Adrian Tymes wrote:
>
> Wayne Hayes wrote:
> > I tend to lurk more than post here, but if I were to try to sum up
> > extropian values in one sentence, it would be this: to create and
> > harness technology for the purpose of extending the length and
> > improving the quality of human life.
> >
> > That seems to be a noble and practical goal, until one delves deeper
> > and asks: why?
> >
> > The answer is obvious, and can be expressed by saying the same
> > thing in even simpler language: we want to live long, healthy and happy
> > lives.
>
> Perhaps. There may also be other reasons. For instance, there may well
> be people who want life extension and such available to others, but who
> fully intend to commit suicide once that goal is accomplished - i.e.,
> they want to create an extropian future, they'd just rather not live in
> it themselves for whatever reason. They would still be extropians, and
> the rest of us would benefit from their (finite) contribution just the
> same.
Just to be pedantic, no they would not be extropians. If an extropian
is someone who lives their life according to the principles, then
anyone killing themselves on purpose (accidental deaths during risky
behaviors are another subject...) cannot (by the first principle) be
an extropian.
>
> > You must also face the sobering fact that you may simply die before
> > life extension techniques become available. If that's the case,
> > hedging your bets and living life to it's fullest NOW (keeping a
> > watchful eye on, and hopefully supporting, extropian values) is
> > certainly in line with being extropian.
>
> Perhaps. But merely living life to its fullest *without taking even
> such minimal action as making reservations for life-insurance-funded
> cryo* (unless you sincerely believe that life extension will be
> available to you before you would need cryo, sufficient that you will
> never need cryo) disagrees with most definitions of extropy that I have
> heard. Giving only moral support is also termed "lip service", and is
> known as a way to claim to be - and perhaps even honestly believe one is
> (or delude oneself into thinking one is) - supporting something when one
> is not, in fact, supporting it.
>
> This seems, in general, to be one of the problems with new ideas like
> those we discuss here: people believe in them, and believe that their
> belief by itself will cause the ideas to become reality (perhaps by
> getting them to randomly mention it to someone who can do something
> about it and would support the idea, without seeking said person out).
> If only such were true... <depressed sigh>
>
This is what I have been trying to get at in my other recent posts.
Thanks for laying it out.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:12:50 MDT