From: Michael M. Butler (butler@comp*lib.org)
Date: Tue Nov 25 1997 - 23:53:31 MST
>> What I want is to find ways of ensuring human survival even in the
>> very long run, even if the ethics of our descendants changes. The
>> problem isn't the religious nuts, the problem is the big uncertainty
>> about the future.
There's another issue: how does a "web of trust" get fostered, transferred
and maintained in the face of this odd thing, foreseeable incredible stress?
And a third, akin to this: what does it mean to humans or other sophonts to
be "one of 'us'", and what can we do about that? What _should_ we do about
that?
And a fourth: given the aforementioned stresses, and the possible perceived
opportunities if one defects, is there such a thing as a unified context of
sufficiency? Are we stuck with a zero sum game? If we are, should we all
agree to promulgate a white lie ("there's enough for everyone"), if that
creates a context of sufficiency?
>Reactionaries will of course be on the opposite side, forming
>terrorist insurgencies to oppose the transition. Anyone who thinks the
>transcendant period will not be violently dynamic is living in a fools
>paradise.
I'll add one other point: it won't be "reactionaries" alone who find
themselves on the other side of the street: it'll also be anyone who's
afraid they're missing the boat.
It is entirely possible that during the cishuman-transhuman period,
transumans may come into being, but civilization may go out the window. I
would hate that.
C-CAL was created to address these sorts of issues, but it's slow going...
MMB
Director
Center for Compassion & Liberty
--back to work on that Web site, darn it!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:45:10 MST