[extropy-chat] Transhumanism: Teilhard de Chardin - Truth or Dare

[Natasha Vita-More]

At 02:15 AM 11/1/03 -0500, Eli  wrote:

>Natasha Vita-More wrote:
>>>
>>>>Transhumanism is not a religious or mystical term. Nor is it a 
>>>>political term. It is a term used to express the ideas about evolution 
>>>>in regards to the biology and psychology of humans. As such, 
>>>>transhumanism has become a movement based on the advancement of the 
>>>>human's lifespan and intellectual and creative abilities.
>>>
>>>Eh?  Transhumanism expresses a *goal* about the *future* development of 
>>>humanity, *post* natural selection.  What does transhumanism have to say 
>>>about "ideas about evolution in regards to the biology and psychology of 
>>>humans"?  Such ideas are the domains of the extensively developed fields 
>>>of evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology!
>>>They are no longer up for grabs.

>>Not so!  Evolutionary biologists and evolutionary psychologists are only 
>>part of the package.
>
>True, there's also information theory, population genetics, quantitative 
>genetics, sociobiology, cultural anthropology, etc. etc., but that doesn't 
>change my point.
>
>>For someone who is not determined to engage completely in one particular 
>>academic discipline, why rely on those who do!?  No ideas are exclusively 
>>the property of any one particular domain.  Ideas are always up for 
>>grabs! Such is the idea of evolution - constantly change constructs.
>
>I stand by my point that if we're talking about anything currently real, 
>as opposed to making statements about what we want for the future, then 
>there is nothing up for grabs.  Actually there is never anything up for 
>grabs in science; if the evidence is sparse enough that one can make stuff 
>up without fear of contradiction, it means that one will simply get things 
>wrong.  But in this case there is no fear of that; the evidence is strong 
>enough to constrain theories.  If anyone tries to make up ideas about 
>evolution in regards to the biology or psychology of humans, they will 
>instantly find themselves shot down by experts in the field.


Why suggest that anyone who is fully versed in their field, such as Aubrey 
de Gray, or evolutionary biologist Michael Rose, make up a point for 
fiction sake? Further, are you suggesting that transhumanists's ideas about 
evolution are, or should be, based in "human" transitional views that 
center around a limited lifespan and that pushing the lifespan father in 
years is an assault on humanity's acceptance and even worship of death?

>Transhumanism doesn't need, and can't have, and shouldn't have, its own 
>model of evolution, any more than there should be a transhumanist model of 
>physics.

I think your argument is misplaced.  Transhumanism is based on ideas about 
evolution that have been published and promoted for many years and continue 
to be published and promoted as the science and technology of new ideas 
surmount.  These ideas are transhumanist because they, in their directive 
intent, are based on questioning traditional acceptance of a limited 
lifespan and recycling of the human spirit into a mystical landscape.  If 
you are suggesting that any transhumanist be foolish enough to fictionize 
the facts developed and being investigated, than  this is overly broad.  It 
is in opposition to the basics of transhumanism to "make up" ideas to 
justify a cause.  I hardly think any transhumanist would get away with it 
for more than a few moment to a few weeks.  Our society is very hard lined 
in attempting to make sure that information is as plausible as possible, if 
not sorely accurate.

Natasha


Natasha Vita-More
http://www.natasha.cc
----------
President, Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture  http://www.transhumanist.biz
http://www.transhuman.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031101/339efce1/attachment.html>