From: Bryan Moss (bryan.moss@btinternet.com)
Date: Mon Mar 11 2002 - 20:24:26 MST
Anders Sandberg wrote:
> So, what changes of transhumanism would be needed to correct
> this, and would they be good changes from a transhumanist
> point of view too (and not just PR)?
I don't know. I strip away the fat and there's nothing left.
> Let's see: instead of just explaining away broken-
> heartedness it would actually put it into a larger context:
> one that includes evolution and biology, but also psychology
> and a general understanding of the human condition in
> general and the needs of individuals in particular. [...]
Much of what we talk about is simply inapplicable to people
and their lives. Some of it may even be dangerous.
> Such a transhumanism would be far more popular; maybe not
> mainstream, but definitely influencing the mainstream by
> being a source of good or at least interesting ideas that
> can fit within the current context.
I think we have to move away from this notion that we have
ideas or solutions to offer. I don't say this because I think
we should "compromise" or whatever, I say it because it's an
outright lie to say otherwise. We emphatically do not agree
on any number of things. The point is, however, that we are
talking about them. But what is it to be talking about these
things? Why does it appeal? Can we extend that appeal?
The first and second questions warrant serious attention, we
shouldn't pass over them on our way to the third.
BM
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:12:56 MST