[extropy-chat] Long term truth

[Adrian Tymes]

--- Harvey Newstrom <mail at HarveyNewstrom.com> wrote:
> On Dec 23, 2004, at 9:45 PM, Joseph Bloch wrote:
> > I suppose it all depends on how you look at it.
> Are we interested in 
> > getting positive publicity and funding through
> false general 
> > impressions? That gets more up-front funding. Or
> are we interested in 
> > educating people about the true impact of emergent
> technologies such 
> > as cloning? That gets more long-term acceptance.
> >
> > Honestly, there are arguments on both sides.
> 
> Funny you should use the word "honestly". 
> "Honestly" there are 
> arguments on one side only.  "Dishonstly" there are
> arguments for 
> positive publicity and funding through false general
> impressions.
> 
> I have never believed that the ends justified the
> means.  This is not a 
> sustainable strategy.  It will eventually be
> discovered, and will 
> ultimately do more harm than good.  I wish all
> transhumanists believed 
> as I do.

Is this not one of the central themes of
transhumanism?  (Or viewable as such, anyway.)  We
seek to emphasize that which will benefit everyone
(or at least us, but by nature it tends to benefit
everyone) over the long term.  A longer life span has
little immediate impact: you'll probably live tomorrow
whether or not cancer is cured, for example, but
surviving each day for the next 100 years is a
different story.  Likewise, believing that Nature or
God frowns on mankind's self-exploration and the
development of technologies to improve the human
condition may make one happy and fulfilled today, but
it won't relieve the misery one may live in over
several years.  And so forth.

Preaching the long term benefits of truth seems to
always be a winning strategy, at least in the long
term.