I will resign so as to spend my time on other more pleasant and productive things.
However, I would much prefer to see the Board become a pleasant place to volunteer some of my time, and stick around and help grow the organization into a great one.
***
Can Humanity+ recover from the conflict? Or will the organization fall apart?
***
The democratic governance structure of Humanity+/WTA has led to chaotic intervals in the past history of the organization. This is not the first one.
Among the topics the Board has been discussing recently, is the possibility of restructuring the governance of the organization to reduce chaos and increase effectiveness. However, I won’t go into details on that here.
***
On the other hand there are some intriguing newcomers who might be able to inject the organization with the DNA to evolve and grow into a new evolutionary niche. These candidates include legendary publicist Howard Bloom.
***
I support Howard Bloom’s candidacy, btw.
But I even more strongly support Max More’s candidacy, regardless of this blog post’s deprecating allusions about Max being “part of the past.” Max has great insight into the Humanity+ mission, and great capability to contribute longingly. It’s an honor to have him running for a Board seat.
***
The first question to ask is: is the current leadership even qualified to manage such a massive transformation?
***
Humanity+ is a small, volunteer-led organization. Having operated my own future-tech startup companies since 2001, and before that managed a team of 80 people in a technology company … and having helped raise over $21M in investment $$ for tech companies over the years … yes, I feel I am qualified to serve as Chair of an organization like this.
Natasha Vita-More, on the Board, operated Extropy, the first transhumanist organization.
David Orban and Amy Li, on the Board, are also experience entrepreneurs.
Michael Vassar, on the Board, is the ED of the Singularity Institute for AI, a much better funded futurist org than Humanity+.
Mike LaTorra, on the Board, has seen WTA/H+ through many changes and crises, and brings a valuable historical perspective and a deep understanding of transhumanism.
I feel we are qualified.
***
Often what happens in a startup company is that founders exit to make room for professional managers. Or they accept a subordinate role (in R&D, for instance), relinquishing the top role to a new CEO. But this requires humility, self awareness and an ego that is under control. As well as the confidence to turn the controls over to somebody new who may be better equipped to guide the organization through a new phase of growth.
***
While the above statements are true in general, they seem irrelevant to the case of a small nonprofit organization with very little funding, which has rarely paid its executives a salary (and in those rare cases, a very small salary).
Also, none of the current Board members are founders of Humanity+ (only Mike LaTorra is even an old-timer); and while Alex is great at many things, in my perception, during his tenure as ED of Humanity+ he did not do a lot of *management.*
***
What never seems to work, in my experience, is when a founder or board member attempts to seize control by resisting the new management who have been brought in precisely for the purpose of growing the venture.
***
Let it be noted that I was the one who recruited Alex to be ED, way back when.
And I did not advocate his removal as ED because of fear of growth, but rather because of frustration at complaints voiced by many others outside and inside the organization, based on their interactions with Alex.
I really dislike saying unpleasant things, and I even more greatly dislike spending my time on this kind of annoying politics. However, I hope I have been able to counteract the misinformation in this blog post by speaking some of the relevant truth.
—
Ben Goertzel
Chairman, Humanity+
August 17th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Ben, thanks for posting your comment. I think your response falls short of demonstrating any substantial misinformation. Most of what you offer is a clarification with lots and lots of background lore, but your response neatly sidesteps the main point of my post, which is that Humanity+ has reached an inflection point and it may be facing a crisis of leadership capable of managing the transformation.
I am puzzled by your focus on Alex Lightman. You seem to spend a lot of energy writing negative things about him when he was a peripheral aspect of my blog post. And then you state your regret about airing dirty laundry in public, which strikes me as a phony rhetorical posture. And then you have the temerity to complain about verbal abuse and time wasting.
If you take an objective look at the series of email messages you posted to the voting list, I think you may see how it would be possible for someone to arrive at the conclusion that the Chairman of the Board is orchestrating a smear campaign. How does that serve the organization?
