[ExI] Isn't Bostrom seriously bordering on the reactionary?

[Stefano Vaj]

On 15 June 2011 23:26, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

> You know, I'd rather discuss what I consider important than keep silent in
> order to maintain my club membership. If trying to reduce the fairly
> substantial risks and uncertainties associated with technologies such as
> biotech, nanotech, cognotech, AI and global surveillance is incompatible
> with being transhumanist, then I think transhumanism has a serious bias and
> credibility problem.
>

At a personal level, one is probably not a full-time transhumanist, and may
have other and/or broader agendas.

As for transhumanism as a movement, I think it could be candid in admitting
its partisanship and partiality, and its nature of a competing angle which
should be taken into consideration - and which is currently not - for some
"compromise" to be even conceivable.

Does environmentalists or pro-choice activists or trade unionists have
credibility problems because they do not explicitely take into consideration
interests different from those of the environment, or of pregnant women
seeking termination, or of their members?

In principle, their representatives are quite willing to admit that such
interests exist.

Simply, they do not see it as their job to represent them, at least when
they speak in the name of their respective affiliations.

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20110616/a522aae7/attachment.html>