From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@www.aeiveos.com)
Date: Mon Dec 20 1999 - 14:26:39 MST
On Sun, 19 Dec 1999 GBurch1@aol.com wrote:
> Western quasi-capitalist societies are probably the least
> likely to do so, but there IS a battle for "hearts and minds" shaping up.
> The cultural forces that will be arrayed against transhumanism are formidable
> and insidious: Just look at the discussion of the pro-death, pro-limits theme
> of "Bicentennial Man" we've had here the last couple of days.
********** WARNING Bicentennial Man SPOILER ***************
I watched BM last night without having read much of the discussion.
When it came to the point at the end where they were discussing the
fact that humanity would not tolerate immortal humans, it became
clear that the essence revolved around the idea that being "human"
was somehow better. Andrew wanted to be *human* because that was
the evolutionary process he chose for himself in life. I didn't
in any way feel that the film was anti-transhumanist, if anything
it seemed to be highly favorable, since it cast a warm light on
the entire process of self-evolution and transcending your "natural"
limitations.
The film was flawed, because it didn't explain why the technologies
used to build a more human Andrew, could not be used to build a
more robotic (and "immortal") human. But we should not forget
in our rush to climb up the ability/longevity/sentience quotient
ladder that moving down the ladder may be equally as valid.
The emphasis should be placed on the need to put "humanism" and
"transhumanism" on an equal footing. Neither is inherently better
than the other. Sure you may live longer, you may be smarter as a
transhumanist, but that in no way negates the value people may place
on remaining human. The value is *being* what *you* want to *be*.
To argue against transhumanism, is to argue against someone doing
anything that improves oneself (such as getting an education).
The real challenge is to diminish the fears that smart robots (or
transhumans) will in some way harm the interests of those who
do not follow those paths. Whether that will be feasible remains
unclear to me. If we have nanotech around the same time that
transhuman potential really begins to accelerate, then it seems
like smart robots, transhumanists and humanists should all be able
to coexist.
If the NY Times longevity article is any example, perhaps peoples'
own self-interest will drive them forward even as their minds are
kicking and screaming that they don't want to change.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:06:09 MST