[extropy-chat] Fwd: SURVIVAL: An impulse behind transhumanism?

[Russell Wallace]

On 7/3/06, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:

> I am not sure the question is one of the motivation of "the founders" so
> much as it is a question of what motivates each of us.
>

*nods* The latter is the more important question, I agree.

Both of the above are part of what motivates me.
>

Fair enough - I'm something of a pessimist, to me the higher-end stuff falls
into the category of "well, it'll be nice if we can get that too". But the
world needs optimists as well as pessimists.

Mere survival does not say much about the development of transhumanism or
> most ideologies.  Humans in large numbers have sacrificed even survival to
> their ideologies.  So it seems clear that 'survival' is a poor candidate by
> itself.  It also leaves open a question or two such as "survival as what and
> on what terms"?    If we say transhumanism is about survival others will cry
> out that their survival as themselves and the survival of what they care
> most about requires them to utterly oppose us.
>

My answer to that has two elements:

1) I've been trying to deflate some of the fantasies like "grey goo will eat
the biosphere", "AI will conquer the world and turn us all into Borgs" etc.

2) I've also been trying to point out that survival _requires_ progress.
Life doesn't come with a pause button; we have to keep ascending, or die
like any animal species whose evolved environment is long gone.

But again, being a pessimist I'm better at communicating dour warnings than
inspiring visions - such as the excellent one you wrote awhile ago.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060703/5f26e8b7/attachment.html>