At 04:51 PM 3/31/98 -0600, you wrote:
>Also, would you characterize transhumanism as anti-environmental?
Not in the way you'd put it. Most transhumanists I know aren't interested
in paving over the earth or anything like that. Rather, we value the
environment for the good it will do for us. (Where the "good" is usually
human utility and/or complexity, extropy, longevity...) What this means,
however, is that the environnment is only extrinsically good; if the good
which it might bring us is outweighed by the cost of preserving it, then I
for one would not support its maintenance.
The above seems a little harsh... but it's not quite as bad as it sounds.
After all, supporting the environment is not an all-or-nothing decision.
We might, for example, sue to keep our air free from soot and other
particulates while remain negligent of CO2 emissions as not worth the
effort. This is especially true if you don't believe global warming is
happening. (Disbelieving in global warming is not anti-environmental: I
may believe in environmentalism without believing in global cooling, for
example. [This was a big thing in the 70s and a significant reason why
many of us are sceptical of global warming claims now.])
Also, many of us believe that many environmental laws are extremely costly;
so costly that they cannot ever pay for themselves. I for one oppose such
laws.
Check out for more info:
http://www.extropy.com/~exi/faq/environ.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.3
iQEVAwUBNSGBdPJQm6Y3yAfNAQGmZgf/aTQx6sMWoHxPIW0v0O2NLXx87EtcTzcN
DdmulxVPZfhiVnT6inl8b9qJ6VIRMJuQQaZg2pHUGuZAuY7In2PJ1ws0ljPEKZHx
YkrhOMQb2E6W8eWLTdbof+qIYKTLd2P/9qmWerOrOJzRRN70jv4wsVrnpKojyQvr
FOss8osE1VNenaHVZ6d1UrusfdhVo8M3tblM2GQ9yvGy3YXTyEAXFhV2YHS1egNk
K/kgQFLJgiHN9ao3TBRfRcsOmuAtffPGA7kcC4iOH/M2GuvjNZ0RM+s8UA8SpWxd
yx9kzXGVx4Q0xWPltDdIViSCHgOQ+KPJU5w+3Z+HkM8NSOU7V1fhRg==
=PBf8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-TODAY IS A GOOD DAY TO LIVE-