<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 03/12/2023 22:23, Kelly Anderson
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:mailman.425.1701642225.8107.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">
<pre>I doubt this is a novel train of thought... but...
One of the more interesting ways that transhumanism could be "bad" is
the idea that over the next few centuries of transhumanism, different
"species" of human could rapidly evolve (though not through natural
selection, unnaturally) into islands of trans-humans that can no
longer interbreed. By creating this rapidly dividing delta in the
river of hominid divergence, it could create interesting dynamics of
"us" and "them" which could lead to a destructive fragmentation of
society.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
I reckon this is an inevitable thing, and is far from bad.<br>
<br>
One area where biological analogies lead us astray, though, is the
idea of technologically-mediated 'species' being unable to
'interbreed'. It might be better to use different words, to
emphasise that we won't be bounded by the limitations or concepts of
biology. If you use technology to change your body and mind, you can
use technology to create blended designs, if you want to. There will
be barriers, of course, but they will be either self-imposed or
simply practical. e.g. no point in trying to create a hybrid of
something that would be confortable on venus and something that
would be comfortable on mars. Probably.<br>
<br>
The inevitable fragmentation of society doesn't have to be
destructive, if people have plentiful resources. I thnk we
over-emphasise instances of different cultures being in conflict,
and under-emphasise those where different cultures get along well,
and even benefit each other.<br>
<br>
Ben<br>
</body>
</html>