Re: The image of transhumanism

Eugene Leitl (
Mon, 6 Jul 1998 20:12:15 +0400 (MSD)

Michael Nielsen writes:
> One question I have of transhumanism, which I sent to Nick Bostrom as
> part of his email survey, is to ask how revolutionary transhumanism is?

Frankly, I don't understand all this fascination with "being revolutionary". I think that transhuman core values are perfectly old-fashioned. "Surviving/Life is a good thing, cooperation (nondefection) too, and change is not an ends in itself but a means of survival in an coevolutionary context." What's so revolutionary about that?

Of course there are a few transhumanists who wants to abandon humanity for pretty random reasons, at a whim of fancy ("I wanted to become blue sky"), or morphing yourself into a living work of art, etc. No problem with that, too.

In any case, if the possibility itself is at all real the motivations do not matter, the final product does. And let's make it a good one, eh?

Perhaps we should theoretize less -- imo both extropians/>H for quite some time now show distinct trend to memetic inbreeding, which might indicate that the discussion part is now largely over, and most of value is having been said already. The lists are still very valuable for new readers/socializing, but there seems a distinct need to split up in the memefecting team and the implementation team, the latter for those technically inclined. So you techies/scientists out there, go out and try giving your careers a transhumanist twist. As we are few, it's sure going to be a small contribution, but every single one will count in the end.