[ExI] Blackford and Egan on >H

[Kaj Sotala]

In Enhancing Evolution: The Ethical Case for Making Better People,
which is otherwise a very transhumanist book, the philosopher John
Harris expresses similar sentiments:

"The use of the terms 'transhumanism' and 'transhumanist' is much in
vogue, but these terms seem to imply an agenda. Espousal of such terms
can seem to be a way of characterizing (and often embracing) a
movement or quasi-religion which promotes, encourages, and indeed has
as its objective the creation of a new species of 'transhumans'. This
idea has, I believe, no special merit aside from the ways in which the
changes that (might) lead to the creation of a new species are
justified and indeed mandated by the good that they will do for us and
our successors. To say you are a transhumanist is like saying you are
a 'born-again Christian' or a 'fundamentalist Muslim'. It is both a
program and an identity. I have no transhumanist agenda program or
agenda. I do think there are powerful moral reasons for ensuring the
safety of the people and for enhancing our capacities, our health, and
thence our lives. If the consequence of this is that we become
transhumans, there is nothing wrong with that, but becoming
transhumans is not the agenda; improving life, health,
life-expectancy, and so on is, however, not only part of a defensible
moral agenda, it is a mandatory dimension of any moral program."


-- 
http://www.saunalahti.fi/~tspro1/ | http://xuenay.livejournal.com/

Organizations worth your time:
http://www.singinst.org/ | http://www.crnano.org/ | http://lifeboat.com/