alborzTue, Jan 15, 2008 I love your conclusions in these last two parts. As much for the thought process as for the content. I love how you've turned the issue on it's head: It's not whether augmentation is ethical but what do we regard as ethical? Not is augmentation anti-human, but what is human? It's startling how all our hangups are a result of the way we define them. Re-phrase almost any issue, and the issue vanishes.
Ironically enough, a strong current in the anti-technology crowd who view themselves as humanists seems to be a distrust of human nature. The idea that if we go that far, somehow we're gonna screw it all up. Robots will revolt and enslave mankind. Some despot will create an army of supermen to take over the world. These are the stories pop-culture comes up with as if they are the necessary outcomes of our advancing technology. This, rather than pointing to an inherent problem with technology, points to our problematic view of ourselves.
Additionally, I see a parrallel in some enhancement proponents with their desire to go beyond, or surpass humanity - to become "trans"human. This to me rings of the same anti-humanism as the "we're gonna screw it up" crowd. To strive for transhumanism, implies a desire to not be human. Both camps attach a negative connotation to humanity. Both are ideological and this, I feel, is a mistake.
There's no need to label our progress. We need to plant our feet on the ground, take a survey of our condition and proceed accordingly. What do we want to change? We can define ourselves in the process.
Just some thoughts conjured up by your fantastic posts ~ thanks
I love your conclusions in these last two parts. As much for the thought process as for the content. I love how you've turned the issue on it's head: It's not whether augmentation is ethical but what do we regard as ethical? Not is augmentation anti-human, but what is human? It's startling how all our hangups are a result of the way we define them. Re-phrase almost any issue, and the issue vanishes.
Ironically enough, a strong current in the anti-technology crowd who view themselves as humanists seems to be a distrust of human nature. The idea that if we go that far, somehow we're gonna screw it all up. Robots will revolt and enslave mankind. Some despot will create an army of supermen to take over the world. These are the stories pop-culture comes up with as if they are the necessary outcomes of our advancing technology. This, rather than pointing to an inherent problem with technology, points to our problematic view of ourselves.
Additionally, I see a parrallel in some enhancement proponents with their desire to go beyond, or surpass humanity - to become "trans"human. This to me rings of the same anti-humanism as the "we're gonna screw it up" crowd. To strive for transhumanism, implies a desire to not be human. Both camps attach a negative connotation to humanity. Both are ideological and this, I feel, is a mistake.
There's no need to label our progress. We need to plant our feet on the ground, take a survey of our condition and proceed accordingly. What do we want to change? We can define ourselves in the process.
Just some thoughts conjured up by your fantastic posts ~ thanks