From: nanowave (nanowave@shaw.ca)
Date: Sat Mar 01 2003 - 11:05:24 MST
Anders writes:
>> Meanwhile, Fukuyama and Kass are continuing their stated mission of
>> preventing a posthuman world. Do not underestimate the opposition, they
>> have some very good strategic thinkers that fully realize that today is
>> just the first step towards eventual mortalist triumph. While some short
>> sighted conservatives do not think about antioxidants, telomeres and
>> uploading, there are others who do. If the transhumanists are asleep
>> (ahem) the rug rats will end up living (and *dying*) in a world defined
>> by somebody else.
Reason writes:
>Yes. As Anders points out, these people are not anti-cloning, nor do they
>have a narrow view. Both Fukuyama and Kass have stated clearly and up front
>that they are pro-status-quo in terms of human capabilities. This means
>pro-death, pro-suffering, pro-disease, pro-aging (all of which, again, has
>been clearly stated on numerous occasions). They want there to be no
>expansion of the capabilities of mind and body on their watch. Since these
>bioethicists and hangers-on are in essence Statists, they believe
>that is is
>perfectly fine to use the engine of the State to coerce, force and impose.
>In other words, they advocate and *actively work towards* mass murder on a
>scale dwarfing anything that humans have "achieved" to date.
>
>As Anders also points out, they are doing a better job of killing
>us than we
>are doing of staying alive at this point in time.
Ok, it's obvious that you both have given this topic FAR more thought than I
have.
Previously I had imagined these biofundies were not a serious threat because
I couldn't see how anyone might effectively stem the tide of scientific
progress - a perspective which predicted trans/posthumanism as the logical
end result of progress. This conclusion was supported by the fact that,
while Kass IS the President's chief bioethicist, funding for NBIC science
continues unabated, and is clearly on the rise. These two facts seem to be
at odds if one postulates the existence an all encompassing technoscientific
meta-policy which is the only regulatory model I could conceive of that
might seriously throttle progress. That one arm of the government is driving
progress forward at breakneck speed, while another is sourly pecking away at
the most contentious ethical issues, led me to the perhaps hasty conclusion
that such a meta-policy does not (and perhaps cannot) exist.
Yet your words, taken in the context of the present American led drive
toward near-term globalization, do indeed ring a warning. I have been forced
to ask myself - might the process of evolution itself be hijacked by this
kind of irrationality?
And the answer I come up with is an unsettling MAYBE.
Therefore I'm in on this fight, though sadly I'm distracted by the
ever-pressing need to accumulate a small quantity of those damnable social
tickets in order to alleviate such mehum concerns as food and heat, and
child size bicycle helmets. But if you are dead serious about fighting, and
it seems you are, AND if we can come up with a viable plan to mobilize
against this FukuKass mindset (polite nod to Natasha's aborted ProAct
effort) which ALSO has the potential to generate a few bucks on the side,
I'll throw myself into it 100%.
I does seem logical to presume that more than a few corporate entities might
be willing to fund this particular fight, no?
Russell Evermore
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 01 2003 - 11:10:31 MST