[ExI] divisions within the H+ movement

[Lee Corbin]

Giulio writes

> Actually, even if I do not consider my body  as an important part of
> what makes me me, I don't despise it at all. I have enjoyed it a lot
> in the past and, within the limits you mention (" some of your organs
> start to break down, or viruses make you sick..."), continue to enjoy
> it.

Same here. An incredible marvel of evolutionarily
derived engineering, I think it's just great. Only
I naturally can't help but to yearn for something
even better, especially when this "cage" as you
referred to it, doesn't work as well as it once did.

> So why do I refer to the body as "meat"?
> 
> Transhumanists have always had a wide range of attitudes toward the
> body, from those who love it and wish to continue enjoying it with
> some little improvements here and there, to those who loathe it and
> wish to escape it. I guess the majority enjoy their bodies, but know
> that someday they will not enjoy it so much, or not at all.
> 
> Until a few years ago, there was a peaceful co-existence between the
> two extreme fringes, which I usually indicate as moderate and radical
> transhumanists. But recently some of the moderates, in what I
> interpret as a sell-out for personal career interests (for example in
> academia one should be a bit fashionably radical but not too much),
> use to attack the radicals, at times in insulting ways.

What are their main criticisms? Does it relate
at all to what Damien seemed to be worried about,
"the reductionist scientistic framework" or
the "pathologies that can creep into our
discourse and analysis" pointed out by
"intelligent critics of transhumanism"?

Lee

> I and others don't believe in offering the
 > other cheek, and fight back. I don't
> always refer to the body as "meat", but
 > I do and will continue to do
> so when debating with this group.
> 
> You are certainly familiar in this pattern, found in most cultural and
> political movements: when one internal group begins to attack another,
> the other group fights back and soon there is a runaway split process.
> 
> My suggestion is, as usual, live-and-let-live -- one group should
> respect and support the more moderate sensibilities of the other, and
> one group should respect and support the more radical and visionary
> sensibilities of the other.
> 
> G.