From: CurtAdams@aol.com
Date: Tue Aug 20 2002 - 13:32:46 MDT
In a message dated 8/20/02 12:15:41, jrd1415@yahoo.com writes:
>curtadams@aol.com writes:
>> The discussion necessarily becomes about what
>> aspects of "human" are good and
>> what aspects are bad, and what moral methods can
>> improve things
>
>The discussion "should" become about that, but the
>discussion by Fukuyama et al doesn't go there, in my
>opinion, because they are political opportunists not
>good faith participants in the discussion.
More to the point, the "discussion" is more of a monologue
(books, obviously, are a kind of monologue). Nobody's
pinned down Fukuyama on whether he thinks all the
many negative aspects of humanity - say, carelessness,
forgetfulness, cruelty, provincialism, tendencies to rape,
to murder, to deceit, to way, significant chances of schizophrenia,
autism, alzheimers, etc., are "OK". At present the nasty
stuff comes as a package deal with all the good stuff and
the "anti-transhumanists" are avoiding that.
>They want
>to restrict the discussion--define it in fact-- within
>the boundaries of gloom and doom because that serves
>their political ambitions.
Yes, they're grinding their own axes. Amusingly, one of
the bad parts of the package deal, personal gain by
harming others...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:17 MST