> I think we as transhumanists are a bit in a dilemma here.
> On one hand we are pro medical freedom, since we want access to
> treatments for e.g. life extension, cognitive enhancement and physical
> improvements. We are also opposed to straightjacking the definition of
> health and disease...
> But on the other hand we are pro rationality and in general opposed to
> superstition and pseudoscience...
Why is there any conflict here at all? Of course we want to allow
anyone to treat eir own body as ey chooses, as demanded by simple
self-ownership, and we reject government interference in making those
choices. But that does not at all conflict with continuing to
denounce and even criminally prosecute outright fraud. If someone
wants to sell herbs or accupuncture services, I wouldn't interfere.
But if ey claims in advertising that they will help you lose weight
or cure your flu, then ey has committed fraud.
> Our situation is that by supporting medical freedom, we also place
> ourselves in the same camp as a lot of groups we normally would want
> to separate ourselves from - new agers, some luddites and a lot of
> pseudoscience. Politics does make strange bedfellows.
Yep; Libertarians have the same problem in sharing certain opinions
with groups no one wants to be associated with. But guilt-by-
association and the "package deal" fallacy are pretty easy to fight
if you have good arguments on your side.
-- Lee Daniel Crocker <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:11:38 MDT