brent.allsop at comcast.net
Tue Apr 21 02:32:59 UTC 2009
It seems to me like people that are argue anything like 'science is out
of control', or that any loss of any kind of science is "a good thing
for humankind" is very harmful, and even destructive of what could
otherwise be - and thereby all such is immoral.
It seems to me the arguments for such are very mistaken, unintelligent.
It is sad to realize that by far the mojority of people subscribe to
this kind of thinking. So for every 10 convesations, online and off,
likely only one might involve a transhumanist that can point out the
immoral errors in such thinking. But of course, this doesn't help much
for the other 9 conversations that further promote this kind of thinking
and blot out the few where some of us are involved.
So, to the extent possible, I think we all need to work together, to
find more powerful ways, to work as teams to better promote, and help
people to better understand the moral truth about such thinking. And
that is one of the motivations for canonizer.com - so we can work
together as a team to rationally point out any mistaken thinking as a
Would you be willing to write up a short concise statement about your
thinking on this book, even if it is only a sumary of what you have said
on this list, then we could get it 'canonized' so we, and any others
that wonder what transhumanists think of such, even if they haven't yet
read it, can have such for a moral reference? I know I, for one, would
sure make good use of such a valuable resource.
Stefano Vaj wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 12:41 AM, Brent Allsop <brent.allsop at comcast.net> wrote:
>> So I assume you, or some transhumanists have read it?
> Sure, I would never miss a book with such a title...
>> I won't have time to read it, but I sure think it would be great to have a short concise statement by some transhumanist so that when any Luddite friends (or whoever) of mine throw this book at me, I have an easy, compelling and powerful response?
> I have not much to add to what I have already said. Dinelli is
> probably right to some extent, even though it is a very one-sided
> argument and he omits to mention the many exceptions that exist, but
> this does not prevent transhumanists or more in general SF fans from
> getting nevertheless inspiration from a given SF scenario, or even to
> come to opposite conclusions.
> For instance, I remember that when I first saw The Forbidden Planet, I
> liked it, but at the same time it was rather automatic for me to
> reject out of hand the message that the loss of the science of the
> Krell was ultimately "a good thing for the humankind".
> Stefano Vaj
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
More information about the extropy-chat