Re: Definitions for Transhumanism
Scott Badger (wbadger@psyberlink.net)
Sat, 11 Apr 1998 14:23:29 -0500
>> > > I like it, Scott, and that's not to disparage the other definitions
>> > > others may have offered, but it kind of ties in with a Randy-Smith
>> > > truism: many, if not most, humans are, in some fundamental way,
>> > > unhappy. That ultimate state of self-actualization would seemingly
>> >
>> > If we were not unhappy, there would be zero impetus to change. No
impetus
>> > to change in an coevolutionary context guarantees failure before long.
>>
>> Very odd. I feel very happy, and I feel a big impetus to change. Would
>> I feel an even more intense impetus if I was unhappy? I doubt it; the
>> times I have felt unhabppy haven't motivated me as much as when I have
>> been happy to do something.
>
>I must second that; I'm a *lot* more productive and looking for improvement
>when I feel happy than when I'm depressed.
>
>> Of course, I might be unrepresentative of humanity
>
>Of course, I *know* I'm unrepresentative of humanity, so... ;-)
>
Yes, but are you now happy to stay at the level you are at? What if further
growth was prohibited? Would you become unhappy then? I think you might.
Actually satisfied might be a better term than happy. It is true that
depression brings on lethargy, mainly because of a sense of hopelessness. I
think many of us are happy precisely because we are changing and growing.
Stifle us and watch us wither on the vine.
Anders made the additional point that people have different ideas about what
growth is. But the particular path one might choose may not be as important
as our drive to walk down it.
Scott Badger