[ExI] h+ in smithsonian
stefano.vaj at gmail.com
Tue Mar 20 10:55:06 UTC 2012
On 19 March 2012 00:09, Jeff Davis <jrd1415 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2012/3/18 spike <spike66 at att.net>:
> From the article:
> "...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.
Crucial issue indeed.
I am personally more than happy with the statement "We are morally
obligated to help the human race transcend its biological limits", meaning
that I adhere to an ethical system where the main command is "Thou shalt
overcome yourself and go beyond your current limits", so that as a
transhumanist I feel bound to push forward the process that already
delivered, say, hominisation and the neolithic revolution, by taking into
my hands my futher evolution in a sense and on a scale never seen before.
What about "We are morally obligated to make all humanity to transcend?"
This statement would be "not even wrong" IMHO, because from a posthumanist
point of view there are no such things as "humanity" in a moral sense, but
only people and groups thereof with their own different views of what
transcendence may mean and whether it should be pursued at all. Not to
mention that as David Pearce is keen to point out, there is no absolute
reasons why we should take such a specieist stance, so that, say, a
brainless newborn should take precedence upon a healthy, adult chimp.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat