From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rafal@smigrodzki.org)
Date: Tue Aug 26 2003 - 20:28:13 MDT
Aubrey wrote:
>
> Surely I am not the only person here who finds it quite easy to take
> more or less any intelligent person who claims on any non-religious
> basis that aging is a good thing and demonstrate to them that their
> view is inconsistent. (<http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/sens/why.htm>
> summarises my usual approach.) The problem we face is not one of
> logic: the logic is trivially on our side.
### I liked your exposition and of course I have no substantive
disagreements with you, but, to act as the advocatus diavoli:
Points 8 and 9 rely on a somewhat idiosyncratic definition of genocide -
"killing a lot of people of a particular race". This is more properly
characterized as mass murder. Genocide, especially as used by thinkers with
a collectivist bent, is an attempt to eradicate a nation, race or culture.
"Genus" is Latin for "race" or "kin", so for a collectivist, genocide is
more than just killing a lot of people - it is killing a superhuman entity,
and therefore worse than just killing humans. What's more, a nation denied
access to techniques of rejuvenation will not die, and some might even claim
that the attrition of its constituent parts is necessary for progress, akin
to shedding of human enteric epithelial cells.
Such quibbles can be used by a wily opponent to advance his position against
the transhumanist, perhaps under the pretext of "saving the spirit of the
society", or similar gobbledygook. It might be better to stick to the
simpler argument - killing a lot of people by denying them rejuvenation
treatment they want and can afford, is mass murder, and as such prima facie
bad, even if not genocidal.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Aug 26 2003 - 17:37:09 MDT