From: Robin Hanson (hanson@econ.berkeley.edu)
Date: Tue Oct 20 1998 - 11:38:50 MDT
Kathryn Aegis writes:
>Transhumanism, in its barest form, could be defined in dictionary format in
>two parts as (i) 'the field of study focusing on the transhuman' and (ii)
>'the set of human endeavors to become a transhuman.' If we set up a
>two-part expanded definition paralleling this in the FAQ, it would go a long
>way towards resolving the stupid endless argument between the technologists
>and philosophers that has plagued us since the beginning. I've been
>thinking in dictionary terms lately, because the editors of the OED are in
>fact considering adding these two terms to the OED, and they are tending
>towards this sort of structure in a definition as well.
This OED proposal looks fine by me, as I do see two distinct
uses of the term, one positive and one normative. Now what
are they thinking of using to define "transhuman"?
Robin Hanson
hanson@econ.berkeley.edu http://hanson.berkeley.edu/
RWJF Health Policy Scholar, Sch. of Public Health 510-643-1884
140 Warren Hall, UC Berkeley, CA 94720-7360 FAX: 510-643-8614
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:40 MST