[ExI] h+ in smithsonian

[Mike Dougherty]

On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 7:09 PM, Jeff Davis <jrd1415 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> "...Transhumanists say we are morally obligated to help the human race
> transcend its biological limits..."
>
> How many agree with this?  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.
>
> 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'm late to this thread, but I wanted to throw in my two cents:

If I were to feel any moral obligation it would be to my own
transcendence.  That example would then be available for others to
follow.  Not everyone will be on the same path, but someone (some
ones) need to blaze a trail in order for the path to exist.

Do we feel a moral obligation to have this author amend the sentiment?
Do transhumanists share any particular standard as a group?  For
solidarity's sake can we agree that the transhumanist label is
entitled to the same consideration as any ethnic, racial or
ideological group?  Do people understand this without making an issue
out of it?  ex:  If I explain that "Amish people" believe X, you
understand that 1) I have personal bias for making this claim 2) my
understanding of the entire group is based on a limited number of
examples that may not be ideally representative.

transhumanist: a single instance of the group identified as transhumanists
transhumanists: a group of individuals loosely collected by ideals not
shared 100% unanimously by any 2 members.

how else might these terms be expressed?