[extropy-chat] Article on Transhumanism / Posthumanism / Extropy in Free Inquiry magazine

[Samantha Atkins]

On May 21, 2004, at 12:56 AM, Matus wrote:

> Not sure if this was posted yet, but I don't see it.
>
> The issue of Free Inquiry that came in my mail today featured on its
> cover 'Upgrading Humanity: Are People Obsolete?'  This is usual a 
> pretty
> good magazine IMHO but I have been more disappointed with it recently.
> It is edited by Paul Kurtz, of Skeptical Inquirer fame I believe, and
> features frequent articles by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens
> among others.  There website is here http://www.secularhumanism.org/
> although the article is not available online.  The Author starts by
> quoting Nick Bostrom and suggests that by bettering oneself (e.g. 
> seeing
> ultra-violet, having perfect picth, etc) that one might no longer be
> considered 'human'.  It goes on to mention/quote Kass, McKibbin, and
> Joy.  Mentions specifically the Extropy Institute, BetterHUmans, and 
> the
> World Transhumanist Association as "a motley crew of serious academics,
> journalists, and scientists, cyber self help gurus, nanotech venture
> capitalists, polyamorists and gender-benders, cryonics freaks, and
> artificial intelligence geeks".

And they think all of these descriptive phrases are derogatory???   Why 
on earth would supposed rational people expect respect when they bully 
and smear other people whose views they would like to pretend they are 
rationally analyzing?    This is childish and an excellent reason for  
desiring human augmentation and general improvement.


>  I presume 'freaks' was added to merely
> rhyme with 'geeks'  It goes on to childishly imply that Max More
> changing his name was an example of the 'sheer goofiness that organized
> transhumanism has attracted', skims the surface of the debate of what 
> it
> means to be human, points out the false dichotomy presented by the
> opposing 'idealogical camps now squaring off' making its strongest 
> point
> with "The hard task for transhumanists, then, is the one they haven't
> yet taken head-on: making a positive and widely appealing moral case 
> for
> their particular vision of the excellent person and the good society"
> and "neither should anyone settle for Max More's [answer]: It is not
> enough to say that humans should go for more of whatever they go for.
> We need to know precisely what we should want more of and why"
>

They would like to pretend that none of us are concerned with this 
question?  Do they believe we can know precisely what we "should want" 
more of within acceptable limits with our current capabilities?  Why 
would increasing our capabilities not make us capable of even more 
precise vision of where we wish to go and the best means for getting 
there?

- samantha