Re: Can You Live Forever? Esquire article

Natasha Vita-More (
Sun, 09 May 1999 15:53:13 -0500

At 08:41 PM 5/8/99 -0700, J.R. Molloy wrote:

>Again, I don't think Wilson favors remaining biological; he rather favors
>comprehending the unity of knowledge, after which biology will take on a
>deeper, richer meaning.

The following is a quote from _Consilience_ which explains my thoughts on this thread.

"I believe that in the process of locating new avenues of creative thought, we will also arrive at an existential conservatism. It is worth asking repeatedly: Where are our deepest roots? We are, it seems, Old World, catarrhine primates, brilliant emergent animals, defined genetically by our unique origins, blessed by our newfound biological genius, and secure in our homeland if we wish to make it so. What does it all mean? This is what it all means. To the extent that we depend on prosthetic devices to keep ourselves and the biosphere alive, we will render everything fragile. To the extent that we banish the rest of life, we will impoverish our own species for all time."

*I have separated the last sentence from his original paragraph for emphasis:

"And if we should surrender our genetic nature to machine-aided ratiocination, and our ethics and art and our very meaning to a habit of careless discursion in the name of progress, imagining ourselves godlike and absolved from our ancient heritage, we will become nothing."

Natasha Vita-More: Transhumanist Art Centre - Home of Extropic Art: **NEW** Transhuman Culture InfoMark: PRESS RELEASE: "We are transhumans ..." Meme Orbits Saturn in 2004!

"The best defense is an aesthetic offense."