I am taking this way to personal of course: but who are you to judge this
black & white on Extropians. May I remind you that we are individuals who
care for one an other based on some similar principles........and that this
discussion is so complex that you should be bit less drastically in jumping
to conclusions.
> Will the world death-worshipping elites
What on earth are you talking about !!?? IMHO, you need to read
a lot more about a lot of things on several related sites of
Transhumanism........
> When I drive by the local abortion "clinic" every day, I am acutely aware
> that I am driving by a Nazi or Stalinist death camp.
I just can't believe this !! ....and this is from someone, who claims "we"
address only issues based on emotional bias........
> Non sequitor. What do the globally balanced, politically correct Nobel
> prizes have to do with the definition of human? Is the ever-so
politically
> circumspect Nobel prize committee who we go to in order to be granted
> rights? Do you grasp that you and your fellow travelers are arrogantly
> forcing your definition on everyone else, with the exception of the one
> ghetto you'll allow us, the Vatican?
Well...I must admit, that's one way of putting it.
Call me fainthearted.....but could you please try to be a little less
arrogant in spreading your meme's
> It is very intersting to see which of my points and questions go
> unanswered. The silence is deafening. I don't count ethical emotivism
as
> containing any answers, only personal expressions of feelings, and
> individuals who use feelings as a moral guide are little better than
slaves
> responding to their masters' instruction of what *to* feel.
......and what do you call your way of presenting the "facts" ?
I think you have a very good point: we have to draw the line....and who is
the judge of that. But claiming that it *has* to be right from the first
"few:
cells is as dogmatic as any other claim.............
>
> This goes unanswered:
> RJ: <Are you saying that the possession of intelligence is the source of
> rights?>
>
> AK: <The ability to have Intelligence & consiousness.>
>
> RJ: <And who determines whether ability is there or not, at what
threshold
> of ability? Which individuals grant us our rights? Can I talk to them?>
>
The ones who already posses Intelligence & consciousness.
And IMHO the one who actually carries this "life-potential" should
be very high in this "deciding-hierarchy" if not on top. Bringing an
"intelligent Information Entity" into the world makes you responsible
for it's (well) being. So you have to judge up front (how hard that may be)
if you can handle this. If you "can" oversee the scope of that impact
on you and "the world" you may be the judge.
> This goes unanswered:
> AK: <All consious beings should be treated with respect whether they are
> humans, dolphins or computers.>
>
> RJ: <Why should I? Who says so?>
Nobody say so.....
But it's very simple: don't do to anyone/anything what you don't want to
be done to you. I think it's almost a natural law. If you do good, you'll
receive it (logical...not emotional)....If you do bad.....well expect that
you
hurt "people"......so keep looking over the back of your shoulder........
>
> This goes unanswered:
> RJ: <The key is in the concept of development. Development of the self,
> self-ownership, means others should stay hands off. But development of
> other selves, that is, non-consensual development, is ownership of other
> selves. Other selves have every right to question this activity and to
> bring the activity into the political sphere. The concepts of
guardianship
> and power of attorney evolved in society to champion the rights of
> developing selves that are incapable of acting as their own champions....
> Developed is a static concept that I have never observed in living
> entities. Life is always "developing," from conception to death. Even
> with indefinite longevity, no one will ever be "developed," they will
> indefinitely be "developing.">
What is the question ???
>
> This goes unanswered:
> RJ: <When you speak of the "source of the rule" all I see is the very
> oldest rule of all, "might makes right." Nature is red in tooth and
claw.
> If it is legitimate for the strong to prey upon the weak, sooner or
later,
> we will end up, not as a society, but as isolated systems of perfected
> self-defense staring at each other across no-man's land.>
>
Am I confusing opinions with questions ???
> This goes unanswered:
> RJ: <What's wrong with commercializing all life, at all stages of
> development, including humans, intelligent or otherwise, conscious or
> otherwise? Just make all life into products in the marketplace, all
custom
> designed for any use whatsoever? "If destroying it is acceptable," why
> would any use not be, living or dead?>
>
Intelligent life decides only for it self......or unless it's asked to
decide for
someone else....or if you are "the mother" of an "potential intelligent
information
entity"
I too can't answer were to draw the line on "animal-use" or "lower
intelligent beings"
for using them, eating them, modifying them. But I think we can answer
these
questions in a democratic way. This will without a doubt lead to some
"wrong"
conclusions. But although I am an idealist, I am also realistic.....if we
look
at the past, I would say we make better judgements day by day....granted:
in
very small steps....and sometimes we even step back........
But I think you don't have the answer as much as I do......And I'll respect
you
for your opinion.....could you at least do the same instead of calling
me a death-worshipper
Greetings,
Berrie
======================================
Berrie Staring Email : staring@worldonline.nl
Co-founder: Transcedo Dutch >H Society
Site: http://www.dse.nl/~transced/
" So, you own the seed........ It will not become
a Bonsai, unless you let it grow and cut wisely"
======================================