Re: humanism vs. transhumanism?

Dan Clemmensen (
Tue, 31 Mar 1998 22:24:39 -0500

Jac2947329 wrote:

> >Also, would you characterize transhumanism as anti-environmental?
> Actually, it would be to transhumanists benefit to protect the environment and
> to specifically protect biodiversity. Think of all the novel genes that
> haven't been found that could be of use.

The situation is worse than this. I know of no group other than transhumanists
that have a workable plan to preserve the environment. Since all other
groups IMHO believe that the human condition will not change within a
century, these other groups cannot put forward a viable plan that keeps
humanity from destroying most remaining habitat on earth before before
the year 2100, based on simple extrapolation. On the other hand, if
you are willing to accept and plan for the advent of superintelligence
and fully-developed molecular nanotechnology, then you can at least
develop plans to preserve many ecosystems. Technologies powerful
enough to preserve the environment are also powerful enough to
profoundly change the human condition, probably superceding
humanity with transhumanity or posthumanity or whatever you want
to call it.
For one possible approach to saving the environment, see
the appropriate chapters of "Unbounding the Future," which is
now available on the web at along with
a lot of other nanotech stuff.