From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Tue Jan 07 2003 - 19:07:41 MST
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hal Finney" <hal@finney.org>
To: <extropians@extropy.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: `Betterhumans' = worsememe
> Harvey writes:
> > Yes. It does seem to be that we tend to frame everything bad that we
want
> > to change about ourselves as the human part. I prefer to consider
> > everything good that I want to preserve about myself as the human part.
> > Cryonics, life-extension, enhancements and the like are all tools to
> > preserve and extend my humanity to give it more capabilities than
before. I
> > think humanity should be defined by its aspirations more than its
> > limitations. In that sense, I am looking to use technology to make me
even
> > more human, not less.
>
> Well said! But would it be so wrong to say that you want to make yourself
> a "better" human? Don't we all want to be better (and still human)?
> I'm missing the point about the problem with betterhumans.com.
I don't think there is *anything* wrong with saying one wants to be a better
person, but the tag "betterhuman" is shorter than the sentence.
A casual glance at the tag leaves the question begged '"better" than
what'? or even more likely "better than who"?
People can measure themselves against each other or they can measure
themselves against alternative standards. Do most people consider success
in a race 'defeating' other runners, or do most people see success as a
personal best time? I think people more naturally compare themselves with
other people, than with "absolute" standards, especially in the social
world.
And to see a magazine or group title written by others is to interface with
the social world.
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:50 MST