I don’t know Alex personally and I gather from your many writings that he is probably not likely to win any awards for diplomacy. But given the nasty tenor of the assault on his character conducted by you and several board members, it seems at a minimum that there are two sides to this story. Perhaps you are familiar with the expression “the pot calling the kettle black.”
I enjoyed reading your abridged history of the organization’s accomplishments. I have no quarrel with you about the achievements of Humanity+, past or present. As I said in my speech and in my comments, I am impressed with H+ and believe that the organization has achieved great momentum and is well positioned. I’d like to provide you with my full support.
But I have real misgivings about the focus of the Board. I think that this election has been poorly handled. One might say it was botched. Moreover, I think that it was inappropriate for any member of the Board to campaign negatively against any candidate. And, judging from the energy you’ve devoted to this matter, it seems fairly obvious that you and other board members are seeking to pack the board with a group of your friends. These actions do not demonstrate good judgement, nor do they reflect well on the organization.
As a new member of the organization, I think it is reasonable for me to raise these questions. I’d like to get a better understanding of the values that the leadership stands for.
With respect to some of the specifics in your comment, I offer the following:
Nominations. You state that no member can nominate anyone else. Your assertion is false. You might want to look again at Article IV Section 2 of the Constitution of Humanity+.
Abrupt resignations. You and other commenters have taken me to task for using the term “abrupt” in reference to board members resignations. I stand by my comment. When a board member resigns before his or her term has expired, in my opinion that is abrupt. You might see it differently, but then in that case I would ask, if the board members resigned several months ago, why did you take so long to replace them? Again this raises some questions about judgement.
Alex’s reason for resigning from his role as ED. I do not think that you, or any other board member, past or present, is in a position to speculate about his reason for resigning. The facts are these: he resigned from his executive role, and he is now a candidate for a Board seat. I stand by my statement.
The Cuban embargo. This project is specifically what I am referring to when I mention policy initiatives. In my opinion, focusing on the Cuban embargo was clever. It presents an opportunity for H+ to get involved in a substantial foreign policy issue in a way that could actually make a genuine difference to the lives of millions of people. Since the whole point of transhumanism is to leverage technology to alleviate human suffering, this project struck me as on-message. Plus it had the added benefit of being a project where a significant result could be achieved right now, this year, rather than 30 or 40 years in the future. Engagement in real-world policy issues like the Cuban embargo could greatly enhance Humanity+’s stature in the spheres of public policy, media, foreign relations, etc. In sum, this was an opportunity for the organization to demonstrate that it could engage with real-world issues and drive to a result.
As for the other alleged “falsehoods” in my blog post, I think that you and other commenters are exaggerating for rhetorical effect. I have not attempted to write a definitive history of this incident, which I consider a tempest in a teapot.
The phony indignation is a smokescreen that allows you to sidestep the main issue. My broader point remains unaddressed by you and the other commenters. And that’s a shame, because I would love to learn more about where you plan to take this organization in the future.
You’ve got a good thing here, Ben, and it could be great, but it will require the leadership to step up to a new level of conduct. Or it may require new leadership. Time will tell.
In the meantime, good luck with the second round of the election. Hope everything works alright this time around.
August 17th, 2010 at 12:57 pm
I know there are a few inaccuracies in Robert’s article, but I cannot help but identify with the general assertion: That the “old guard” is reasserting itself.
Alex can be a bit of a confrontational personality. I’ve learned that first hand. I also know first hand from my own career that a confrontational personality is sometimes necessary to effect change. But at this point, Alex is merely a red herring.
When the Board wanted to make sure certain preferred candidates made it onto the ballot, they extended the nomination deadline for an additional full week.
Max More wrote:
> I did not need to be nominated. Clearly,
> almost all the existing board members were
> happy that I was standing, but no one
> “nominated” me.
That’s an amazing assertion. The election requires that any candidate be nominated in order to be included on the ballot for election. If this assertion is true, it would mean that Max More’s name must be removed from the ballot.
I nominated Howard Bloom (which, for the record, made it in by the early deadline, not the extended, late deadline).
Howard’s election was opposed by members of the “old guard,” most notably James Hughes, who made a plea to members not to vote for him.
