From: T0Morrow@aol.com
Date: Tue Mar 19 2002 - 22:27:18 MST
In response to my suggestion that transhumanists do not attribute inherent
attributes to humankind, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote, in relevant part:
>Of course humans are inherently evil. And inherently good. . . .
>I don't see why transhumanism would need to assume
>anything in particular in this area.
Those juxtapositions suggest that you took me to say that *no particular
human* has an inherent nature. I instead meant to convey the notion that
transhumanists do not attribute the same set of attributes to each human.
Hence my use of "humankind" rather than "humans."
Even at that, I suppose that transhumanists need not necessarily regard
humans as variable and flexible. I think that transhumanists generally do
and should hold that view, however, since the alternative would trivialize
their philosophy. A transhumanist who claims all humans are by nature and
definition uniform and unchanging would have to claim "trans" status for even
relatively trifling modifications of the human stuff. Better, I think, that
transhumanists should recognize variability and flexibility as fairly common
among humankind, and present their call for more radical self-modification as
a logical extension of those virtues.
T.0. Morrow
http://members.aol.com/t0morrow/T0Mpage.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:02 MST