Not if you understand what banjo meant by "non-human" (elaborated below),
I think.
>the other side of the coin is that unless the change has been 100% then
>a degree of humanity will remain. It's not black and white, but fuzzy.
Certainly.
>The other thing that perhaps should be said is that to point a finger
>at the non-human part of transhumans (frown implied) is rather speciest,
>or at least indicates some intolerance for those transcending their human
>limits. That sits very poorly alongside the self-transformation and
>acceptance of diversity that is at the very heart of transhumanism.
I disagree strongly but I think the use of the word "human" is a large
part of the problem. You are using it in a sort of clinical, species-
identifying way, where banjo is using it to mean the *best* qualities
of humans. I strongly don't want to live with extra-clever beings who
have *rejected* what I consider the most important parts of humanity.
I may "tolerate" them, in a wary way, if that day comes, but until then
I'll try hard to convince people not to create them or become them.
This is the main reason I'm an extropian: because the point is not just
to celebrate change, any old change, but to try to make change for the
better rather than the worse. Extropy rather than entropy.
--Steve
-- sw@tiac.net http://www.tiac.net/users/sw "It just keeps going and going and therefore you yourself have to keep going and going." --Energizer Bunny researcher