In spite of this, Howard’s numbers continued to rise, being the black swan event of the election.
I know some people joined or made current on their membership dues purposefully to vote for Howard. If, in a small way, he has already contributed to expanding the membership simply be appearing on the ballot.
When the election results didn’t reflect the turn out the current board members wished for, the election results were nullified, based on a letter to members sent by current board chairman, Ben Goertzel states:
“…someone on the Board complained because a few people had been added as voters, but had registered as members slightly after the stated deadline…”
Now, let me reiterate, Natasha Vita-More’s husband insists that he was never even nominated, yet appears on the ballot. The ballot deadline was extended once so that some friends of the board who missed the deadline could be included in the election.
But when an unexpected nomination causes new members to join, in order to vote, the outcome is nullified on a claimed technicality.
NOTE: The Humanity+ by-laws state explicitly that one must be nominated in order to be included in a board election. But it stipulates nothing what-so-ever about what the deadline is for a member to be eligible to vote in elections. It only states they must be, “…members in good standing.”
Does the current board really think they can run the organization with any legitimacy after this charade?
This is such an embarrassment, the entire board ought to resign.
August 17th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
Hi Robert,
Thanks for your reply. There is plenty I could say in response but it doesn’t seem appropriate to conduct a long dialogue on Humanity+ management issues in these blog comments.
So I’ll just make a few comments.
***
if the board members resigned several months ago, why did you take so long to replace them? Again this raises some questions about judgement.
***
I was not Chair at that point, David Orban was. So I can’t answer that question. I was personally in favor of replacing them earlier.
***
Nominations. You state that no member can nominate anyone else. Your assertion is false. You might want to look again at Article IV Section 2 of the Constitution of Humanity+.
***
I stand corrected, thx. However, it’s also the case that individuals can nominate themselves by applying to the Secretary. This is what Max did and it’s what all or nearly all candidates have done in recent past elections, in my recollection.
***
it seems fairly obvious that you and other board members are seeking to pack the board with a group of your friends. These actions do not demonstrate good judgement, nor do they reflect well on the organization.
***
I’m really not doing that. For instance I advocated the election of Howard Bloom, whom I have never met nor interacted with (except via reading his books).
***
I’d like to get a better understanding of the values that the leadership stands for.
***
This little book I wrote, published via Humanity+ Press recently, gives a fair summary of the values that I stand for:
http://goertzel.org/CosmistManifesto_July2010.pdf
You can also buy a hard copy via Amazon.com
***
I think that this election has been poorly handled.
***
I agree that some technical errors were made, however if there were not an overall atmosphere of excessive contentiousness afoot in the organization (due largely to issues regarding Alex Lightman), these would not be creating remotely so much sturm und drang.
The minor technical errors will not prevent the election from being fairly completed, so in the big picture, I don’t think they’re such a large matter…
***
If you take an objective look at the series of email messages you posted to the voting list, I think you may see how it would be possible for someone to arrive at the conclusion that the Chairman of the Board is orchestrating a smear campaign. How does that serve the organization?
***
Perhaps you’re right. I’m a scientist and entrepreneur not a politician.
One issue is that, in those emails, I wanted to militate against the risk of Alex getting a Board seat (because I feared that would lead to ongoing conflicts within the Board, which would impede productivity), but I did NOT want to make public the specific problems experienced with Alex. Because the latter seemed it would be in bad taste. Now in these blog comments I have revealed a little bit more about these specific problems, but I still haven’t disclosed details and I don’t intend to. If I did, then I suspect you would be more sympathetic to my side of things.
***
your response neatly sidesteps the main point of my post, which is that Humanity+ has reached an inflection point and it may be facing a crisis of leadership capable of managing the transformation.
***
I don’t think Humanity+ has reached an inflection point. It’s had many ups and downs over the years, and this just seems like another one of them to me.
IMO, the “problem of leadership” Humanity+ currently faces is obvious: our ED just resigned, after several Board members asked him to, and now the organization must adapt itself to this change. I don’t think this is a “crisis” and I also think it’s a temporary issue.
