Re: Definitions for Transhumanism

Michael Lorrey (
Mon, 13 Apr 1998 08:53:23 -0400

Yak Wax wrote:

> Michael Lorrey wrote:
> [snip]
> > As Mr. den Otter has previously said is such a
> > rude manner, I am rather extreme myself, although
> > I personally take pride in that, since being
> > average is to me as good as being dead. However,
> > I hope here I have accurately described conditions
> > for most people...
> That's strange, I see free market capitalists as "get back to basics"
> people. When compared to our natural systems, anarcho-capitalism is
> the most conservative of all. It actively promotes the individual,
> competition, survival, and all the other aspects of Darwinism. It
> promotes the active expectance, and even advocacy, of genetically
> pre-programmed drives. Perhaps many socialist systems should be best
> considered as "reactionary" responses to this, but I consider the
> general idea of "transcending" our genetic heritage to be sound
> transhumanist thought. I certainly see no reason to consider this
> irrational.
> And although anarcho-capitalism may make a nice "means" it is
> certainly not the "end" - don't forget that we're transcending here.
> That is transcending forwards to something new, not backwards to
> something been and gone. And while I too can be accused of
> questioning the rationality of morals and non-competitive behaviour
> there is something behind them. Collective intelligence and ability
> to communicate emotional experience is leading to a greater move
> towards moral complexity. Is this good or bad? It's certainly bad
> for your system, but what about those darn socialists?

Well, I see free market capitalism as an ideal of efficiency and
individuality that a socialist system can never compete with either in
terms of economic growth or in pbulic morale (in the long run, however
people are always happy after they elect the next bumch of crooks into
office that guarranteed them bread and circuses).

> Mr. Lorrey also wrote:
> > Up here in New Hampshire (yup, here I go again),
> > as well as across the river in Vermont, we have
> > possibly the highest per capita level of gun
> > ownership in the industrialized world [...] (oh,
> > and btw, if you try to claim that its because
> > we're all rich or something, our state is below
> > the national average in per capita income by a
> > heftypercentage.)
> You're all so busy trying not to get shot you don't have time to make
> money :-)

Actually, its because we don't have a big black market mafioso and
government approved mafioso simultaneously robbing hard wroking people of
their hard earned dollars. While our per capital income is low, our cost
of living is also low due to our low government and criminal overhead.

> --Wax
> _________________________________________________________
> Get your free address at