From: Eugene Leitl (eugene@liposome.genebee.msu.su)
Date: Mon Jul 06 1998 - 10:12:15 MDT
Michael Nielsen writes:
> One question I have of transhumanism, which I sent to Nick Bostrom as
> part of his email survey, is to ask how revolutionary transhumanism is?
Frankly, I don't understand all this fascination with "being
revolutionary". I think that transhuman core values are perfectly
old-fashioned. "Surviving/Life is a good thing, cooperation (nondefection)
too, and change is not an ends in itself but a means of
survival in an coevolutionary context." What's so revolutionary about that?
Of course there are a few transhumanists who wants to abandon humanity for
pretty random reasons, at a whim of fancy ("I wanted to become blue sky"), or
morphing yourself into a living work of art, etc. No problem with that, too.
In any case, if the possibility itself is at all real the motivations
do not matter, the final product does. And let's make it a good one, eh?
Perhaps we should theoretize less -- imo both extropians/>H for quite some
time now show distinct trend to memetic inbreeding, which might
indicate that the discussion part is now largely over, and most of
value is having been said already. The lists are still very valuable for new
readers/socializing, but there seems a distinct need to split up in
the memefecting team and the implementation team, the latter for those
technically inclined. So you techies/scientists out there, go out and
try giving your careers a transhumanist twist. As we are few, it's
sure going to be a small contribution, but every single one will count
in the end.
ciao,
'gene
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:18 MST