Date: 27 Dec 2000 16:16:02 -0800
From: Ziana Astralos <ziana@extrotech.net>
Subject: a criticism site
>I came across another criticism site, entitled "The War Against Transhumans
And Extropians: Impartial >Progress" (yeeps). Its address is
http://transhuman.singlegoal.com/ . It's run by the same people who run
>http://www.singlegoal.com/ , a site espousing "impartial thought".
>The page begins, "Transhumanism concerns anyone who cares about progress
and purpose in life. It is a >rather rare kind of philosophy in that it
holds progress to be both worthwhile and achievable through human >effort,
and that such progress should include evolving beyond human beings. The
problem I have with them >is that they lack sufficient passion for progress
as well as the discipline to pursue it. They are stuck thinking >in terms of
ethics and values of the past."
>So it seems like this person has a mistaken view of
Transhumanism/Extropianism; I mean, dang, 'thinking in >terms of ethics and
values of the past'!? Hardly! :-)
Yes, I do not think this criticism is fair, but I think the previous points
might
have some substance. That is why I am Post-human rather than wishy-washy
trans-somewhereinthemiddle-human. I cannot easily distinguish trans-human
views from the human scientific mainstream .... both believe in progress
through
science ... and if you stretch the time scale far enough into the future,
most
scientists who accept evolution also accept that sooner or later we will
become
a different/ new species. The Post-human stance is to be more passionate &
proactive in order to compact this time-scale and experience the benefits
ourselves.
>"The challenge is not how quickly we can transcend humanity; every century
that goes by is insignificant in >cosmic terms. The only thing that matters
is risk. We need to find the safest, most conservative, and most >probable
path to achieving a state of unlimited progress." Aha! This is sort of a
combination of the 'Turning >Point' people's views
http://www.turnpoint.org ) with "transhumanism", the former distorting the
latter. While >centuries may be 'insignificant in cosmic terms', how many
people will suffer and die in those 'insignificant' >centuries?
But by making this "safest, most conservative" statement you are just
proving
the original criticism "problem I have with them is that they lack
sufficient passion
for progress as well as the discipline to pursue it."
And if you want the safest and most conservative route, then you will likely
adhere to
the "tried and tested" values and ethics of the past ..... rather than (for
example)
really promoting hard the post-human quorate sexual groupings above the
human-era
traditional pair-bonds .....
Level Up
www.steve-nichols.com
The Physician of Souls
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:43 MDT