Re: Nature defines "transhumanist"

From: Ziana Astralos (
Date: Thu Jun 15 2000 - 19:39:14 MDT

--- Robin Hanson <> wrote:
> This from today's Nature:
> Nature 405, 730 - 732 (2000) "Nanotech thinks big"
> by Colin Macilwain.
> This is the first paragraph:
> "There is no such thing as bad publicity, it is
> sometimes said. But ever since Eric Drexler brought
> the term 'nanotechnology' into vogue in his 1986
> book Engines of Creation, some researchers have felt

> that the field has been burdened by unwanted
> baggage. Drexler envisioned an era in which factory
> production lines were replaced by self-replicating,
> nanoscale 'assemblers' and warned that such
> entities could supplant humans to become the
> dominant 'life' forms on our planet. These ideas
> were quickly seized on by transhumanists people
> who imagine what the world will look like after
> technology has rendered us extinct.
> But today, nanotechnology is acquiring the respect
> researchers in the field believe it deserves. ..."

~sigh~ I just *knew* there had to be a reason why I
never liked that magazine/journal/whatever much. :)
IMHO they tend to...ooh, I need to scroll my reply
text down further, just looking at that "definition"
makes me cringe ;) ...get some things close to right
but yet just wrong enough/confused enough/distorted
enough to make me wish they hadn't said anything at
all :)

      Ziana Astralos GCS/MC/IT/L/O d- s-:- a? C++++ U P+ L W+++ N+ w+
  or M-- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP-- t+ 5++ X R tv+ b+++ DI++++
         T.E.C.H. D+ G++ e- h!>++ !r x-

Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages with Yahoo! Messenger.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:13:20 MDT