From: Anders Sandberg (asa@nada.kth.se)
Date: Mon Mar 11 2002 - 09:56:30 MST
On Mon, Mar 11, 2002 at 07:28:03AM -0800, Richard Steven Hack wrote:
> At 11:18 AM 3/11/02 +0100, you wrote:
>
> >You can't. You can imagine yourself escaping to space, a secret base in
> >Antarctica or artificial island in the Pacific, but these options are
> >not particularly realistic (see my previous criticisms on this list on
> >the "exit strategy"). Instead you have to live and work in a world where
> >many people disagree with you. The way to survive those five and half
> >million people is to convince the remaining five *billion* people that
> >your views, if not theirs, at least require tolerance and protection
> >(because if they do not give that, then what is there to protect their
> >own not universally accepted views from everybody else?). If five
> >billion people think you are wrong and awful, then you better find ways
> >of convincing them otherwise. Hoping to escape them is a daydream.
>
> Well, thank you for depressing me more than I already am... Perhaps I
> should just commit suicide now...
Your problem is that you do not think people can change very much, and
that efforts to do so are overly hard. As a result you do not care to
study the issue more - after all, in your estimation further study will
likely just confirm your opinion, so that effort could be spent on
something else. So you end up even more convinced that other people are
rigid memebots run by their irrational, anti-transhumanist ideas. If you
then find yourself in a situation where you are dependent on other
people and their opinions, you are entirely defenseless.
But the real situation is far more positive. People can and do change
opinions, even about fundamental issues. New ideas have conquered the
world, even when there have been an uphill battle - think about how
democracy was instituted in various western countries. Small dedicated
groups with a vision have changed the policies of far larger groups (for
good and ill) through persistence and communication. If you read about
the history of ideas you will find that nearly every major idea today
started out as a silly heresy, and only became "obvious" after its
adherents set out to show that it was indeed a good idea. And there are
piles of ideas that are today almost entirely unknown that failed
because they were not supported.
Personally I want to see transhumanism realized. I want to see the
practical benefits. This is why I care about this issue, and get so
irritated at the insular attitude many transhumanists show. It is
irrational and not based on the true state of the world, and it
hamstrings transhumanism unnecessarily. If you feel depressed by me
saying we have to deal with people to get to a transhuman state, then
think of this: isn't transhumanism about trans-*humans*, and doesn't
that imply that it has - by definition - involve dealing with humans in
all their glorious messiness?
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/ GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:12:55 MST