From: Anders Sandberg (asa@nada.kth.se)
Date: Mon Aug 19 2002 - 11:57:47 MDT
On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 07:57:48AM -0700, Regina Pancake wrote:
>
> So here's a twist.
> I tend to think of myself as a "Green/Transhumanist.
> How many of this list see themselves the same, or are Green and
> Transhumanist just not to be uttered in the same sentence?
I think there is a deep difference between us and the green ideology;
they consider nature as something that is inherently good regardless of
human outcomes and that has to be retained as it is not just out of
practical considerations but due to its inherent ethical value. Note
that many environmentalists do not have this ideological basis! Even in
the environmentalist movement this view is not universal, but these
romantic/premodern ideas are a noticeable bias on much thinking and
acting.
A transhumanist view of nature would rather be dynamic: nature is
something that changes, we are part of nature, let's change together in
interesting ways. This doesn't leave out respect for nature or the need
to keep our biosphere liveable and of high quality, but we are far more
willing to consider changes in nature. After all, if one accepts changing
the human condition, why not the natural conditions too?
I don't consider myself an environmentalist - these issues are currently
so low on my priority list that they doesn't affect my sense of self -
but I enjoy a good environment and want to promote it broadly. But it
might not be the same environment as was there before (Sweden would IMHO
be better with more deciduous forests! Mars needs oceans! Mercury needs
nano-life! :-).
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 - 09:16:15 MST