From: Anders Sandberg (asa@nada.kth.se)
Date: Fri Jul 12 2002 - 17:38:04 MDT
On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 09:55:33AM -0400, Mark Walker wrote:
>
> I agree in the main although I think it is important that we explain not
> just *what* technology can be used for but (perhaps more importantly) *why*.
> It is easy and somewhat facile to say who wouldn't want to live forever, be
> smarter, healthier, etc.? Not that this sort of response is wrong, but I
> think it leaves people a little stunned. What we need to do, in my opinion,
> is work harder in connecting the dots between transhumanism and the ongoing
> cultural products of the West.
A very important point. By linking with current discourse we 1) become
actual and relevant (even if it is only to criticise us - in which case
we will respond and a dialogue of ideas will result), and 2) ourselves
be forced to examine our ideas beyond just liking them.
One area where I really think we can do a lot of good is the discussion
of the open society. By showing how it can be tied to ideas of dynamism,
evolutionary epistemology, intelligent use of technology and the aim of
not just creating a society that works today but will also adapt and
evolve tomorrow, we can get involved in some very interesting and
important issues.
Another area is of course human nature. We should be happy Fukuyama
brought it up - now it is our turn to give our answers. How to make
biotechnology something that enhances human dignity is important for us
too, and we better articulate how we think this can be done.
Then there is the issues surrounding tolerance, diversity and the right
to choose one's lifestyle. We go further than most in our affirmation of
morphological freedom, and it can act as a generalisation of the many
ideas circulating today about the rights to one's body, the health
concept etc.
> I think by embellishing our
> response to the 'why' question by pointing out that transhumanism is the
> logical conclusion of the cultural projects that so many already hold dear
> we might make further progress. The drive to perfection is already so
> embedded in the telos of the cultural projects of the West it is a true
> testimony to the inadequacy of our attempts to explain ourselves that we
> have not be able to make this case. (In the East, of course, there is a
> venerable tradition that says we should negate this desire for
> perfection--in some ways it would be harder to make our brief there.
> Obviously this contrast is overdrawn: the West has made attempts to negate
> this will, e.g., American pragmatism of James and Dewey, and the whole
> gaggle of postmodernists).
This telos in some sense is the inevitable consequence of the human
tendency to use better solutions when they are found (and to look for
them). That doesn't make it right, just as its prevalence in our culture
does, but it shows that it will always crop up.
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 - 09:15:23 MST