In a message dated 99-11-12 11:05:26 EST, you write:
<< Very refreshing, if I am interpreting it right. The moral is that we
not be so concerned that our descendants carry on our genetic code, but that they carry on our culture. Here we have a presumed posthuman acting in a manner which we find understandable and familiar. He cares about extinct species just as we do.>>
I would add to this that I believe there is a real difference between homo sapiens and humanity. If the ancestral biological species were to pass into history through the development of post-humanity, I believe that it could happen in such a way as to preserve the positive aspects of humanity (unfortunately, I suspect some of the negative aspects may be inherited as well as some new ones developing). In the scenario given, I would have to say that though Homo sapiens may have past, Humanity seems to be quite recognizibly alive and active.
<< Even in this forum we often succumb to a form of chauvinism, in which any
future which isn't dominated by humans is seen as a failure. Particularly with regard to predicted human vs machine wars, we automatically side with the humans, without asking which group is more deserving morally. We need to start thinking in broader terms and not identifying so closely with our genetics and metabolism.
This is a little bit different, but I can't help but be reminded of the Michael Moorcock story of The Eternal Champion, summoned to be the champion of mankind, but who discovers that it is his own race who are the monsters and must be purged from the Earth to save the much more civilized and humane Eldren. Another case where blood isn't thicker than water.