From: Damien R. Sullivan (phoenix@ugcs.caltech.edu)
Date: Tue Jul 21 1998 - 19:02:00 MDT
As Robin said, good analysis, Hal. Another problem with the insect
analogy is that most insects have rather limited perceptions. Even with
more brains, they'd have trouble figuring out our From owner-extropians@maxwell.kumo.com Wed Jul 22 02:00:09 1998
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by maxwell.kumo.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA24393
for extropians-outgoing; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 02:00:09 -0600
X-Authentication-Warning: maxwell.kumo.com: majordom set sender to owner-extropians@extropy.com using -f
Message-ID: <35B59B8D.2DA33612@clemmensen.shirenet.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 03:58:05 -0400
From: Dan@Clemmensen.ShireNet.com (Dan Clemmensen)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: extropians@extropy.com
Subject: Re: FAQs: summary: comments?
References: <000001bdb4e8$c02f9c80$350abece@anthropy.inwave.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-extropians@extropy.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: extropians@extropy.com
William John wrote:
[SNIP]
>
> Are Transhumanist technologies environmentally sound?
> Transhumanist technologies have the potential to preserve existing
> ecosystems. Reasonable non-Transhuman extrapolations of existing human
> culture have little chance of reserving the current ecosystem. (Dan
> Clemmensen)
>
As usual, my spelling is catching up with me. That should be
"preserving", not "reserving".
Also, I now see that I used too many big words in an attempt to
be concise. I'd like to improve this by adding a simple lead-in
as follows:
Are Transhumanist technologies environmentally sound?
Maybe, but they are still our best hope. Transhumanist technologies
have the potential to preserve existing ecosystems. Reasonable
non-Transhuman extrapolations of existing human culture have little
chance of preserving the current ecosystem. (Dan Clemmensen)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:23 MST