----------
> From: QueeneMUSE@aol.com
> In a message dated 1/5/2000 2:19:10 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> neosapient@geocities.com writes:
>
> <<From (Anders?)>
> > Not at all. I can imagine intelligent and well-educated non-stupid
> > people opposing transhumanism too, based on their values and knowledge
> > of how the world functions.
>
> >>
> In other words, these otherwise intelligent people have some blind
> spots of ignorance which cause them to act contrary to their own
> enlightened self-interest (which is what transhumanism is all about).
> >>
>
>
> That is not what that person is saying, is it? It is your opinion, so not
> agreeing with you doesn't necessarily make them blind, just disagreeable to
> you.
> How can you dictate what is 'enlightened self-interest' for someone else?
A long, happy life is about as close as one can get to
the "absolute good". Surely you would agree that trying
to live for as long as possible under the best possible
circumstances is the most sane and rational choice? Or
do you think that suffering, oppression and death are
*good*? Now, transhumanism happens to be more or less
the embodiment of the search for freedom, long life and
happiness, which means that those who oppose it support
death, suffering and oppression to some degree. That's
the whole idea behind the "enemies of transhumanism"
thing; that page is based on exactly the same assumptions
and arguments. And as it seems to enjoy widespread support
within the transhumanist community, then so should these
writings.
> This sounds like what the spiritualists say about people who don't follow
> their dogma.
Yes, but that doesn't mean that such a statement is
wrong by definition. It's good to be critical of dogmas,
but this shouldn't result in runaway relativism. If you
make some basic assumptions about what is "good" and "bad"
(see above), then you must conclude that some philosophies
are better than others. Transhumanism simply happens to be
the most rational product on the market. If something better
came along, I'd choose that. This is rather different from
more or less randomly picking a spiritualist (or political)
dogma and clinging on to it no matter what.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:02:06 MDT