From: Mark Walker (tap@cgocable.net)
Date: Mon Jun 25 2001 - 07:36:25 MDT
Hal wrote:
> We are facing enormous changes in the decades ahead. Yes, we can hope
> for all the good things I have listed above. But there are parts of our
> philosophy which have not percolated, things we understand that no one
> else does yet. We know that along with all of these changes, we have
> the ability to do much more, to change ourselves beyond recognition.
> And we know that the drive to reach our goals, to perfect ourselves, will
> carry us beyond a point where most people today would be comfortable.
> The future is not going to be Star Trek, it will be something strange
> and unimaginable, because that's what happens when you give people the
> power that we will have.
>
> Given this, I believe it is morally incumbent upon us to make sure
> that the choices everyone makes, the paths we follow as a society, are
> fully informed. Rather than trying to fight those who propose caution,
> we need to recognize that they are responding in a natural way to a
> difficult and challenging situation.
>
> This is not a battle. It needs to be a dialog, a conversation, in which
> issues are raised openly and discussed in a constructive way. Only in
> this way can we find our way to the unimaginable future without falling
> into a conflict that tears the world apart.
>
> So I would encourage people to try to stop thinking in terms of enemies
> and conflict, propaganda and debate. Let us be open rather than closed,
> flexible rather than dogmatic. We want to add one more voice to be heard,
> not to suppress others from having their voice heard as well.
>
I am interested in, and sympathetic with Hal's claim that "it is morally
incumbent upon us to make sure that the choices everyone makes, the paths we
follow as a society, are fully informed." I suppose that most think that
there are good reasons for publicizing transhumanist goals. Some of these
may be merely instrumental reasons, e.g., to secure the resources to further
these goals and influence legislation. To avoid these sorts of
considerations, let us suppose that transhumanists find themselves heirs to
a trillion dollar fortune with the stipulation that we set-up shop on a
deserted South Pacific island. This circumvents concern about the need to
influence legislation, our obligation (if any) to the body politic,
procuring resources, etc. Obviously we do not have to worry about
promulgating transhumanist ideas to the society of our island, but is it
still morally incumbent upon us to disseminate these ideas to "society"? If
so which society? Or rather than 'society' do we mean 'humanity'? What do we
do if the effect of the publicity campaign is that the world plebiscite
reveals that 97% are against transhumanism? Also, if we have a duty to make
sure that society is fully informed, it seems that we must direct society's
attention to the most radical scenarios, the "non-Star Trek futures". But
these are the ones it seems are most likely to cause a knee-jerk reaction
against transhumanism. Does this mean we might be obligated to work against
ourselves? Mark.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:17 MST