[ExI] Is Transhumanism Coercive?

[Stefano Vaj]

On 25 October 2011 11:35, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:
> It is society- and tech-dependent in the sense of what skills are important,
> but if one accepts the (universalist) idea that all people have a right to
> try to live a life that is as free and meaningful as possible, then there
> may be something that has to be provided by others in order to enable
> bootstrapping into a fully functioning autonomous citizen. We cannot assume
> nature or the parents have (or are able to) provide these resources.

The problem with really "universal" political/ethical principles is
that the tend to be empty. I do not know of many authors, movements or
for that matter people, in any cultural or historical context, who
have actually preached the need to live a life as unfree and
meaningless as possible.

Moreover, what a fully-functioning citizen may represent has more than
a little to do with the kind of community he is required to function
in.

Where our approaches however converge, in contrast with radical
libertarian positions, is that I am tentatively inclined to take a
stance for the freedom of a given community to enforce what it
perceives as protective and enabling measures - such as compulsory
minimum attendance to educational programmes, or general vaccination
campaigns - even though I would practically advocate for a very
prudent and diversity-oriented use of such freedom in the one I belong
to.

This may not resolve the famous conflict between a shared view of
optimality that prescribes to choose deaf embryos over "normal" ones,
and the opposite view of the inclusive community that would prescribe
the opposite, but of course one level needs to be identified where
such choices are made - by definition the "political" level.

As long as it is not a "global" one, I am fine with that. :-)

-- 
Stefano Vaj