From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Wed Jul 17 2002 - 03:35:44 MDT
Anders Sandberg wrote:
> The point here seem to be that "sex is optional" rather than "sex is
> sin" or "sex is wrong" - although given the memes drifting around since
> the last 2000 years it is easy to fall into those traps. The step from
> cybergnosticism to real gnosticism isn't that far.
That may have too much of a Western bias. In the Eastern
religions and philosophies it was not seen either as "sin" or
"wrong" but simply as suboptimal for certain types of purposes
and problematic in its associated baggage. Much as in the
argument put forth here actually.
>
> Transhumanism is all about questioning the human condition, so
> questioning sex is clearly also on the agenda. Just like our criticisms
> of the utility of death one can level criticisms as the utility of sex -
> and they do get roughly the same emotional intensity from people.
>
> [ One of the best ways of causing a stir at a cocktail party today is
> to declare oneself asexual - it causes much more interest and frission
> than outing oneself as gay (old hat!). People immediately rush in to
> defend sex. Very amusing, and extremely similar to what happens when
> one declares oneself an immortalist. ]
>
What? They rush in to defend death? Why do people rush to
defend something from someone who is not interested in it or who
is out to go beyond it? How is such a one a threat to them?
Why is their majority uptight about such a small minority with a
dissenting view?
> However, while death is viewed as something negative by most
> transhumanists (there are exceptions, such as Freeman Dyson in _Imagined
> Worlds_ where he considers death a necessity in order to prevent
> posthuman insanity) due to its irreversible character and the way it
> prevents beings from implementing their life projects, sex is not
> clearly negative. It may take time from other things, but also produces
> pleasure. In fact, many here would likely argue that we need a more
> sensual transhumanism and that the goal should not be to turn ourselves
> into singularity-worshipping monks. The important thing is to make the
> sex drive, just as death, something under voluntary control (and itself
> subject to enhancement - be it wiring it to the stock market, amplifying
> the pleasure response or connecting it recpiprocally with the partner's
> hypothalamus).
>
Eschewing sex, at least for a time, doesn't mean you worship
something else of course. Besides the other arguments, sex
sometiems just loses its allure. You've been there and done
that so many times and in so many variations and rode the
various endorphin floods, orgasmic currents, mammalian
pair-bonding, various types of sex-magic and so on that it
simply isn't seen as all that wonderful to replay it again and
again and yet again. There really are a lot of other things to
do with the energy. Sex/romance can be very, very magical. But
it can get old or be less important than other things.
> The problem in doing this kind of careful criticism is that we need to
> get away both from the common assumptions about the "natural" human
> condition, and the gnostic ideas of sex as something that has to be
> removed because it is sinful - neither set of assumptions are valid in
> our reasoning, but they are extremely prevalent in our culture.
>
I assume that most people here are not particularly caught by
either one of those. We are all about going beyond any fixed
notions of "natural" and I doubt many of us cast sex as sinful.
It is true though that a lot of non-extropians see discussions
about asexuality or apparently questioning the value of sex
and/or romance as further "proof" we are a bunch of eggheads
removed from life and intend on supplanting it with the fevered
products of our own warped and over-developed brains. :-)
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:30 MST