At 02:39 16/12/01 +0100, you wrote:
>Researchers ignoring the ethos is what makes bioconservatives like Leon
>Kass the bioethics advisor to the president rather than Max More. If you
>only look at what is possible, and not what is desirable, somebody else
>is going to define desirability for you. And that might be a person with
>a very nasty agenda. I think transhumanism can play its most important
>role by formulating a positive ethos of human change; we will not be the
>central researchers, but we can give them the reasons and arguments they
>need to defend and promote their research.
Have you met a scientist ? They conjecture their hipothesis for the thrill
of acuretely modelling our universe. They love seeing their theory stand
massive attempts of refutations.
The joy of seeing so called experts trying to refute their conjectures,
and failing one after the other.
It's more like scoring a point in a sport, or even winning a chess a game,
then achieving a noble
or moral purpose. This is what they are good at. Scientists should tell
us what is possible.
Moral philosophers should tell us what is desirable. As a moral philosophy,
I would give
transhumanism an A+.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:27 MDT