Wow, what a convenient set of definitions, gee-whiz...
And, yeah--these would be the big-headed bulging black eyed guys.
I'll bet they have a really neat set of definitions to suit their own
ends, as well.
>the false comfort of a moral high ground. It's the
> ones who believe in an absolute morality that have done the most
>harm, historically.
Perhaps; if not entirely true, certainly very close. The world is now
a different place, however, and religion is not a significant force
for first-world change.
Can there be such a thing as absolute morality? I do not claim to
know. Is there such a thing as morality? Yes. Is morality a useful
concept? Perhaps. Do I value persons possessed of it more than
persons not so possessed? You bet.
I shall at this point invoke Einstein, Oppenheimer, and Dyson--who
came to realize that the consequences of the scientific endeavor have
become such that the scientist can no longer claim to stand apart
from his/her works--and the uses to which those works are put. This
was a realization of the value of morality--in each case brought
about by The Bomb.
Greater dangers loom, and those right soon.
jm
On 20 Apr 2001, at 17:15, Alex Future Bokov wrote:
>
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, John Marlow wrote:
>
> > Thank you for making my point (ends-justify-the-means thinking).
> > And how big a step is it from this to drawing ethnic lines?
> > Or augmented/nonaugmented human/posthuman lines?
> > The lesser to be viewed as raw experimental material for the benefit
> > of the self-defined greater?
>
> Sentient: an entity with the biological potential for abstract thought
> and abstract communication.
>
> Person: a subset of entities which has the demonstrated capacity for
> abstract thought and communication to the point where (given the right
> training and stage in their lifecycle) they can negotiate with and
> enter into contracts with other Persons.
>
> Human: a subset of Persons that you and I are potentially capable of
> reproducing (using the traditional equipment) with either directly or
> through our immediate descendants.
>
> Of course, these are just rules of thumb. I'm sure the bright folks on
> this list can come up with all kinds of wierd exceptions and
> hypothetical scenarios. That's okay, life is supposed to contain
> ambiguity. All I know is that so far these rules have served me well
> in not doing anything that would come back to haunt me.
>
> As for super/trans/post humans? I don't think I can influence the
> actions of these beings through some kind of sympathetic magic
> consisting of not preying on beings down the food chain from me. If I
> had to interact with a superior being, I suppose I would hope for the
> best and prepare for the worst, as usual.
>
> > You have stepped onto a slippery slope, mein freund--slick with
> > blood.
>
> We all get to choose slippery slopes. Perhaps all the slopes there are
> to choose from are slippery. I like the ones that are visibly slippery
> and don't provide the false comfort of a moral high ground. It's the
> ones who believe in an absolute morality that have done the most harm,
> historically.
>
> > Let us hope the little gray guys do not feel the same about us,
> > hmm..?
>
> I'm lost, are we talking about lampreys or those big-headed bulging
> black-eyed ones stoners have on their shirts? I'm not worried about
> the grays, it's the Chrysallids that really get under my skin. ;-)
>
> - --
>
> Richard Simmons Weight Watchers Dwarves
> Why are the above words in my signature? Check out:
> http://www.castrato.com
>
>
John Marlow
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:49 MDT