From: Adrian Tymes (wingcat@pacbell.net)
Date: Tue Apr 22 2003 - 20:17:39 MDT
--- Keith Elis <hagbard@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> In the end, the best response I could muster to this
> question was to
> bring it back to the perennial issue of starting
> points and assumptions.
> If one values rational thinking alone, then perhaps
> another's
> transhumanist thinking does differ in certain
> respects. Only very rare
> people can truthfully say they value rational
> thinking and nothing else.
> When other values are present, one's thinking may
> very well vary from
> the rational baseline. But this answer doesn't seem
> good enough to me.
Start with this as a base. Add in differing ways of
finding out information, such that the data that the
transhumanist uses to make decisions is different from
the data that most people use. The data is still
valid
and correct; it is just that most people are
socialized to turn blind eyes to the realities of the
ongoing improvements we are now experiencing, instead
making the assumption that life in the future will be
almost identical to life today. From some points of
view, it will be; from others, it won't. Also, for
the
more Luddist people, add in evidence that - since it
shocks and scares no one - rarely makes it into the
media, that the majority of new technology ventures
can
and do safely achieve something like the improvements
they are designed for.
Different values. Different data. Same rationality.
Different conclusions. And, to be frank,
transhumanist
values are steadily growing more mainstream; it may
well already be the case that the average rationalist
and the average transhumanist *don't* disagree on some
key issues, like whether it is possible and desirable
for people to live longer, better lives (by almost any
measure of "better") than their ancestors.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Apr 22 2003 - 20:29:51 MDT