As Robin said, good analysis, Hal. Another problem with the insect analogy is that most insects have rather limited perceptions. Even with more brains, they'd have trouble figuring out our From email@example.com Wed Jul 22 02:00:09 1998 Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by maxwell.kumo.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA24393 for extropians-outgoing; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 02:00:09 -0600X-Authentication-Warning: maxwell.kumo.com: majordom set sender to firstname.lastname@example.org using -f Message-ID: <35B59B8D.2DA33612@clemmensen.shirenet.com> Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 03:58:05 -0400
William John wrote:
> Are Transhumanist technologies environmentally sound?
> Transhumanist technologies have the potential to preserve existing
> ecosystems. Reasonable non-Transhuman extrapolations of existing human
> culture have little chance of reserving the current ecosystem. (Dan
As usual, my spelling is catching up with me. That should be "preserving", not "reserving".
Also, I now see that I used too many big words in an attempt to be concise. I'd like to improve this by adding a simple lead-in as follows:
Are Transhumanist technologies environmentally sound? Maybe, but they are still our best hope. Transhumanist technologies have the potential to preserve existing ecosystems. Reasonable non-Transhuman extrapolations of existing human culture have little chance of preserving the current ecosystem. (Dan Clemmensen)