From: Anders Sandberg (asa@nada.kth.se)
Date: Tue Mar 12 2002 - 02:11:04 MST
On Tue, Mar 12, 2002 at 03:24:26AM -0000, Bryan Moss wrote:
> Anders Sandberg wrote:
>
> > So, what changes of transhumanism would be needed to correct
> > this, and would they be good changes from a transhumanist
> > point of view too (and not just PR)?
>
> I don't know. I strip away the fat and there's nothing left.
It all depends on how you view transhumanism. If transhumanism is just
the name for the set of ideas people in the transhumanist community (or
the name for the community itself), then there is no core and hence no
way to tell if something is good or bad for transhumanism - there is
simply no way of evaluating it. But if you take the position that there
is a core transhumanist ideology (as I have done in my past posts on the
philosophy of transhumanism) then there is definitely room for doing
such an evaluation and then acting on it.
> > Let's see: instead of just explaining away broken-
> > heartedness it would actually put it into a larger context:
> > one that includes evolution and biology, but also psychology
> > and a general understanding of the human condition in
> > general and the needs of individuals in particular. [...]
>
> Much of what we talk about is simply inapplicable to people
> and their lives. Some of it may even be dangerous.
Never underestimate the human need for context. The all-encompassing
visions brought by Christianity, the scientific worldview and Marxism
all caught the imagination of billions, even when many of their ideas
were both inapplicable or dangerous in everyday life.
> > Such a transhumanism would be far more popular; maybe not
> > mainstream, but definitely influencing the mainstream by
> > being a source of good or at least interesting ideas that
> > can fit within the current context.
>
> I think we have to move away from this notion that we have
> ideas or solutions to offer. I don't say this because I think
> we should "compromise" or whatever, I say it because it's an
> outright lie to say otherwise. We emphatically do not agree
> on any number of things.
Yes. Neither did any other ideological movement in history. But what
distinguishes those that became successful from the unsuccessful ones is
that the successful ones found a core identity (or identities) from
which to build their worldview, morals and policies. As long as
transhumanism is regarded as what transhumanists think, then it is not a
particularly useful movement. But as soon as it starts to form a
coherent system of thought, an approach to life, then it really can
produce useful ideas and solutions.
This is why I am serious about building a transhumanism based on our
renaissance and enlightenment humanist roots, updating them into the
current situation.
> The point is, however, that we are
> talking about them. But what is it to be talking about these
> things? Why does it appeal? Can we extend that appeal?
>
> The first and second questions warrant serious attention, we
> shouldn't pass over them on our way to the third.
With "these things" I guess you mean future changes of the human
condition, what these changes might be and whether they are desirable or
not? Clearly one appeal to us and many others is just the intellectual
appeal. There is also the practical appeal (can I get a better life? can
I avoid dangers?) and the philosophical/"spiritual" appeal (human nature
and human destiny have always fascinated). These cover a lot of ground.
Extending the appeal right now is more about making people see that our
perspectives are a valid point of view and not just some rantings from
the fringe that can be safely ignored. We want to expand the range of
possible opinion in the current mainstream discussion.
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/ GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:12:56 MST