[extropy-chat] RE: Transhumanism == militant fascism (apparently)

[c c]

Here's another personal experience: I was very influenced by the 'back to nature' world view that attained wide popular currency around 1969 and continues to this day (reaching its period of maximum intensity, I would say, about 1971-' 73) 
At any rate, science at that time gave me the sensation of being one of a pair of dice on a darwinian roulette table; though I knew nature eventually became an enemy of an older person, I thought the aging process could be counteracted to a shall we say socially acceptable extent by gradually improved nutrition and of course exercise, physical therapy, etc. It was not so much at the time I thought lengthening lifespans was unnatural, but rather nebulous thoughts revolved around the idea that lengthening lifespans might lead to certain diminishing returns in a longer but more complicated and not necessarily more pleasant and/or happier life; the exasperations of a more complicated life might shorten or ruin that life. The latter has been proven to me as valid in many cases, but most people-- as you imply-- can rise to the challenges & opportunities of overcoming and adapting.
 
 

Jacob <xander25 at adelphia.net> wrote:
In response to Mr. Halelamien,

Speaking as a former anti-technology guy (very short period of time in
my life), my fears of transhumanism came from two sources:

1) Destructive to the human spirit

The more technologically advanced a society becomes, the less interested
it is in matters that concern his well-being. Likewise, he becomes
increasingly incapable of handling changing factors that endanger it. 
Examine for instance the phenomona of the internet. How many computer
enthusiasts get out these days? How many get out into, appreciate, and
learn about nature? How many learn to socialize with others? I would
think these are fundamental aspects of what it means to be human. 
Translated into transhumanism it becomes a matter of how will this new
technology affect humans? It could make our lives easier yes, but in
doing so makes us slaves to the technology that was meant to help us. 
This is possibly where I think the slashdot poster was coming from, as
he wasn't clear. However, who says that technology needs to be enslaving?

a. It opens doors to undiscovered potential we haven't been capable of
in the past.
b. The human spirit is about overcoming and adapting. It's there where
our strength appears. To figure out ways to preserve who we are, and
yet advance at the same time. Take for example the automobile. It
opened up a world of new possibilities. The caveat now is that we no
longer have to toil in ways done in the past. Humans developed
excercise (hence adapting) to reclaim to what was lost.

2) Damaging to organic tissue along with it's not natural! This can be
solved with time, it's just a matter of study. The problem is vastly
overstated. The unnatural part is refuted by asking what is natural? 
If science and it's application is a product of the human mind, and if
the human mind is natural, then how is it unnatural?

I am utterly shocked that both arguments come from either side of the
political fence (though seems to come more from the left). So, I don't
think it is a mainly political argument.

--Jacob Bennett
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050705/bc94d5fb/attachment.html>