From: Delvieron@aol.com
Date: Fri Nov 12 1999 - 10:56:20 MST
In a message dated 99-11-12 11:05:26 EST, you write:
<< Very refreshing, if I am interpreting it right. The moral is that we
should
not be so concerned that our descendants carry on our genetic code, but that
they carry on our culture. Here we have a presumed posthuman acting in a
manner which we find understandable and familiar. He cares about extinct
species just as we do.>>
I would add to this that I believe there is a real difference between homo
sapiens and humanity. If the ancestral biological species were to pass into
history through the development of post-humanity, I believe that it could
happen in such a way as to preserve the positive aspects of humanity
(unfortunately, I suspect some of the negative aspects may be inherited as
well as some new ones developing). In the scenario given, I would have to
say that though Homo sapiens may have past, Humanity seems to be quite
recognizibly alive and active.
<< Even in this forum we often succumb to a form of chauvinism, in which any
future which isn't dominated by humans is seen as a failure. Particularly
with regard to predicted human vs machine wars, we automatically side
with the humans, without asking which group is more deserving morally.
We need to start thinking in broader terms and not identifying so closely
with our genetics and metabolism.
Hal>>
This is a little bit different, but I can't help but be reminded of the
Michael Moorcock story of The Eternal Champion, summoned to be the champion
of mankind, but who discovers that it is his own race who are the monsters
and must be purged from the Earth to save the much more civilized and humane
Eldren. Another case where blood isn't thicker than water.
Glen Finney
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:45 MST