>Geoff Ryman's 1989 novel _The Child Garden_ (winner of Clarke &
>Campbell awards) also envisioned 'plant humans' in several ways:
...
>Ryman's story is "a bit more subtle than that"; but, while the society
>is definitely transhuman, it's not particularly extropian. Ryman
>summarizes it thus:
><... a culture that replicated itself endlessly, but which never gave
>birth to anything new.>
Are you implying that a more biological/environmental approach to
transhumanism in general would be a path that ultimately leads to stagnation ?
I was suggesting a biological approach as an 'addition' to the technological
options. Making a future human as versatile as possible. I also don't
suggest anything 'permanent'. But i ask the question: why should we exclude
environmental options ? Surely living harmonically with ones environment is
a rational thought. Either increasing the quality of that environment, or
the efficiency with which humans use its resources, will make it a more
productive one. I don't think we should exclude any options to acchieve that
purpose.
a culture that replicates itself endlessly, and never gives birth to
anything new, could well happen within a posthuman society based only on
more 'materialistic' transformations. I don't think it has much to do with a
technological path chosen, but more with the cultural goals of such a society.
I can just as easily imagine a robot society just 'reproducing' itself with
the only goal of 'spreading' or replicating, than a combined
biological/technological posthuman culture.
Today we depend on an oxygen/nitrogen/co2 atmosphere as well as 'food' for
our energy needed to function. I'm not suggesting we replace that by just
solar power. That would just shift our dependance on one resource to another.
Rather i suggested as an option to include it in a multiple energy resource
system, which will both make posthumans more versatile, and make them able
to use those available resources more efficiently.
J. de Lyser
Brussels
surreal@glo.be