From: Reason (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Jan 14 2002 - 11:11:45 MST
--> estropico >
> >From: Anders Sandberg <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >My claim in the paper was that humanism is integral to the concept
> >transhumanism, and if you leave out the humanism part you are not
> >talking about transhumanism. Part of this is purely semantic, since the
> >humanism part of the term transhumanism ought to signify something.
> Yes, it is semantic, but there is a deeper truth here too.
> Transhumanism without humanism is not transhumanism, you say - I might
> agree, but that is just an arbitrary definition.
> Why do I say that?
> We already have various political interpretations of transhumanism as
> described, for instance, in J. Hughes paper and some of those
> interpretations seem to care little for humanism. And lets not forget the
> Russian bolshevik cosmists (clearly among transhumanism's many
> How did that happen, then?
> What they all did was exactly what I worry about: they adopted
> what I call the central meme of transhumanism (i.e. it is right to use
> technology to go beyond Homo Sapiens) and dropped the rest.
Here's a thought:
Those in the humanism camp see trans-humanism. Those in the
shackling-ubertech-to-favored-existing-failed-political-model camp see
Funny things, words.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:34 MST