[extropy-chat] Nothing happens "was transhumanist nut jobs"

Sun Jul 16 08:28:45 UTC 2006

Anna writes:)
  Thank you, I really liked your post.

  Anna Corwin wrote:
  Nothing happens until it happens, and it is far better to argue from the standpoint 
  of things that provide concrete data and results than from the standpoint of 
  statistical trends that few today really have much of a grasp on at all.

  Anna's questions:)
  Who provides concrete data?  The scientists? The philoshers? The 
  astronomists? The mathematicians? 
  How does one decide what is concrete data?

  At the same time:
  I'm curious to know how things happen then?
  If nobody is paying attention to the future and halts and replies, 
  "Nothing happens until it happens", how do humans prepare for such a 
  technological future as well as a transhumanist point of view?

  Anna:)

  Some men see things as they are and say, "Why?" I dream of things that never 
  were and say, "Why not?"
  George Bernard Shaw

  Anne Corwin <sparkle_robot at yahoo.com> wrote:
  The way I see it, the real science is happening, and it will only be a matter of time before it is obvious that there's really nothing too farfetched about slowing down (or stopping) an organism's metabolic processes and then re-starting them again.  

It is apparent just from the response so far on this list that people are interpreting the Wired article and its "nut-job" remark differently.  My interpretation is that the article's authors are simply acknowledging a cultural stereotype.  And in order to make that stereotype disappear, we all need to just keep promoting, discussing, and encouraging the real science behind the loose mantle of "transhumanism".  If someone tells me something can't be done and that I'm crazy to try, my impulse is to go off and try and then show them the results.

This is all, of course, disregarding the fact that the article is not making enough of a distinction between cryonic suspension, cryogenics, and suspended animation -- however weak the understanding of the science in question on the part of the author might be, this sort of coverage does represent a positive overall.  If anything, it might make people curious, which could compel them to research further -- in which case they would be perfectly welcome to use their faculties of reason and make their own determinations regarding the validity of what they read.

If someone wants to call me a nut-job, they're welcome to do so -- all I can say is "wait and see".  In elementary school there were plenty of people telling me I'd be much better off diverting my attention toward "boy bands" and shopping than keeping it focused, as it was and is, on science and technology.  

They turned out to be hilariously wrong, of course.  

If transhumanism or the technologies commonly discussed in transhumanist circles are viable, they can certainly survive a bit of casual invective.  I don't know if the people suggesting writing to Wired are being serious or sarcastic (particularly those who suggest, "You just wait until the singularity gets here!"), but if they are serious, I'd suggest taking the "here's the science, look at it first and THEN decide whether it is evidence of nutjobbery" approach, rather than the more "apocalyptic" approach.  

Nothing happens until it happens, and it is far better to argue from the standpoint of things that provide concrete data and results than from the standpoint of statistical trends that few today really have much of a grasp on at all.

- Anne

---------------------------------
  See the all-new, redesigned Yahoo.com. Check it out. _______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

---------------------------------
Now you can have a huge leap forward in email: get the new Yahoo! Mail. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060716/d0dde3e5/attachment.html>