Re: Transhumanism in History (Was something else)

Natasha Vita-More (
Wed, 13 Oct 1999 21:26:50 -0700

>>>All history we know of to date will pale in comparison to what happens
>>>when the singularity hits because the rate of change will be so much
>>>more rapid. [. . .]
>>Why only refer to our history from the perspective of the Singularitiy are
>>Internet Time. I think Vernor would be surprised by this -:)
>It is true that we cannot ignore previous developments because we foresee
>(or have experienced) a comparatively significantly more dramatic
>development. Much or all of what we perceive as transhumanism has in a way
>simply been a part of the history of science and technology.

Could be, but I'm not so sure. What we perceive as transhumanists is an understanding and knowledge of science and technology. Our psychological makeup plays a primary part in our desire to learn and our ability to accept changes which affects our transhumanism. where science and technology play a principal part is in the evolution of transhumans.

On this subject of Robert's post, "waiting for the future to happen" is a "play" on the play Waiting for Godot and, as such, metaphoric. As cryonicists, it could be a long wait for Robert, Robin and me (although it's a toss-up whether coming out ahead of the pack is better than waiting for massive Enlightenment.) Robert's response was on target to us both, but I can't find it because you changed the Subject line.

As I recall, Eliezer probably correctly interpreted Robert's point best, while I was thinking of historical events. Greg Burch's comment was a nice symbiosis in his phrase "A breeding ground for ideas and a network of innovators."