>Why wouldn't a posthuman be a saint ?
>
>I think (or maybe I hope it to much) that while the
>intellect is growing. the respect for every "life-form"
>is growing too. Would a posthuman really bother about
>trivial things as good and evil. Wouldn't he be more interested
>in just BE......Will he still strife for more matter/energy and
>get to it at all cost. I know I asked something similar already
>in this list. But I find it hard to grasp, that we will never become
>mature enough to deal with these instincts.
We have the instincts we have because they were evolutionarily advantageous
in the Stone Age. Our culture classifies our instincts into the 'higher'--
e.g. love for spouses and children, not hurting those who don't hurt you,
fairness, appreciation of music, and the 'lower'-- e.g. mob violence, rape,
theft. The progress of civilization has been, in large part, the
development of mechanisms for suppressing the 'lower' and enhancing the
'higher'. It is a natural assumption that posthumans will have progressed
down this path even further than we have.
I am not convinced of this. Let me explain.
Instincts originate from the evolution of replicating minds. The process
of replication that formed our minds occured mostly before the invention of
agriculture. The process of replication that will give rise to
posthumanity has not yet started. When it happens, many different
architectures for the mind will contend. They may contend peacefully, by
convincing people that they should reconstruct themselves along certain
lines, or by creating offspring according to a certain plan. But they may
also contend violently, by forcing reconstruction on others, or by siezing
others' rescources and diverting them to the production of offspring.
Which strategy or mix of strategies proves most effective determines what
kind of posthumans we end up with. I could well imagine all posthumans
being saints, but I could also imagine them combining the powers of gods
with the morals of bacteria.
--CarlF