From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Sun Mar 12 2000 - 10:21:54 MST
On Tuesday, March 07, 2000 9:06 AM Robert J. Bradbury bradbury@aeiveos.com
wrote:
> Damien provide an interesting link to Chris Lawson's
> Essay on aging and longevity. Attached is the letter
> that I sent to Chris regarding this essay (with which
> I mostly agree).
I generally agree with Robert's response to Lawson.
Robert, has Lawson responded to your response? If he has, I wonder if he
will include an examination of your view in any future discussions on this
issue... The reason I worry about this is because I often am able to
convince people that longer, better lives are possible, but they then do not
go on to state this to others. It's like, "Oh, my arguments are wrong, I'll
just remain silent now." To me, this is almost the same as supporting the
wrong arguments, especially since someone who is unaware of the debate and
its resolution will most likely think that the original position held is
still held -- that Lawson still believes what he did in that paper (assuming
you've changed his mind:).
Perhaps what should be done is for our kind -- transhumanist, Extropians,
life extensionists -- to make the first strike. That is what I tried to do
in my "What is posthumanism?" several years ago. (See my site for it.)
That is, I tried to answer potential critics in the essay, long before they
had a chance to voice their opinions. People still disagreed, but then my
ideas were out there first -- as opposed to my critics'. I don't know how
well this worked, but one thing it did manage to do, at some junctures, was
shift the focus of the debate in my direction. And a silent critic under
such circumstances had less power than under the above outlined ones.
Daniel Ust
http://mars.superlink.net/neptune
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:27:19 MST