More broadly, I think there is a persistent problem in Humanity+ and some other similar organizations. If we had funds to pay a full-time ED and staff, we could make more progress toward our goals; and if we had that full-time ED and staff, we could more easily raise funds. It’s a bit of a Catch-22. I had hoped that Alex might help us overcome this problem by raising a lot of funds in his tenure as ED, but that didn’t work out (and I don’t really blame him for that, since raising $$ for this kind of cause is a difficult thing).
If anything, the crisis Humanity+ faces now is one of potential irrelevance. Through other better-funded and better-organized organizations, and through the natural progress of science and culture, the memes Humanity+ advocates are pervading the developed world to a greater and greater extent. Eventually we may become irrelevant, due to transhumanity happening without this organization’s help! But even though H+ memes are spreading fast, I still think there’s a valuable role for the organization. But that would take me too far afield for this comment.
***
The Cuban embargo. This project is specifically what I am referring to when I mention policy initiatives. In my opinion, focusing on the Cuban embargo was clever.
***
Robert, sometimes cleverness and wisdom are badly unaligned.
I think that the Cuban embargo is a good cause, and I voted in favor of (and encouraged other Humanity+ members to vote in favor of) the resolution Alex advocated earlier this year, according to which Humanity+ endorsed the lifting of the embargo and the transformation of Cuba into a H+ research and medical center.
However, I think this is a poor choice of focus for the Humanity+ organization. There are simply a lot of other causes more closely aligned with our core mission.
***
The phony indignation is a smokescreen that allows you to sidestep the main issue
***
Robert, there is truly nothing phony in my posts in these blog comments, except for whatever residual phoniness is intrinsic in the human condition (I’m not a transhuman yet, alas!)
I’m speaking the truth as I see it from the heart here. Maybe I’m wrong on some points, but I’m not phony.
—
Ben Goertzel
Chair, Humanity+
August 17th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
Hi Ben,
Thanks for a constructive response to my questions. I look forward to reading your material and getting further acquainted with the organization’s goals and initiatives.
RT
August 17th, 2010 at 7:44 pm
Dear visitor,
If you have read this far down the page, then you may have noticed that there are some comments missing. Unfortunately, the tenor of the commentary spiralled downhill, culminating in a spectacular outburst of invective from Alex Lightman in response to the allegations against him. In my opinion, none of these comments were particularly constructive. So I decided to unpublish the comments that were nasty, off topic, redundant or otherwise unconstructive.
Personally I am somewhat surprised by this outcome. I think that Humanity+ is a pretty cool project. There are a lot of intelligent people involved. But that old chestnut about the intensity of university politics, cited above, seems to apply in this case.
For those who are not part of the debate about H+, the example of the debate around this election may serve as an illustration of creative collaboration gone wrong. As Ben points out in his thoughtful rebuttal above, there are unique stress factors in running an underfunded non profit project. I remain hopeful, as I stated in my blog post, that the organization will emerge stronger and more stable from this fray.
When I wrote this post, I had no inkling that there was so much background stress in this case. Had I known, I probably would have chosen a different example.
Still, I want to underscore to all readers that I believe strongly in the general transhumanist movement (even if I think that there are a few issues with branding / markeing / positioning!) and I remain a big fan of Humanity+ in particular. I truly believe that the application of information science to human biology is the single most significant area of scientific research today, with profound implications for all of humanity and all other living things on this planet.
So here’s hoping that H+ enjoys a smashingly successful Board election. Judging from the comments posted by current and past board members, as well as some of the prospective board members, I observe that they are highly intelligent, passionate, and fiercely committed to their ideals. A lot of good can come from that kind of energy if it is channeled in a constructive way.
Best wishes to all readers, and thanks to everyone who participated in this dialog.
Robert
August 17th, 2010 at 10:55 pm
As one of the board members who resigned and saw the previous comments in entirety I would like to thank you Robert for pulling them down and taking another look.
For those new to Humanity+ please be encouraged to join and take part.
Thanks again,
Kristi Scott