From: Anders Sandberg (asa@nada.kth.se)
Date: Wed Apr 23 2003 - 01:56:22 MDT
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 09:37:04PM -0400, Keith Elis wrote:
> This past weekend I was asked the best question I've ever been asked
> about transhumanism. Paraphrasing: what is the difference, if any,
> between transhumanist views of technology and merely rational views of
> the same?
>
> Transhumanism is not just about technology, of course. But the question
> is a good one even when looked at in broader terms. What is the
> difference, if any, between transhumanist thinking and rational
> thinking?
My answer would be a bit like yours and Adrian's: it is a question about
values rather than how we think rationally about them and the world.
Desiring to enhance onself beyond everyday optimality implies a
different cost-benefit estimation among our values than among
non-transhumanists.
> Is transhumanism a moral philosophy? That is, does it apply moral
> principles, deduce moral principles, or even recognize moral principles?
> If it is not a moral philosophy, then what is it? Is it a philosophy at
> all?
Transhumanism as a word unfortunately seems to have a very wague
meaning, and IMHO it is important to distinguish between the core ideas
based on a continuation of the humanistic-enlighteniment project and
other forms.
The idea that the human condition can be enhanced is in itself morally
empty, just a statement and a definition of "enhancement" which may or
may not be viewed as desirable. Even when seen as desirable, allowed or
even obligatory there are few constraints on which moral principles this
can be combined with. This is where different kinds of transhumanism in
the wide sense diverge, and where I really think we would be better off
with a more narrow core definition to distinguish the combination of
human enhancement and change with humanistic moral ideas of human
dignity, reason, freedom etc from other forms. To some extend the
transhumanist declaration does this, but it is hard to encompass the
full complexity of these streams of thoughts into something short.
Extropianism can be seen as a more well-defined subset within this core.
> Transhumanism and extropianism *do* seem to have a discernible roster of
> values. These have evolved considerably since I first started reading
> about transhumanism in 1996. Or, more precisely, the descriptions of
> these values have evolved considerably. Of course values such as reason,
> progress, improvement, growth, etc., are not themselves unique to
> transhumanism, but in combination they do describe a unique way of
> thinking about the universe.
David Friedman pointed out that libertarianism could not easily be
compressed into a small set of axioms. Rather, it is a shared set of
values and ideas which is more complex to express. I think the same goes
for core transhumanism.
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/ GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 23 2003 - 02:04:42 MDT