[extropy-chat] Anti-transhumanist op-ed: Is the world ready for asuperboy - or a dogboy?

[Adrian Tymes]

--- John K Clark <jonkc at att.net> wrote:
> > The "sanctity/equality of life ethic" holds that [blah blah blah]
> 
> It's odd, there is nothing really wrong with the word but it's a fact
> that
> I've never seen the phrase "The sanctity of X" used in support of
> anything I
> agreed with. Not once. The same is true of "level the playing field"
> and
> "you can't cry fire in a crowded theater" and "I believe in free
> speech
> but.....".

Just for grins, how's this?

In order to better defend the sanctity of our lives, we should develop
methods of immortality, and stem to the maximum amount possible
humanity's loss of this sacred quantity.  To level the playing field
among all peoples regardless of genetic heritage or unfortunate
accidents, we should develop methods of human augmentation, for
instance so that those born blind or who lose their eyes may see again.
I believe in free speech, but I believe those who speak against these
things are trying to condemn us all to a certain fate just because all
of our ancestors shared it (save for certain very recent ancestors, and
they view those cases as just a matter of time).  Just as you shouldn't
cry fire in a crowded theater, you shouldn't spark moral panics just
because you personally have an emotional reaction to something: if a
thing truly is bad, dispassionately double-checking your gut reaction
against the facts will prove it, and perhaps give you better ways to
counter it.  All of these things beg consideration of the future that
all of us share - so if you won't consider them for your own benefit,
won't you please at least think of the children?

;)