At 03:30 PM 1/14/99 -0800, Robin wrote:
>
>The related thing that most strikes me is the unfortunate
>lack of paper-length contributions on the topics which
>frequently appear on this list.
Good points, Robin. And, if you don't mind, I'll take that as a cue for this...
I recently completed a draft of a paper that I'm going to send to philosophy
journals. I want to get it off ASAP, but I'd appreciate feedback before doing
so. The topic is definitely of extropian interest (see abstract below). I
would
prefer offer to read from those list members who are familiar with the
style of
philosophy journal articles (or academic articles in any subject area).
Please let me know if you would like to see a copy of my draft.
Here's the abstract:
Max More, Ph.D.
max@maxmore.com
Abstract
The species concept is central to modern evolutionary biology. Most biologists
and philosophers of biology have decisively settled on the particular concept
of a species as a protected gene pool. While borderline cases do arise in
applying the concept, mostly it has worked well for the biological world up
until now. This paper examines how well the biological species concept can
handle some possible future developments among Homo sapiens. These changes,
being driven by the interface of biology and technology, raise boundary
problems unprecedented in evolutionary history. I argue that the current
species concept can handle some of these possibilities, but runs into serious
difficulties in classifying the results of imaginable technological
modifications of the human species. The paper suggests a range of responses to
extend or supplement the protected gene pool species concept.
http://www.maxmore.com
Philosophical issues of technology
President, Extropy Institute:
exi-info@extropy.org, http://www.extropy.org