From: Mike Lorrey (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Jan 16 2002 - 12:44:38 MST
Emlyn O'regan wrote:
> I have a couple of points to pick...
> - firstly, I think the argument about ruling out collectivism falls apart if
> you have a purely voluntary collective. I think that the core values you
> have put forward allow any type of social arrangement as long as it is
> purely voluntary for all members. Is this actually workable?
I don't see why not. The problem, of course, is that far too many
collectivists intend to impose collectivism as the default state, not
just as one option among many within a libertarian plenum. I'm not sure
but I suspect this nascent fascism is because they subconciously realize
the motivational inefficiencies of egalitarianism.
> - Second, and more important, I think the discussion reduces transhumanism
> to "humanism with toys", and I suspect there is more to it than that. How is
> the transhumanism that you have presented any different to plain vanilla
Humanism abandoned its focus on human beings a long time ago. Now, it is
far more accurate to describe it as collectivist edenic gaiaism.
Transhumanism reestablishes the classic humanistic focus on
technological progress as a primary (but not the only) tool by which
individuals can pursue and/or achieve personal perfection (i.e.
Transhumanism: "We put the 'pursuit' back into the 'pursuit of
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:34 MST