[ExI] h+ in smithsonian

[Kelly Anderson]

On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Jeff Davis <jrd1415 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2012/3/18 spike <spike66 at att.net>:
>
>> http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/How-to-Become-the-Engineers-of-Our-Own-Evolution.html?utm_source=smithsonianfuturism&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=201203-futurism
>
> From the article:
>
> "...Transhumanists say we are morally obligated to help the human race
> transcend its biological limits..."
>
> How many agree with this?

I don't. I feel we are only morally obligated to minimally intrude in
the lives of those who wish to do so. Or those who wish NOT to do so.
That is the only moral obligation I feel. If we outlawed frozen heads,
only outlaws would have frozen heads. ;-)

> The moral obligation part.  Feels a bit
> evangelical to me, a bit pushy, a bit intrusive, but that's just me.
> No doubt there's a range of views re the obligatory nature of helping
> others or ***ALL*** humanity to transcend.

No doubt, but I'm comfortable with where I stand. Perhaps this is a
carry over from my days as a Mormon. I still have the article of faith
to let others worship how when and what they may written in my heart.

> I'm perfectly happy to let the rest of humanity choose for themselves
> whether to enhance or not.  Actually, as a personal freedom issue, I
> support those who choose to live "natural", age naturally, and die
> naturally, to do so.  Call me selfish, but I'd prefer that these
> traditionalists age gracefully and die peacefully, and in doing so,
> lighten the Luddite load.

I think everyone can choose for themselves, but eventually there may
come a point when they may regret choosing to get off the progress
train... Or maybe they will feel glad that they did... But I can't
help that humanity itself is merely a stepping stone in the path of
evolution, not the end of creation.

> Other opinions?

Everyone has one.

-Kelly