[ExI] Hard Takeoff
stefano.vaj at gmail.com
Sun Dec 5 15:50:53 UTC 2010
On 5 December 2010 12:09, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
> Accordingly, I think that the mission of transhumanism is to present
> the case for the second option, and organising grass-root activism to
> this effect. Sure, as a citizen, I would be crazy to oppose security
> and safety measures and sometimes reasonable compromises, especially
> when the costs and risks and the progress-hindering potential of the
> latter are relatively negligible. But I do not see so much need for
> our engaging in the defence of such values, since they are already the
> main obsession of our entire culture.
Reading today for the first time:
<<The following years have seen a clear shift toward two things: first, more
attention to converting transhumanist concepts into actionable policy
(although some of that existed from the start) and, second, a growing
emphasis on risks, threats, and dangers arising from the development of the
technologies essential to the realization of the transhumanist vision. In my
view, while part of this shift is salutary, it has gone too far.
*Too many transhumanists seem on the verge of joining with advocates of the
anti-progress advocates of the precautionary principle. Perhaps they have
seen how so many other organizations and movements (especially those to do
with environmentalism) have flourished by emphasizing or exaggerating or
inventing threats, and so seek consciously or unconsciously to emulate them.
My work on the Proactionary Principle was motivated by the need to balance
the social forces that seek to retard vital progress, but is increasing
relevant when applied internally to transhumanism.*>>
How can one say it any better? ;-)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat