This is the archive of preliminary discussions.
Here is the
Current draft of the Principles.
From ???@??? Mon Dec 25 20:53:48 1995
Return-Path:
Received: from us.itd.umich.edu by mail6 (8.6.12/Netcom)
id RAA03023; Mon, 25 Dec 1995 17:23:43 -0800
Received: by us.itd.umich.edu (8.7.1/2.2)
id UAA13334; Mon, 25 Dec 1995 20:26:41 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 1995 20:26:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Alex Bokov
X-Sender: alexboko@stimpy.us.itd.umich.edu
To: "Alexander 'Sasha' Chislenko" ,
Anders Sandberg , rich@galacta.demon.co.uk,
"Alexander 'Sasha' Chislenko" ,
"Mark A. Plus" <103216.1163@compuserve.com>,
Romana Machado ,
Christopher T Brown
Subject: Transhumanist Principles draft.
In-Reply-To: <2.2b9.32.19951213060508.008d63a4@netcom.com>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
I'm sending this message to just the six of you to begin with. You
approximate a good cross-section of the transhuman list. After discussing
this with you and doing my best to incorporate your feedback, i will mail
the draft to the list for public discussion and revision. I am doing this
to save time and bandwidth.
I tried to make the principles very short, so that even someone
with a poor recollection of details (such as myself) can remember all the
major points. I tightly integrated self-propogation memes (items 3.
through 5.) with the actual core memes (items 1. and 2.). Finally, you
will notice that there is a lot i deliberately omitted. The reason is
two-fold. First of all, those who read it and decide they like it can
delve deeper into other stuff we've written. Secondly, i don't want to
imply that you _have_ to, say, sign up for cryosuspension, or believe in
the Omega Point Theory, or agree with any specific prediction, to be
considered a transhumanist.
In addition to suggestions on content, i really need suggestions
on presentation. Is the language too brusque, too wordy, too
manifesto-esque? Are there better pronouns i could have used? Did i
unintentionally invoke associations with things that might alienate
people?
Here it is!!!!
>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H
Version 0.001 Beta
For the purposes of this discussion, let us define 'Human', as Homo
Sapiens and whatever sentient species or subspecies may later arise from
us or be created by us.
1. We first!
Strive to remove all limits on what Humanity can do. Spread the
Human seed to every niche in the universe where it can thrive.
2. Pragmatism.
Use whatever tools prove effective toward this goal. Technology,
and the intellectual disciplines used to develop it, are currently among
the most effective such tools.
3. Memetic expansion.
Continuously spread transhuman memes, and vaccinate society
against memes that are technophobic, anti-human, or otherwise destructive.
Schools, the internet, and mass media are especially important to the
effort at this moment.
4. Success.
Success is good. Let's strive to acchieve as much as we can in our
careers and social milieus. Make a reasonable effort to help other
transhumanists attain strategically important positions.
5. Diversity.
Diversity and adaptability are crucial for survival in a changing
universe. Let's not, as a movement, irreversibly lock ourselves into a
single school of thought politically, economically, etc. Accept people of
all beliefs, religions, and backgrounds so l ong as they are also firmly
committed to these principles.
>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H
--Sincerely, Alex F. Bokov
http://www.us.itd.umich.edu/~alexboko/mlist.html
Also, try 'finger uid=alexboko@umich.edu'
My opinions do not reflect those of my employer.
From ???@??? Tue Dec 26 13:23:16 1995
Return-Path:
Received: from hemul.nada.kth.se by mail5 (8.6.12/Netcom)
id KAA20751; Tue, 26 Dec 1995 10:14:06 -0800
Received: (from nv91-asa@localhost)
by hemul.nada.kth.se (8.6.10/8.6.9)
id TAA03423;
Tue, 26 Dec 1995 19:16:30 +0100
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 1995 19:16:30 +0100 (MET)
From: Anders Sandberg
To: Alex Bokov
cc: "Alexander 'Sasha' Chislenko" ,
rich@galacta.demon.co.uk,
"Alexander 'Sasha' Chislenko" ,
"Mark A. Plus" <103216.1163@compuserve.com>,
Romana Machado ,
Christopher T Brown
Subject: Re: Transhumanist Principles draft.
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Mon, 25 Dec 1995, Alex Bokov wrote:
> I tried to make the principles very short, so that even someone
> with a poor recollection of details (such as myself) can remember all the
> major points.
I think this is a good idea. The short and concise memes are easier to
remember and spread (just look at slogans) than the longer. I think this
structure would also look great as hypertext (yes, I'm a complete web
maniac), where the short items could be linked to longer hypertext
explanations and discussions while still retaining the short and
efficient format.
> Secondly, i don't want to
> imply that you _have_ to, say, sign up for cryosuspension, or believe in
> the Omega Point Theory, or agree with any specific prediction, to be
> considered a transhumanist.
This is a good point!
> In addition to suggestions on content, i really need suggestions
> on presentation. Is the language too brusque, too wordy, too
> manifesto-esque? Are there better pronouns i could have used? Did i
> unintentionally invoke associations with things that might alienate
> people?
For the most part it is very good and normal, easy to understand. But
there are some pieces of vagueness, jargon and manifesto-speak which I
point out below. I think this kind of condensed manifesto can become very
powerful, especially if we could later rephrase the ideas into
catchphrases.
> For the purposes of this discussion, let us define 'Human', as Homo
> Sapiens and whatever sentient species or subspecies may later arise from
> us or be created by us.
This might be a bit too heavy as a start, maybe it would work better as a
note afterwards or as a footnote.
> 1. We first!
> Strive to remove all limits on what Humanity can do. Spread the
> Human seed to every niche in the universe where it can thrive.
I'm not completely sure "We first!" is the best start, that might
alienate people who believe other lifeforms have a right to spread and
thrive too. I would suggest something like "Forward!" or"Outward!".
I know some feminists who are going to exception to the word "seed" BTW (I
read a feminist critique once of the work of von Neuman on
self-replication, which made a big thing of that the NASA study of
building a self-replicating factory called it a "seed". Absurd, but true)
I would put it something like "Spread humanity and life to every niche in
the universe where it can thrive." Sounds a bit nicer too.
> 2. Pragmatism.
> Use whatever tools prove effective toward this goal. Technology,
> and the intellectual disciplines used to develop it, are currently among
> the most effective such tools.
Good and concise.
> 3. Memetic expansion.
> Continuously spread transhuman memes, and vaccinate society
> against memes that are technophobic, anti-human, or otherwise destructive.
> Schools, the internet, and mass media are especially important to the
> effort at this moment.
Jargon alert! Most people don't know what memes are (although judging
from the spread of the meme meta-meme they soon will). Maybe memes in the
above item could be replaced with ideas? I would also switch places of
"technophobic" and "anti-human", making it a bit clearer that
transhumanism itself isn't primarily technophilic, it is humanophilic.
> 4. Success.
> Success is good. Let's strive to acchieve as much as we can in our
> careers and social milieus. Make a reasonable effort to help other
> transhumanists attain strategically important positions.
"Make a Reasonable Effort to help other Transhumanists Attain
Strategically Important Positions". Have you read "Interesting Times" by
Terry Pratchett recently, by any chance? :-) This is a bit too stilted
and needs to be rephrased (I'm not completely certain its a good idea to
say transhumanists should help each other get into important positions,
that is certain to breed some paranoia).
My suggestion is something like: "Let's help each other to bring about
our visions of a better future".
> 5. Diversity.
> Diversity and adaptability are crucial for survival in a changing
> universe. Let's not, as a movement, irreversibly lock ourselves into a
> single school of thought politically, economically, etc. Accept people of
> all beliefs, religions, and backgrounds so l ong as they are also firmly
> committed to these principles.
Very good point, but what does "these principles" in the last sentence
correlate to? Transhumanism in general, or just diversity? I would
perhaps put it like "Accept people of all beliefs, religions and
backgrounds so long as they accept you and your views".
Any comments?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension!
nv91-asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~nv91-asa/main.html
GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
From ???@??? Fri Dec 29 04:00:31 1995
Return-Path:
Received: from us.itd.umich.edu by mail (8.6.12/Netcom)
id AAA04094; Fri, 29 Dec 1995 00:48:12 -0800
Received: by us.itd.umich.edu (8.7.1/2.2)
id DAA24164; Fri, 29 Dec 1995 03:51:09 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 1995 03:51:09 -0500 (EST)
From: Alex Bokov
X-Sender: alexboko@stimpy.us.itd.umich.edu
To: Anders Sandberg
cc: "Alexander 'Sasha' Chislenko" ,
rich@galacta.demon.co.uk,
"Alexander 'Sasha' Chislenko" ,
"Mark A. Plus" <103216.1163@compuserve.com>,
Romana Machado ,
Christopher T Brown
Subject: Re: Transhumanist Principles draft.
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Tue, 26 Dec 1995, Anders Sandberg wrote:
>
> On Mon, 25 Dec 1995, Alex Bokov wrote:
>
> > I tried to make the principles very short, so that even someone
> > with a poor recollection of details (such as myself) can remember all the
> > major points.
>
> I think this is a good idea. The short and concise memes are easier to
> remember and spread (just look at slogans) than the longer. I think this
> structure would also look great as hypertext (yes, I'm a complete web
> maniac), where the short items could be linked to longer hypertext
> explanations and discussions while still retaining the short and
> efficient format.
Yes, that's a good thing about the Extropian principles-- the brief
summary links to longer explanations further in the text. Hopefully, we
won't be as repetitious as the Extropian pinciples though.
> > For the purposes of this discussion, let us define 'Human', as Homo
> > Sapiens and whatever sentient species or subspecies may later arise from
> > us or be created by us.
>
> This might be a bit too heavy as a start, maybe it would work better as a
> note afterwards or as a footnote.
Yeah. Maybe a link to an anchor, as above.
> > 1. We first!
> > Strive to remove all limits on what Humanity can do. Spread the
> > Human seed to every niche in the universe where it can thrive.
>
> I'm not completely sure "We first!" is the best start, that might
> alienate people who believe other lifeforms have a right to spread and
> thrive too. I would suggest something like "Forward!" or"Outward!".
Yes, except Forward or Outward might be too slogan-y. Let's think
of some kind of more meeningful phrase that summarizes this principle.
Also, for the record, our main interest is in Humans and possibly
pre/crypto-sentients (such as chimps and dolphins), right? Because,
treating all life-- Human, cow, and bacteria-- as equally valuable causes
philosophical and practical problems, and is a major weakenss in the
Luddite philosophies.
> I know some feminists who are going to exception to the word "seed" BTW (I
> read a feminist critique once of the work of von Neuman on
> self-replication, which made a big thing of that the NASA study of
> building a self-replicating factory called it a "seed". Absurd, but true)
>
> I would put it something like "Spread humanity and life to every niche in
> the universe where it can thrive." Sounds a bit nicer too.
Okay. Will incorporate it, but might i point out that in most
species, it's the female that carries the 'seed'. Or is it 'spread the
seed' that might seem excessively male-oriented. Perhaps, spread &
nurture?
> > 3. Memetic expansion.
> > Continuously spread transhuman memes, and vaccinate society
> > against memes that are technophobic, anti-human, or otherwise destructive.
> > Schools, the internet, and mass media are especially important to the
> > effort at this moment.
>
> Jargon alert! Most people don't know what memes are (although judging
> from the spread of the meme meta-meme they soon will). Maybe memes in the
> above item could be replaced with ideas? I would also switch places of
> "technophobic" and "anti-human", making it a bit clearer that
> transhumanism itself isn't primarily technophilic, it is humanophilic.
'...while vaccinating society against anti-humanism, technophobia, and
other destructive destructive ideologies'. How does that sound?
> > 4. Success.
> > Success is good. Let's strive to acchieve as much as we can in our
> > careers and social milieus. Make a reasonable effort to help other
> > transhumanists attain strategically important positions.
>
> "Make a Reasonable Effort to help other Transhumanists Attain
> Strategically Important Positions". Have you read "Interesting Times" by
> Terry Pratchett recently, by any chance? :-) This is a bit too stilted
> and needs to be rephrased (I'm not completely certain its a good idea to
> say transhumanists should help each other get into important positions,
> that is certain to breed some paranoia).
Maybe not among the people we're trying to reach first. It might just make
them grin. You're right though. It should be toned down.
> My suggestion is something like: "Let's help each other to bring about
> our visions of a better future".
That's kind of vague. Maybe it's just the 'strategically important
positions' that needs to be replaced with something less obnoxious.
> > 5. Diversity.
> > Diversity and adaptability are crucial for survival in a changing
> > universe. Let's not, as a movement, irreversibly lock ourselves into a
> > single school of thought politically, economically, etc. Accept people of
> > all beliefs, religions, and backgrounds so l ong as they are also firmly
> > committed to these principles.
>
> Very good point, but what does "these principles" in the last sentence
> correlate to? Transhumanism in general, or just diversity? I would
These principles = transhumanism in general. Will make clearer in rewrite.
I might also explain that the Transhumanist Principles are not the
Constitution or the Ten Commandments. That they are mainly here to give
new people a snapshot of transhumanism, and remind people in general of
the key points. This isn't designed to be a detailed, normative document,
nor it is immutable.
--Sincerely, Alex F. Bokov
http://www.us.itd.umich.edu/~alexboko/mlist.html
Also, try 'finger uid=alexboko@umich.edu'
My opinions do not reflect those of my employer.
From ???@??? Fri Dec 29 18:45:11 1995
Return-Path:
Received: from ovidiu.nada.kth.se by mail6 (8.6.12/Netcom)
id HAA18296; Fri, 29 Dec 1995 07:32:01 -0800
Received: (from nv91-asa@localhost)
by ovidiu.nada.kth.se (8.6.10/8.6.9)
id QAA01000;
Fri, 29 Dec 1995 16:34:42 +0100
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 1995 16:34:41 +0100 (MET)
From: Anders Sandberg
To: Alex Bokov
cc: "Alexander 'Sasha' Chislenko" ,
rich@galacta.demon.co.uk,
"Alexander 'Sasha' Chislenko" ,
"Mark A. Plus" <103216.1163@compuserve.com>,
Romana Machado ,
Christopher T Brown
Subject: Re: Transhumanist Principles draft.
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
On Fri, 29 Dec 1995, Alex Bokov wrote:
> > I'm not completely sure "We first!" is the best start, that might
> > alienate people who believe other lifeforms have a right to spread and
> > thrive too. I would suggest something like "Forward!" or"Outward!".
>
> Yes, except Forward or Outward might be too slogan-y. Let's think
> of some kind of more meeningful phrase that summarizes this principle.
The Extropians did a fine job on this in the Principles, let's see...
Here are some suggestions for 2,3 and 5:
2. If it works, use it.
3. Spread hope.
5. Strength through diversity!
Other suggestions?
> Also, for the record, our main interest is in Humans and possibly
> pre/crypto-sentients (such as chimps and dolphins), right? Because,
> treating all life-- Human, cow, and bacteria-- as equally valuable causes
> philosophical and practical problems, and is a major weakenss in the
> Luddite philosophies.
"Spread humanity and life..." implies some distinction between
life-in-general and humanity (although this may be very small or total).
> > I would put it something like "Spread humanity and life to every niche in
> > the universe where it can thrive." Sounds a bit nicer too.
>
> Okay. Will incorporate it, but might i point out that in most
> species, it's the female that carries the 'seed'. Or is it 'spread the
> seed' that might seem excessively male-oriented. Perhaps, spread &
> nurture?
Yes, that sounds like a nice formulation (OK, it is a little bit PC, but
in this case it is even close to what we think).
> '...while vaccinating society against anti-humanism, technophobia, and
> other destructive destructive ideologies'. How does that sound?
Sounds good (although I assume "destructive destructive" is just a typo).
> > My suggestion is something like: "Let's help each other to bring about
> > our visions of a better future".
>
> That's kind of vague. Maybe it's just the 'strategically important
> positions' that needs to be replaced with something less obnoxious.
Yes, that could be better. It might be a good idea to add something "...
and help others realize their full potential". After all, most
transhumanists seem to be altruists.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension!
nv91-asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~nv91-asa/main.html
GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
From ???@??? Fri Dec 29 18:45:37 1995
Return-Path:
Received: from shellx.best.com by mail5 (8.6.12/Netcom)
id IAA19294; Fri, 29 Dec 1995 08:10:46 -0800
Received: from [204.156.158.18] (fqa.vip.best.com [204.156.158.18]) by shellx.best.com (950911.SGI.8.6.12.PATCH825/8.6.5) with SMTP id IAA07882; Fri, 29 Dec 1995 08:11:10 -0800
X-Sender: fqa@best.com
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 1995 08:17:22 -0800
To: Alex Bokov , Anders Sandberg ,
rich@galacta.demon.co.uk,
"Alexander 'Sasha' Chislenko" ,
"Mark A. Plus" <103216.1163@compuserve.com>,
Christopher T Brown
From: romana@fqa.com (Romana Machado)
Subject: Re: Transhumanist Principles draft.
Status: O
>> > My suggestion is something like: "Let's help each other to bring about
>> > our visions of a better future".
>>
>> That's kind of vague. Maybe it's just the 'strategically important
>> positions' that needs to be replaced with something less obnoxious.
>
>Yes, that could be better. It might be a good idea to add something "...
>and help others realize their full potential". After all, most
>transhumanists seem to be altruists.
>
I would like to see a version of the principles that is more individualist.
I value autonomy greatly, more than altruism. I can't know what's best for
everyone else. I let others find their own way in the world - in accordance
with their identities, resources, and desires. I don't pretend that I can
see inside of others. I can't decide what's good and bad for others. I can
only decide for myself. Helping those who have goals I agree with is often
good for me, though I refuse to revel in collectivism. (I'm just not one of
those "let's all sing while we haul water to the commune" types.)
Regarding the "We first!" opening, this is an old quote of Anders' that I
agree with:
>
>"We" is often used for manipulation, since it implies that the
>speaker/writer and the listener/reader belong to the same group. This
>activates subconscious feelings of kinship, clan loyalty and "us against
>them"-mentality which can be exploited. Be very careful when dealing with
>anybody insisting on talking about "us" when he want you to do something!
>
>2. If it works, use it.
This is both empirical and practical, I like it!
-
Romana Machado romana@fqa.com http://www.fqa.com/romana/
"Peek of the Week" at http://www.glamazon.com/
Give a "10" vote to Memorie Paige in the Ms. Metaverse Pageant:
http://www.virtualvegas.com/mm/memorie/memorie.html
From ???@??? Fri Dec 29 18:46:37 1995
Return-Path:
Received: from us.itd.umich.edu by mail6 (8.6.12/Netcom)
id NAA21671; Fri, 29 Dec 1995 13:06:18 -0800
Received: by us.itd.umich.edu (8.7.1/2.2)
id QAA05216; Fri, 29 Dec 1995 16:09:16 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 1995 16:09:14 -0500 (EST)
From: Alex Bokov
X-Sender: alexboko@stimpy.us.itd.umich.edu
To: Romana Machado
cc: Anders Sandberg , rich@galacta.demon.co.uk,
"Alexander 'Sasha' Chislenko" ,
"Mark A. Plus" <103216.1163@compuserve.com>,
Christopher T Brown
Subject: Re: Transhumanist Principles draft.
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Fri, 29 Dec 1995, Romana Machado wrote:
> I would like to see a version of the principles that is more individualist.
> I value autonomy greatly, more than altruism. I can't know what's best for
> everyone else. I let others find their own way in the world - in accordance
> with their identities, resources, and desires. I don't pretend that I can
> see inside of others. I can't decide what's good and bad for others. I can
> only decide for myself. Helping those who have goals I agree with is often
> good for me, though I refuse to revel in collectivism. (I'm just not one of
> those "let's all sing while we haul water to the commune" types.)
Me neither. Please, everyone, point out any instances of actual or
seeming collectivist catechism you might find. There is a world of
difference between compulsory collectivism and voluntary cooperation,
though. I pointedly did not use the term altruism, because that can imply
_hurting_ yourself to help others.
What i'm talking about here is working together with like-minded
people to ensure _mutual_ success. I dislike inefficiency. When i do
something, i want it to have as many beneficial results on as many levels
as possible. That includes looking at the larger picture, and weighing a
potential business associate's world-view in my decision of how i will
deal with them. At some level, don't you find yourself doing the same?
I agree that we should avoid formalizing _how_ we do this, and let
it develop naturally, as it has among other people in other times. It's
also a good idea not to make the public feel paranoid, as Anders pointed
out.
All i'm trying to do is send the message that it's perfectly fine
to work together with people you know from the transhumanist scene, even
on things that don't have anything directly to do with transhumanism.
This is as fine a place as any to network, and i'd hate to see anyone
feeling guilty or 'dishonest' over their natural tendency to do so.
What would be a good way to make this point? Maybe 'feel free to
network with us fellow optimistic innovative types' instead of 'help other
transhumanists acchieve positions of world domination' or whatever it was
that i put there originally.
> Romana Machado romana@fqa.com http://www.fqa.com/romana/
> "Peek of the Week" at http://www.glamazon.com/
> Give a "10" vote to Memorie Paige in the Ms. Metaverse Pageant:
> http://www.virtualvegas.com/mm/memorie/memorie.html
Networking in action: i found out about Stego and about 'Ms. Paige' only
after seeing a certain sig file on the transhumanist mailing list. :-)
--Sincerely, Alex F. Bokov
http://www.us.itd.umich.edu/~alexboko/mlist.html
Also, try 'finger uid=alexboko@umich.edu'
My opinions do not reflect those of my employer.
From ???@??? Sun Dec 31 04:29:20 1995
Return-Path:
Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net by mail6 (8.6.12/Netcom)
id BAA09246; Sun, 31 Dec 1995 01:09:20 -0800
Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net
id ab00837; 31 Dec 95 9:07 GMT
Received: from galacta.demon.co.uk ([158.152.156.137]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net
id aa20002; 31 Dec 95 9:06 GMT
Received: (from rartym@localhost) by galacta.demon.co.uk (8.6.9/v3.0) id JAA30479; Sun, 31 Dec 1995 09:00:27 GMT
From: "Dr. Rich Artym"
Message-Id: <199512310900.JAA30479@galacta.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Transhumanist Principles draft.
To: Alex Bokov , Alexander Chislenko ,
Anders Sandberg ,
"Mark A. Plus" <103216.1163@compuserve.com>,
Romana Machado ,
Christopher T Brown
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 1995 09:00:24 +0000 (GMT)
Reply-To: rich@galacta.demon.co.uk
In-Reply-To: from "Alex Bokov" at Dec 25, 95 08:26:41 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 6527
Here are my comments and ammendments to Alex's Transhuman Principles
Version 0.001 Beta, building on suggestions by Romana, Anders and Alex:
============================================================================
| For the purposes of this discussion, let us define 'Human', as Homo
| Sapiens and whatever sentient species or subspecies may later arise from
| us or be created by us.
As Anders' suggests, this detracts from the simplicity of the Principles,
yet it is important. Solution: Add a "NOTES" section on the end of the
Principles per se, and stick this statement there. I'm sure we'll find
other things that we can factor out of the Principles in this same way
to make them more readable.
|
| 1. We first!
| Strive to remove all limits on what Humanity can do. Spread the
| Human seed to every niche in the universe where it can thrive.
I agree that something with the sentiment of "Forward!" or "Outward!" but
just descriptive rather than a slogan would be a more useful heading.
How about simply "Progress Without Limits"?
Also, I would like to see it made explicit that "limits" refers not only
to the physical limits on Humanity but also the arbitrary limits imposed
by Man's own institutions.
In preference to the "seed" sentence, I like Anders' "Spread humanity and
life to every niche in the universe where it can thrive." To satisfy the
coexistence concern, it might be useful to turn "niche" into "unoccupied
niche", or to say something about coexistence or non-conflict directly.
|
| 2. Pragmatism.
| Use whatever tools prove effective toward this goal. Technology,
| and the intellectual disciplines used to develop it, are currently among
| the most effective such tools.
I agree with everyone else --- this is a simple and very effective
statement, aided substantially by what it leaves unsaid but implied.
|
| 3. Memetic expansion.
| Continuously spread transhuman memes, and vaccinate society
| against memes that are technophobic, anti-human, or otherwise destructive.
| Schools, the internet, and mass media are especially important to the
| effort at this moment.
We'd better try to be exacting in the Principles: "Internet" as in
"THE Internet" starts with a capital 'I'. An "internet" is a different
kettle of fish.
Also, the memes inimical to individualism should be added to the list
of nasties, eg. "anti-individualistic, repressive, monopolistic" just
before the "or" in Principle 3.
| 4. Success.
| Success is good. Let's strive to acchieve as much as we can in our
| careers and social milieus. Make a reasonable effort to help other
| transhumanists attain strategically important positions.
Anders' concerns about how this is perceived are well founded, I believe,
and in any case, I don't think that we would want to perceive ourselves
as being in any way underhanded. Perhaps replacing "attain strategically
important positions" by "achieve their transhumanist goals" would suffice.
I'd like to bring up another "Alert!" here though, regarding "Success is
good": it's just too much like Thatcherism's call of "Greed is Good" for
my liking, and it may alienate others similarly. "Success" today is in
large part concerned with being viewed as successful throughout society,
by the metrics of a society that to a very large extent has different
principles to those with which transhumanism is concerned; consequently,
"success" conveys the wrong impression altogether, it seems to me.
I would prefer that "Success" be replaced with "Achievement of TH goals".
To take an extreme example, one might imagine that a Buddhist TH might
consider herself to have achieved her TH goals without having a penny in
her pocket, so I feel that the Principle as it stands is not appropriate.
Perhaps the best way of approaching this topic is by referring to
"Individual Transhumanist Goals", with "success in career" and
"financial independence" being two common examples, but successes
in health, fitness or in intellectual goals being just as important.
After all, all these goals are subjective, notwithstanding that the
western ideal of success is a voracious meme that has spread widely.
The Transhuman Principles shouldn't hold any one of these as supreme.
|
| 5. Diversity.
| Diversity and adaptability are crucial for survival in a changing
| universe. Let's not, as a movement, irreversibly lock ourselves into a
| single school of thought politically, economically, etc. Accept people of
| all beliefs, religions, and backgrounds so l ong as they are also firmly
| committed to these principles.
Romana makes a strong point about individualism which I support.
The impression I've obtained is that "live and let live" is an intrinsic
part of transhumanism and extropianism but only by default, implicitly,
since without it an individual's attempts at enhancement or progress would
be scuppered. However, I can't help feeling that leaving it merely implied
just isn't enough, as to me it seems such a central point: not only is it
fundamental to our ability to do more than just talk, but it says so much
about our relationship to the rest of the world as well as with each other.
Consequently, I would like to see this stated explicitly in the Principles.
It fits best within Principle 1, I think, especially under a banner of
"Progress Without Limits", since a constraining collectivisim of ideas
is one of the worst kind of limits on Humanity's progress.
It might be useful to base such a statement around a catchy phrase,
although "live and let live" doesn't convey the right sort of optimism
to me. Maybe a better phrase would be some form of another popular
sentiment, along the lines of "We believe that the freedoms of
individuals are limited only by the equal freedoms of others, in all
things". As a statement of our individual freedom, it underpins all
else in transhumanism and so fits well into Principle 1.
|
| >H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H>H
A Happy New Year to you all!
Regards, Rich.
--
########### Dr. Rich Artym ================ PGP public key available
# galacta # Internet: rich@galacta.demon.co.uk DNS 158.152.156.137
# ->demon # rich@mail.g7exm[.uk].ampr.org DNS 44.131.164.1
# ->ampr # NTS/BBS : g7exm@gb7msw.#33.gbr.eu
# ->nexus # Fun : Unix, X, TCP/IP, OSI, kernel, O-O, C++, Soft/Eng
# ->NTS # More fun: Regional IP Coordinator Hertfordshire + N.London
########### Q'Quote : "Object type is a detail of its implementation."
From ???@??? Sun Dec 31 15:30:46 1995
Return-Path:
Received: from us.itd.umich.edu by mail (8.6.12/Netcom)
id LAA02685; Sun, 31 Dec 1995 11:42:10 -0800
Received: by us.itd.umich.edu (8.7.1/2.2)
id OAA09317; Sun, 31 Dec 1995 14:44:59 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 1995 14:44:58 -0500 (EST)
From: Alex Bokov
X-Sender: alexboko@stimpy.us.itd.umich.edu
To: Anders Sandberg ,
"Alexander 'Sasha' Chislenko" ,
"Mark A. Plus" <103216.1163@compuserve.com>,
Romana Machado , rich@galacta.demon.co.uk,
Christopher T Brown
Subject: Transhumanist Principles, revised.
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
The collectivism/individualism division goes beyond economics and
philosophy. It is also a matter of psychology. Humans have an innate
tendency toward both collectivist and individualist behavior, whether we
like it or not. Some people have a preponderance of collectivist
tendencies and some-- individualist ones. People less advanced than us go
for the black-&-white approach: support one, hate/fear the other, winner
takes all.
We all know what's wrong with forced collectivism. Now let's look
at the other extreme-- what happens to collectivist personalities in a
world where "we're all different, we're all individuals"? They form a
commune, and/or sumbit to authority, under some different name. If there
are very few outlets for their psychological need to follow, they might
turn to something truly sinister-- imposing collectivism on the unwilling.
To use an analogy, would you interfere in the affairs of an S&M
family of consenting adults? Is an S&M community safer and better
neighbors when they're accepted and open or when they're closeted and
treated like perverts?
Maybe if we extend our tolerance to welcome non-coercive
collectivists, their energies will be turned toward goals compatible with
ours, instead of spiraling toward fascism and fanaticism. They tend do
some things better than individualists (gasp!), and some things worse. Why
bother fighting cold wars with them when instead we can have a profitable
alliance?
There already is a healthy individualist current within
transhumanism-- the Extropians. Good. Lets also allow for other
transhumanist angles (alien though they might appear) to develop instead
of apriori excluding people with some sweeping rejection of all
collectivism in our principles. If we do, they'll just go and make the
Democrats (or someone equally inane) stronger instead.
I'm including another revision of the Principles below. If anyone
can think of positive things to add about personal initiative, that's
wonderful. Likewise, a diplomatically-phrased warning against fanaticism
and fascism would work. However, i hope the above has given some practical
reasons _not_ to blindly attack all collectivists in this document.
--------------------Transhumanist--Principles--Draft------------------------
Version 0.002 Beta
1. No more limits!
Strive to remove all limits on what Humanity(1) can do, whether
these limits happen to be natural or cultural. Spread and nurture Humanity
everywhere in the universe it can thrive.
2. Pragmatism.
Use whatever tools prove effective toward this goal. Technology,
and the intellectual disciplines used to develop it, are currently among
the most effective such tools.
3. Infectious ideas.
Continuously spread these ideas, while vaccinating society agains
anti-humanism, technophobia, and other destructive ideologies. Schools,
the Internet, and mass media are especially important to the effort at
this moment.
4. Success.
Never apologize for being a winner. Success is good, including but
not limited to financial, social, and political accomplishment. Boldly
strive to acchieve your individual ambitions, whatever they may be. Lets
also network with other innovators and optimists to reach goals both
personal and global.
5. Diversity.
Diversity and adaptability are crucial for survival in a changing
universe. Let's not as a movement irreversibly lock ourselves into a
single school of thought politically, economically, etc. Accept people of
all beliefs, religions, and backgrounds so long as they are also firmly
committed to transhumanist principles.
NOTES:
1. For the purposes of this discussion, let us define 'Human', as Homo
Sapiens and whatever sentient species or subspecies may later arise from
us or be created by us. We also have a concern for non-Human sentience,
but a healthy drive for self-preservation dictates that this concern take
a secondary place.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Sincerely, Alex F. Bokov
http://www.us.itd.umich.edu/~alexboko/mlist.html
Also, try 'finger uid=alexboko@umich.edu'
My opinions do not reflect those of my employer.
From ???@??? Sun Dec 31 17:00:31 1995
Return-Path: <103216.1163@compuserve.com>
Received: from dub-img-1.compuserve.com by mail5 (8.6.12/Netcom)
id NAA28034; Sun, 31 Dec 1995 13:43:48 -0800
Received: by dub-img-1.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515)
id QAA00902; Sun, 31 Dec 1995 16:45:25 -0500
Date: 31 Dec 95 16:41:58 EST
From: "Mark A. Plus" <103216.1163@compuserve.com>
To: Alex Bokov
Cc: "Christopher T. Brown" ,
Sasha Chislenko , Romana Machado
Subject: Re: Transhumanist Principles, revised.
Message-ID: <951231214157_103216.1163_IHF63-1@CompuServe.COM>
>From the "Transhumanist Principles," revised:
> 2. Pragmatism.
> Use whatever tools prove effective toward this goal. Technology,
> and the intellectual disciplines used to develop it, are currently among
> the most effective such tools.
Hard-core Objectivists have a weird aversion to any advocacy of pragmatism,
since they think it encourages hostility to the use of the mind, or something
like that. They contrast pragmatism with principle, which encapsulates certain
knowledge about the right thing to do. I'm sure they would object to calling
pragmatism a principle. While a lot of >H's have been strongly influenced by
Rand, I get the impression that in general Objectivists are not good >H
material. They still maintain that John Galt is a possible, if unusually
self-actualized, man rather than a superman, indicating to me their obtuseness
regarding the >H implications of Rand's philosophy. I doubt we'll have much
occasion to deal with their gripes about Pragmatism in the "Transhumanist
Principles," in any event.
I think certainty is possible, since the negation of certainty is self-refuting.
I chuckle when I read philosophers who say that no philosophical problem can
ever be solved. That statement indicates that at least one philosophical problem
_has_ been solved: whether philosophical problems have solutions!
But in the practical world, a lot of our knowledge doesn't imply clear-cut
principles for solving our problems. I view pragmatism as a stage in the
learning process, certainly not hostile to the use of the mind, where the
underlying principles governing an aspect of reality haven't been adequately
defined and tested yet. For example, in economics, which seems to be the >H
bugbear, the argument for free trade makes assumptions about what economists
call "comparative advantage," which might work for trade between nations with
not profoundly dissimilar living standards, but has not been adequately
empirically tested. (Read _The End of Economic Man_, for example.) I would
view comparative advantage as a pragmatic generalization rather than as an
absolute principle, unlike some libertarian economics geeks I could name.
Another example from something less controversial among >H's: Medicine has
discovered and recorded an enormous amount of knowledge about the human body and
its treatment, but practicing cryonicists have trouble applying it to the
problems cryonics societies are trying to solve. Why? Because medical
researchers weren't thinking about cryonicists' problems in the first place.
Cryonics researchers have to pick and choose from the surfeit of riches at their
disposal and try various combinations of techniques to improve the suspension
procedure. Medicine per se doesn't supply the principles cryonicists need, so
these researchers pragmatically have to conduct experiments and hope they can
discover relevant new principles on their own.
I suppose my point is that I see nothing paradoxical about calling pragmatism a
principle, especially a Transhumanist Principle, since for a long time to come
we'll still be groping for the true principles underlying complex aspects of
reality, and we'll have plenty of problems to solve along the way.
BTW, since a neat acronym would help us, does anyone know about the Calvinists'
"TULIP"? Each letter stands for one of the Five Points of Calvinism, starting
with "Total depravity," etc. (Calvin may have been "totally depraved," but I'm
not. Sounds like a personal problem to me....)
Mark Aristos Plus, Minister of Venturism
By working hard and saving my money (which I reluctantly have to use in the
meantime), I intend to become an abiolytic >H and a facultative anagorobe.
Look out for my Web Page, still under construction, which will debut sometime in
January.
From ???@??? Tue Jan 02 04:13:38 1996
Return-Path:
Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net by mail6 (8.6.12/Netcom)
id BAA21504; Tue, 2 Jan 1996 01:07:20 -0800
Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net
id ag12594; 2 Jan 96 9:09 GMT
Received: from galacta.demon.co.uk ([158.152.156.137]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net
id aa18116; 2 Jan 96 9:08 GMT
Received: (from rartym@localhost) by galacta.demon.co.uk (8.6.9/v3.0) id OAA06378; Mon, 1 Jan 1996 14:09:16 GMT
From: "Dr. Rich Artym"
Message-Id: <199601011409.OAA06378@galacta.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Transhumanist Principles, revised.
To: Alex Bokov , Alexander Chislenko ,
Anders Sandberg ,
"Mark A. Plus" <103216.1163@compuserve.com>,
Romana Machado ,
Christopher T Brown
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 1996 14:09:12 +0000 (GMT)
Reply-To: rich@galacta.demon.co.uk
In-Reply-To: from "Alex Bokov" at Dec 31, 95 02:44:58 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1933
Just in case it was misinterpreted, I was not making a case against
embracing people with collectivist ideas within the transhumanist
movement. I've said many times that I am averse to prescription of
any type. The danger of collectivism arises only when the grouping
of people gives them the notion that their majority somehow gives
them the right to dictate to the minority on some odd statistical
grounds. Since that would conflict intrinsically with the ability of
individuals to control their own lives, that particular collectivist
meme simply cannot be accomodated in an ideology that respects the
individual.
I must emphasize though that this does not mean that collective group
ideologies and physical groupings can't fit in with transhumanism;
just as in our relationship with religious collectives, the only limit
on them in a transhuman forum is that they do not seek to limit others
around them using their own particular collective precepts.
My earlier remarks about the freedom of individuals being limited only
by the equal freedom of others should make that clear. Collectives
can impose any constraints on their own members that they wish, since
each individual concerned acquiesces to those limits being placed on
him. Those constraints must stop at the boundary of the collective
though, for obvious reasons, and as long as that is the case then such
a collective can be completely at home in a transhumanist world, IMO.
--
########### Dr. Rich Artym ================ PGP public key available
# galacta # Internet: rich@galacta.demon.co.uk DNS 158.152.156.137
# ->demon # rich@mail.g7exm[.uk].ampr.org DNS 44.131.164.1
# ->ampr # NTS/BBS : g7exm@gb7msw.#33.gbr.eu
# ->nexus # Fun : Unix, X, TCP/IP, OSI, kernel, O-O, C++, Soft/Eng
# ->NTS # More fun: Regional IP Coordinator Hertfordshire + N.London
########### Q'Quote : "Object type is a detail of its implementation."
From ???@??? Tue Jan 02 04:18:52 1996
Return-Path:
Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net by mail6 (8.6.12/Netcom)
id BAA21845; Tue, 2 Jan 1996 01:11:13 -0800
Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net
id ab12627; 2 Jan 96 9:09 GMT
Received: from galacta.demon.co.uk ([158.152.156.137]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net
id aa18154; 2 Jan 96 9:08 GMT
Received: (from rartym@localhost) by galacta.demon.co.uk (8.6.9/v3.0) id JAA07354; Tue, 2 Jan 1996 09:04:24 GMT
From: "Dr. Rich Artym"
Message-Id: <199601020904.JAA07354@galacta.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Transhumanist Principles, revised.
To: Alex Bokov , Alexander Chislenko ,
Anders Sandberg ,
"Mark A. Plus" <103216.1163@compuserve.com>,
Romana Machado ,
Christopher T Brown
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 09:04:20 +0000 (GMT)
Reply-To: rich@galacta.demon.co.uk
In-Reply-To: from "Alex Bokov" at Dec 31, 95 02:44:58 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 10695
In message
Alex writes:
> The collectivism/individualism division goes beyond economics and
> philosophy. It is also a matter of psychology. Humans have an innate
> tendency toward both collectivist and individualist behavior, whether we
> like it or not. Some people have a preponderance of collectivist
> tendencies and some-- individualist ones. People less advanced than us go
> for the black-&-white approach: support one, hate/fear the other, winner
> takes all.
It's not at all symmetrical though: collectivists can live unhindered
in an individual-centred world, whereas individualists will rapidly find
themselves behind bars in a collectivist-centred one. That is why we
have to concentrate on the freedoms of the individual in transhumanism;
if collectivism reigns supreme then the vast majority of transhumanist
ideas are all for nought, because the massed majority will ban anything
that does not represent the majority view. Individualism includes collec-
tivism, but the reverse is not true.
> To use an analogy, would you interfere in the affairs of an S&M
> family of consenting adults? Is an S&M community safer and better
> neighbors when they're accepted and open or when they're closeted and
> treated like perverts?
I didn't notice anyone trying to exclude collectives in TH, other than
that instance when JM was kicked off the list for doing just that. My
only concern is that a pro-collective stance can easily result in a large
loss of individual freedom, and that's not theory since we live in such
a world right now. We need to keep pedalling forwards on individual
freedom as a matter of principle, because the whole world is currently
coasting backwards on this. Without individual freedom, TH will always
be just a fictional talking-shop.
> Maybe if we extend our tolerance to welcome non-coercive
> collectivists, their energies will be turned toward goals compatible with
> ours, instead of spiraling toward fascism and fanaticism.
I must have missed something --- surely we've been not only tolerant but
wholly welcoming? Having said that, non-coercive collectives are rather
rare, and in politics practically non-existent. In any event, nothing we
have said has been anti-collective. I wonder, is "pro-individualistic"
being interpreted as "anti-collective"? That is a misinterpretation!
> I'm including another revision of the Principles below. If anyone
> can think of positive things to add about personal initiative, that's
> wonderful. Likewise, a diplomatically-phrased warning against fanaticism
> and fascism would work. However, i hope the above has given some practical
> reasons _not_ to blindly attack all collectivists in this document.
What attacks? (Alex, I really can't figure this out!! None of us has
been attacking collectivists, blindly or otherwise.)
> --------------------Transhumanist--Principles--Draft------------------------
>
> Version 0.002 Beta
>
>
> 1. No more limits!
> Strive to remove all limits on what Humanity(1) can do, whether
> these limits happen to be natural or cultural. Spread and nurture Humanity
> everywhere in the universe it can thrive.
TH is totally dead in the water without individual freedom, as I wrote in
my response to T.P. Version 0.001 --- if you allow collective constraints
to dictate what the transhuman individual can do then you have a recipe
for luke-warm progressive humanism, not transhumanism. As Alex hasn't
picked up on my suggestions for Principle 1, I'll draft a modified
Principle 1 myself:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 1. No more limits!
| Strive to remove all limits on Humanity(1), overcoming the evolved
| limits of our biological and intellectual inheritance, the physical limits
| of our environment and our universe, and the cultural or historical limits
| of society that constrain individual and collective progress. Spread and
| nurture Humanity everywhere in the universe where it can thrive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 2. Pragmatism.
> Use whatever tools prove effective toward this goal. Technology,
> and the intellectual disciplines used to develop it, are currently among
> the most effective such tools.
>
> 3. Infectious ideas.
> Continuously spread these ideas, while vaccinating society agains
> anti-humanism, technophobia, and other destructive ideologies. Schools,
> the Internet, and mass media are especially important to the effort at
> this moment.
What about mentioning the destructive anti-individualistic memes? For
some unknowable reason, UK soccer comes to mind: they bred out individual
talent in UK soccer in favour of cold team play, as a result of which
watching UK teams play is about as entertaining as watching paint dry.
Thank goodness that they show Italian soccer on the telly ... Rather
more to the point, there was a highly destructive meme planted in the
UK school system a couple of decades ago, which made egalitarianism in
education de rigeur and cultivating individual genius almost taboo;
we'll never know what impact this has had, but it's hard to imagine
that the country did not lose *some* bright people through the policy.
Collectivism needs no promotion, as people are largely gregarious at
least part of the time, but individualism needs safe-guarding from that
collectivist steamroller.
> 4. Success.
> Never apologize for being a winner. Success is good, including but
> not limited to financial, social, and political accomplishment. Boldly
> strive to acchieve your individual ambitions, whatever they may be. Lets
> also network with other innovators and optimists to reach goals both
> personal and global.
This is terrible: what's this business of "being a winner"? Winning
implies that others lose, and transhumanism has nothing to do with that.
Do we need the journalistic style of "Never apologize ... Success is good"?
As far as I can see, this is totally out of place in a set of Principles,
which shouldn't sound like a manifesto of the Young Conservatives, egging
each other on and blowing raspberries at all those without a Porsche.
[Hey, Alex, sorry to be so critical on the first day of the year, but I
think you've got it badly biased towards one particular worldview here.
Transhumanism is a broad ideology.]
I'd prefer that we keep the tone as neutral as possible, or the Principles
will date badly: just imagine how those words sound to my example of a
transhuman Buddhist, or indeed simply to a man that has lost everything
and is now on the street --- is he to be ostracized by his colleagues,
because of some blinkered judgement that he has Failed? I would certainly
hope not. Financial, social and political accomplishments are traditional
goals, not transhumanist goals per se, and while all individual goals are
also transhumanist goals, I don't think it's right to stress the traditional
ones as if they were something special to do with transhumanism. Let's
redress the tone:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 4. Achievement.
| Individual achievement is the stepping stone of Humanity's progress, so
| achievement of goals is intrinsic to the transhumanist view of the world.
| Whether seeking health, fitness, or intellectual goals, or financial or
| social success or political accomplishment, boldly strive to achieve your
| individual ambitions. Maximize the breadth and pace of achievement by
| joining with other innovators and optimists to reach goals both personal
| and global.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a lot less "ya-boo" Thatcherite while still supporting success.
>
> 5. Diversity.
> Diversity and adaptability are crucial for survival in a changing
> universe. Let's not as a movement irreversibly lock ourselves into a
> single school of thought politically, economically, etc. Accept people of
> all beliefs, religions, and backgrounds so long as they are also firmly
> committed to transhumanist principles.
Good, but "Let's not ..." conveys irresoluteness, and we can't recurse on
the meaning of "transhumanist principles". How about a rephrasing:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 5. Diversity.
| Diversity and adaptability are crucial for survival in a changing
| universe. Accept no school of political or economic thought that would
| seek to limit the diversity or extent of your achievements. Accept people
| of all beliefs, religions, and backgrounds, so long as they do not seek to
| constrain you or others that do not share their perspective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> NOTES:
>
> 1. For the purposes of this discussion, let us define 'Human', as Homo
> Sapiens and whatever sentient species or subspecies may later arise from
> us or be created by us. We also have a concern for non-Human sentience,
> but a healthy drive for self-preservation dictates that this concern take
> a secondary place.
Whoops! That's your own particular value judgement about other sentients,
but it certainly won't be that of all transhumanists, as you'll find much
opposition from both sides of the spectrum. Here's a rephrasing that is
in keeping with the TH concern for individual freedom:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| NOTES:
|
| 1. For the purposes of this discussion, let us define 'Human', as Homo
| Sapiens and whatever sentient species or subspecies may later arise from
| us or be created by us. Transhumanism is also concerned with electronic
| or alien sentience because human freedom may one day be limited by the
| equal freedom of non-humans, but no judgements are made beyond that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've tried to make these alternative paragraphs less flavoured by today's
political/social/economic ideas, less prescriptive and broader in their
catchment, but no doubt they still have their problems.
Regards, Rich.
--
########### Dr. Rich Artym ================ PGP public key available
# galacta # Internet: rich@galacta.demon.co.uk DNS 158.152.156.137
# ->demon # rich@mail.g7exm[.uk].ampr.org DNS 44.131.164.1
# ->ampr # NTS/BBS : g7exm@gb7msw.#33.gbr.eu
# ->nexus # Fun : Unix, X, TCP/IP, OSI, kernel, O-O, C++, Soft/Eng
# ->NTS # More fun: Regional IP Coordinator Hertfordshire + N.London
########### Q'Quote : "Object type is a detail of its implementation."
From ???@??? Tue Jan 02 08:48:51 1996
Return-Path:
Received: from melas.nada.kth.se by mail6 (8.6.12/Netcom)
id FAA13704; Tue, 2 Jan 1996 05:15:18 -0800
Received: (from nv91-asa@localhost)
by melas.nada.kth.se (8.6.10/8.6.9)
id OAA10991;
Tue, 2 Jan 1996 14:16:26 +0100
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 14:16:26 +0100 (MET)
From: Anders Sandberg
To: rich@galacta.demon.co.uk
cc: Alex Bokov ,
"Mark A. Plus" <103216.1163@compuserve.com>,
Romana Machado ,
Christopher T Brown ,
Alexander Chislenko
Subject: Re: Transhumanist Principles, revised.
In-Reply-To: <199601020904.JAA07354@galacta.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Tue, 2 Jan 1996, Dr. Rich Artym wrote:
> TH is totally dead in the water without individual freedom, as I wrote in
> my response to T.P. Version 0.001 --- if you allow collective constraints
> to dictate what the transhuman individual can do then you have a recipe
> for luke-warm progressive humanism, not transhumanism. As Alex hasn't
> picked up on my suggestions for Principle 1, I'll draft a modified
> Principle 1 myself:
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> | 1. No more limits!
> | Strive to remove all limits on Humanity(1), overcoming the evolved
> | limits of our biological and intellectual inheritance, the physical limits
> | of our environment and our universe, and the cultural or historical limits
> | of society that constrain individual and collective progress. Spread and
> | nurture Humanity everywhere in the universe where it can thrive.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While I agree with this modified principle wholeheartedly, it is too long
and complex (especially being the first principle). It should be as short
and powerful as possible instead. I would suggest another hyperlink from
"limits" explaining specifically what limits we want to remove; this
makes the principle shorter and easier to understand while giving the
interested reader the chance to think about the limits more in detail:
|1. No more limits!
| Strive to remove all limits (1) on Humanity (2). Spread and
|nurture Life and Humanity everywhere in the universe where it can thrive.
...
|NOTES
|
|1. Transhumanism strives to remove evolved limits of our biological
|and intellectual inheritance, the physical limits of our environment
|and our universe, and the cultural and historical limits of society that
|constrain individual and collective progress.
(There could be further hyperlinks/references to examples of bad biological
design, limits to freedom etc.)
> What about mentioning the destructive anti-individualistic memes?
This sounds like a good footnote, maybe with hyperlinks to discussion
(like Nick Szabo's page about "Green Goo").
> For
> some unknowable reason, UK soccer comes to mind: they bred out individual
> talent in UK soccer in favour of cold team play, as a result of which
> watching UK teams play is about as entertaining as watching paint dry.
> Thank goodness that they show Italian soccer on the telly ...
Definitely a different take on it. This might actually be a good example
in such a footnote, together with more serious memes.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> | 4. Achievement.
> | Individual achievement is the stepping stone of Humanity's progress, so
> | achievement of goals is intrinsic to the transhumanist view of the world.
> | Whether seeking health, fitness, or intellectual goals, or financial or
> | social success or political accomplishment, boldly strive to achieve your
> | individual ambitions. Maximize the breadth and pace of achievement by
> | joining with other innovators and optimists to reach goals both personal
> | and global.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> That's a lot less "ya-boo" Thatcherite while still supporting success.
But we have to make the language simpler and less solemn ("Stepping stone
of Humanity's progress" is beautiful but too formal).
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> | 5. Diversity.
> | Diversity and adaptability are crucial for survival in a changing
> | universe. Accept no school of political or economic thought that would
> | seek to limit the diversity or extent of your achievements. Accept people
> | of all beliefs, religions, and backgrounds, so long as they do not seek to
> | constrain you or others that do not share their perspective.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I like this! Although I would remove "political or economic" in the
second line, since there are other kinds of thought too that are nasty.
Then it would become:
|5. Diversity.
|
| Diversity and adaptability are crucial for survival in a changing
|universe. Accept no school of thought that would seek to limit the
|diversity or extent of your achievements. Accept people of all beliefs,
|religions, and backgrounds, so long as they do not seek to constrain you
|or others that do not share their perspective.
Slightly shorter and more general.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> | NOTES:
> |
> | 1. For the purposes of this discussion, let us define 'Human', as Homo
> | Sapiens and whatever sentient species or subspecies may later arise from
> | us or be created by us. Transhumanism is also concerned with electronic
> | or alien sentience because human freedom may one day be limited by the
> | equal freedom of non-humans, but no judgements are made beyond that.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, this sounds good.
> I've tried to make these alternative paragraphs less flavoured by today's
> political/social/economic ideas, less prescriptive and broader in their
> catchment, but no doubt they still have their problems.
I think it is a good idea to keep the principles very flexible, but still
clearly applicable to the present (that doesn't mean they have to be
flavored by most political/social/economic ideas of today). In the future
new versions will have to evolve of course. Alex suggestion that we add a
note that the principles must evolve is a good one.
I hope you excuse my prose-polishing, but I think it is very important
that the form of the message *helps* the content, not the reverse.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension!
nv91-asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~nv91-asa/main.html
GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
From ???@??? Tue Jan 02 19:04:14 1996
Return-Path:
Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net by mail6 (8.6.12/Netcom)
id JAA26036; Tue, 2 Jan 1996 09:34:04 -0800
Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net
id ah08367; 2 Jan 96 17:30 GMT
Received: from galacta.demon.co.uk ([158.152.156.137]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net
id aa09974; 2 Jan 96 17:29 GMT
Received: (from rartym@localhost) by galacta.demon.co.uk (8.6.9/v3.0) id RAA09737; Tue, 2 Jan 1996 17:13:40 GMT
From: "Dr. Rich Artym"
Message-Id: <199601021713.RAA09737@galacta.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Transhumanist Principles, revised.
To: Alex Bokov , Alexander Chislenko ,
Anders Sandberg ,
"Mark A. Plus" <103216.1163@compuserve.com>,
Romana Machado ,
Christopher T Brown
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 17:13:36 +0000 (GMT)
Reply-To: rich@galacta.demon.co.uk
In-Reply-To: from "Anders Sandberg" at Jan 2, 96 02:16:26 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 7727
In message ,
Anders Sandberg writes:
> While I agree with this modified principle wholeheartedly, it is too long
> and complex (especially being the first principle). It should be as short
> and powerful as possible instead. I would suggest another hyperlink from
> "limits" explaining specifically what limits we want to remove; this
> makes the principle shorter and easier to understand while giving the
> interested reader the chance to think about the limits more in detail:
>
> |1. No more limits!
> | Strive to remove all limits (1) on Humanity (2). Spread and
> |nurture Life and Humanity everywhere in the universe where it can thrive.
> ...
> |NOTES
> |
> |1. Transhumanism strives to remove evolved limits of our biological
> |and intellectual inheritance, the physical limits of our environment
> |and our universe, and the cultural and historical limits of society that
> |constrain individual and collective progress.
This is an excellent idea! Far from not liking simplification of what
I write, I am all in favour of it --- I am very conscious that in trying
to be exacting, I err by writing in a complex manner that requires more
than a single scan to disentangle. Some have said to me that my day as
a writer will come when I can converse with AIs in a list-structured
language. (:-) Be that as it may, Anders' factoring out of my definition
of "limits" from within Principle 1 is an immense improvement.
[RED HERRING: Talking about writing, my SF authorship interests have
always fathomed on the rocks of complexity. I've always said to myself
"This is not a technical paper or thesis, you can write simply if you
wish", but I haven't yet put that principle into practice. I know
exactly what the problem is, having analysed it numerous times: I think
of sentences as logical units, with their logical structure constructed
almost formally out of prepositions and punctuation linking up all the
noun phrases and simpler parts of speech. Needless to say, that approach
is the kiss of death to readability. One day, one day, .... (:-)]
> > What about mentioning the destructive anti-individualistic memes?
>
> This sounds like a good footnote, maybe with hyperlinks to discussion
> (like Nick Szabo's page about "Green Goo").
Good idea. Perhaps the Principle itself could define the categories
of destructive meme, and the corresponding NOTE could elaborate on each
of the categories.
> > For
> > some unknowable reason, UK soccer comes to mind: they bred out individual
> > talent in UK soccer in favour of cold team play, as a result of which
> > watching UK teams play is about as entertaining as watching paint dry.
> > Thank goodness that they show Italian soccer on the telly ...
>
> Definitely a different take on it. This might actually be a good example
> in such a footnote, together with more serious memes.
Hmmm, I'm not sure about that. After all, my views about UK soccer are
very subjective, even though numerous commentators say the same. I doubt
that such an example would be to our advantage in the TrPs, since there
will also be many that dispute this interpretation and its relevance.
Just to show that it takes all kinds to make a world, some Italian soccer
managers have been heard to advocate the British soccer style ... (:-(
> > | 4. Achievement.
> > | Individual achievement is the stepping stone of Humanity's progress, so
> > | achievement of goals is intrinsic to the transhumanist view of the world.
> > | Whether seeking health, fitness, or intellectual goals, or financial or
> > | social success or political accomplishment, boldly strive to achieve your
> > | individual ambitions. Maximize the breadth and pace of achievement by
> > | joining with other innovators and optimists to reach goals both personal
> > | and global.
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > That's a lot less "ya-boo" Thatcherite while still supporting success.
>
> But we have to make the language simpler and less solemn ("Stepping stone
> of Humanity's progress" is beautiful but too formal).
I agree again. (Er, not too *formal*, too metaphorical!) If those two
lines of that sentence are omitted, the remainder of the paragraph still
works, but I feel that the Principle must state *WHY* achievement is felt
to be an inherent part of TH, otherwise the dogma seems unjustified (just
like the earlier statements about success were unjustified). How about a
very simple introductory statement, leaving the causal link to TH implied;
also, I've chopped down my final sentence too, leaving just Alex's initial
wording which is ample but simpler (the justification is lost, but I hope
that it can be inferred):
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| 4. Achievement.
| There can be no progress without achievement.
| Whether seeking health, fitness, or intellectual goals, or financial or
| social success or political accomplishment, boldly strive to achieve your
| individual ambitions. Join with other innovators and optimists to reach
| goals both personal and global.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> |5. Diversity.
> |
> | Diversity and adaptability are crucial for survival in a changing
> |universe. Accept no school of thought that would seek to limit the
> |diversity or extent of your achievements. Accept people of all beliefs,
> |religions, and backgrounds, so long as they do not seek to constrain you
> |or others that do not share their perspective.
>
> Slightly shorter and more general.
Yes, that's much better.
> Alex suggestion that we add a
> note that the principles must evolve is a good one.
Yes, that's an excellent suggestion, IMO. After all, we cannot possibly
hope to conjur up TrPs that will suffice for all time --- no inside line
on the future! Rather than a note, perhaps this is important enough to
be Principle 6:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| 6. Evolution.
| These Transhuman Principles cannot hope to address the needs of
| Transhumanity beyond the horizons sighted by their authors. It is
| therefore in the spirit of Transhumanism that these Principles should
| evolve with time and need. The authors advise only one caution:
| that any modification of the Principles that results in greater
| constraints on transhuman activity be viewed with extreme suspicion.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
How's that? (:-) Yes, this is an important Principle. We are admitting
our unavoidably limited perspectives, and those of >H that follow us,
and that is part and parcel of transhumanism: a bold view of a future
of possibilities that raises a gleam in our eyes, but which will always
be superceded by a future beyond the wildest dreams of the day, every day.
> I hope you excuse my prose-polishing, but I think it is very important
> that the form of the message *helps* the content, not the reverse.
I think that your simplifications and those of everyone else are accurate
and extremely valuable. Heap on the polish! (:-)
Rich.
--
########### Dr. Rich Artym ================ PGP public key available
# galacta # Internet: rich@galacta.demon.co.uk DNS 158.152.156.137
# ->demon # rich@mail.g7exm[.uk].ampr.org DNS 44.131.164.1
# ->ampr # NTS/BBS : g7exm@gb7msw.#33.gbr.eu
# ->nexus # Fun : Unix, X, TCP/IP, OSI, kernel, O-O, C++, Soft/Eng
# ->NTS # More fun: Regional IP Coordinator Hertfordshire + N.London
########### Q'Quote : "Object type is a detail of its implementation."
From ???@??? Wed Jan 03 19:35:06 1996
Return-Path:
Received: from us.itd.umich.edu by mail6 (8.6.12/Netcom)
id AAA02367; Wed, 3 Jan 1996 00:27:06 -0800
Received: from ren.us.itd.umich.edu by us.itd.umich.edu (8.7.1/2.2)
with ESMTP id DAA15088; Wed, 3 Jan 1996 03:30:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: by ren.us.itd.umich.edu (8.7.1/dumb-1.0)
id DAA07892; Wed, 3 Jan 1996 03:28:48 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 03:28:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Alex Bokov
X-Sender: alexboko@ren.us.itd.umich.edu
To: rich@galacta.demon.co.uk
cc: Alexander Chislenko ,
Anders Sandberg ,
"Mark A. Plus" <103216.1163@compuserve.com>,
Romana Machado ,
Christopher T Brown
Subject: Re: Transhumanist Principles, revised.
In-Reply-To: <199601021713.RAA09737@galacta.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
On Tue, 2 Jan 1996, Dr. Rich Artym wrote:
> > |1. No more limits!
> > | Strive to remove all limits (1) on Humanity (2). Spread and
> > |nurture Life and Humanity everywhere in the universe where it can thrive.
> > ...
> > |NOTES
> > |
> > |1. Transhumanism strives to remove evolved limits of our biological
> > |and intellectual inheritance, the physical limits of our environment
> > |and our universe, and the cultural and historical limits of society that
> > |constrain individual and collective progress.
>
>
> This is an excellent idea! Far from not liking simplification of what
> I write, I am all in favour of it --- I am very conscious that in trying
> to be exacting, I err by writing in a complex manner that requires more
> than a single scan to disentangle. Some have said to me that my day as
> a writer will come when I can converse with AIs in a list-structured
> language. (:-) Be that as it may, Anders' factoring out of my definition
> of "limits" from within Principle 1 is an immense improvement.
I like it too.
> > > What about mentioning the destructive anti-individualistic memes?
> >
> > This sounds like a good footnote, maybe with hyperlinks to discussion
> > (like Nick Szabo's page about "Green Goo").
>
> Good idea. Perhaps the Principle itself could define the categories
> of destructive meme, and the corresponding NOTE could elaborate on each
> of the categories.
How's this:
__________________________________________________________________________
|3. Infectious ideas.
| Continuously spread transhumanist ideas (as summarized in these
|principles) using every means possible. Vaccinate society against
|anti-humanism, technophobia, coercion, and other destructive ideologies.
I got rid of the schools & internet reference, as it is obvious in
our time, and will be dated in the future. Put in a 'backlink' to the
transhumanist principles-- i see absolutely nothing wrong with
self-reference. As you pointed out, language is more forgiving in
structure than programming. I put in coercion as a specific ideology to
look out for.
Two caveats regarding anti-coercion:
A) It is a necessary but not sufficient >H principle. Imagine this-- a
movement that opposes coercion _and_ opposes technology. Maybe we agree
coercion is bad, but that still doesn' make them transhumanists or even
allies. Such people are memetic _competitors_. I would certainly tolerate
them, but i would also cheerfully employ every non-coercive strategy in
the book to oppose them.
B) In our opposition to coercion, let's be careful not to segue into
'turning the other cheek'. Self-defense is _not_ coercion. If someone uses
or threatens force against us, i should hope we quickly, cleanly, and
decisively respond to that threat in a manner that thoroughly prevents
future threats from that entity and conveys a warning others.
This is why i seemed hesitant on the coercion issue, and i feel a
lot better about the whole thing now that i figured out what was bothering
me. I was going to propose a 7th principle to deal with this, but i've
been writing this message all day, and i'm getting tired of it. Where
would you incoroporate the above concerns?
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> | 4. Achievement.
> | There can be no progress without achievement.
Close to being a tautology.
> | Whether seeking health, fitness, or intellectual goals, or financial or
> | social success or political accomplishment, boldly strive to achieve your
> | individual ambitions. Join with other innovators and optimists to reach
> | goals both personal and global.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
How about an even slimmer version?
_________________________________________________________________________
| 4. Achievement.
| Boldly strive to achieve your individual ambitions. Network with
| transhumanists and other optimists and innovators to reach goals both
| personal and global.
_________________________________________________________________________
I put network in the place of join because it sounds less vague
and 'touchy-feely'. It conveys a productive, active, efficient attitude.
For the record though, Rich, being a winner doesn't imply there
have to be losers. If it's a zero-sum game, then there are losers.
Otherwise, there don't have to be. In either case, it's better to be a
winner than a loser. Moot point now, i guess.
> > |5. Diversity.
> > |
> > | Diversity and adaptability are crucial for survival in a changing
> > |universe. Accept no school of thought that would seek to limit the
> > |diversity or extent of your achievements. Accept people of all beliefs,
> > |religions, and backgrounds, so long as they do not seek to constrain you
> > |or others that do not share their perspective.
> >
> > Slightly shorter and more general.
>
> Yes, that's much better.
Yes, but can we have it apply more to transhumanism per se? Note that this
statement also self references, and again, that's perfectly okay. Our
readers will not get locked into a loop. 8-)
___________________________________________________________________________
| 5. Diversity.
| Diversity and adaptability are crucial for survival in a changing
| universe. Everyone who agrees with these principles (including
| opposition to coercion) is welcomed as a transhumanist, regardless of
| religion, creed, political affiliation, etc.
___________________________________________________________________________
> > Alex suggestion that we add a
> > note that the principles must evolve is a good one.
Not my suggestion as far as i remember, but i do think it's a good one.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> | 6. Evolution.
> | These Transhuman Principles cannot hope to address the needs of
> | Transhumanity beyond the horizons sighted by their authors. It is
> | therefore in the spirit of Transhumanism that these Principles should
> | evolve with time and need. The authors advise only one caution:
> | that any modification of the Principles that results in greater
> | constraints on transhuman activity be viewed with extreme suspicion.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> How's that? (:-) Yes, this is an important Principle. We are admitting
> our unavoidably limited perspectives, and those of >H that follow us,
> and that is part and parcel of transhumanism: a bold view of a future
> of possibilities that raises a gleam in our eyes, but which will always
> be superceded by a future beyond the wildest dreams of the day, every day.
This can probably be made shorter. Otherwise, well said.
> > I hope you excuse my prose-polishing, but I think it is very important
> > that the form of the message *helps* the content, not the reverse.
>
> I think that your simplifications and those of everyone else are accurate
> and extremely valuable. Heap on the polish! (:-)
Hmmm... this certainly is beginning to center around language and nuance.
Perhaps it will be ready for plenary discussion on the list sometime soon.
By the way, the people who aren't speaking up-- is that because you're
okay with this so far, or are you just busy? I understand in either case,
just wondering.
--Sincerely, Alex F. Bokov
http://www.us.itd.umich.edu/~alexboko/mlist.html
Also, try 'finger uid=alexboko@umich.edu'
My opinions do not reflect those of my employer.
From ???@??? Wed Jan 03 19:39:38 1996
Return-Path:
Received: from hemul.nada.kth.se by mail5 (8.6.12/Netcom)
id EAA12855; Wed, 3 Jan 1996 04:42:42 -0800
Received: (from nv91-asa@localhost)
by hemul.nada.kth.se (8.6.10/8.6.9)
id NAA14691;
Wed, 3 Jan 1996 13:45:42 +0100
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 13:45:42 +0100 (MET)
From: Anders Sandberg
To: Alex Bokov
cc: rich@galacta.demon.co.uk, Alexander Chislenko ,
"Mark A. Plus" <103216.1163@compuserve.com>,
Romana Machado ,
Christopher T Brown
Subject: Re: Transhumanist Principles, revised.
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
On Wed, 3 Jan 1996, Alex Bokov wrote:
> How about an even slimmer version?
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> | 4. Achievement.
> | Boldly strive to achieve your individual ambitions. Network with
> | transhumanists and other optimists and innovators to reach goals both
> | personal and global.
> _________________________________________________________________________
>
> I put network in the place of join because it sounds less vague
> and 'touchy-feely'. It conveys a productive, active, efficient attitude.
I think you have learned from my language-polishing! :-) This is a quite
good formulation, it sounds very optimistic.
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > | 6. Evolution.
> > | These Transhuman Principles cannot hope to address the needs of
> > | Transhumanity beyond the horizons sighted by their authors. It is
> > | therefore in the spirit of Transhumanism that these Principles should
> > | evolve with time and need. The authors advise only one caution:
> > | that any modification of the Principles that results in greater
> > | constraints on transhuman activity be viewed with extreme suspicion.
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > How's that? (:-) Yes, this is an important Principle. We are admitting
> > our unavoidably limited perspectives, and those of >H that follow us,
> > and that is part and parcel of transhumanism: a bold view of a future
> > of possibilities that raises a gleam in our eyes, but which will always
> > be superceded by a future beyond the wildest dreams of the day, every day.
>
> This can probably be made shorter. Otherwise, well said.
This is quite good as it is, I can't find any easy way to shorten it.
Since it is the last or penultimate principle it doesn't have to be as
short and elegant as the previous ones. I especially like the caution, it
gives the principles a kind of introspective ability.
> Hmmm... this certainly is beginning to center around language and nuance.
> Perhaps it will be ready for plenary discussion on the list sometime soon.
Yes, I think it is time now. Lets present the principles!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension!
nv91-asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~nv91-asa/main.html
GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
From ???@??? Wed Jan 03 20:00:29 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by netcom.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom)
id LAA03662; Wed, 3 Jan 1996 11:22:04 -0800
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 11:22:04 -0800
From: sasha1 (Alexander Chislenko)
Message-Id: <199601031922.LAA03662@netcom.netcom.com>
To: alexboko@umich.edu, rich@galacta.demon.co.uk
Subject: Re: Transhumanist Principles, revised.
Cc: 103216.1163@compuserve.com, madgnome@umich.edu, nv91-asa@nada.kth.se,
romana@fqa.com, sasha1@netcom.com
Status: O
Sorry for not taking part earlier - I was swamped with I put network in the place of join because it sounds less vague
>and 'touchy-feely'. It conveys a productive, active, efficient attitude.
I think I would like to see old-fashioned "cooperate" here instead of
"network" as it seems to carry the meanings more directly.
___________________________________________________________________________
| 5. Diversity.
| Diversity and adaptability are crucial for survival in a changing
| universe. Everyone who agrees with these principles (including
| opposition to coercion) is welcomed as a transhumanist, regardless of
| religion, creed, political affiliation, etc.
___________________________________________________________________________
Can we replace "religion" with "their belief[ system]s" here?
It seems more general, and I do not like the idea of giving religious
beliefs any special status here.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> | 6. Evolution.
> | These Transhuman Principles cannot hope to address the needs of
> | Transhumanity beyond the horizons sighted by their authors. It is
> | therefore in the spirit of Transhumanism that these Principles should
> | evolve with time and need. The authors advise only one caution:
> | that any modification of the Principles that results in greater
> | constraints on transhuman activity be viewed with extreme suspicion.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
I think this one may use a little more polishing, especially the last
sentence.
In general, these principles stress movement forward, individual liberty
and cooperation, but do not say much about what exactly we see ourselves
and the society doing in the future.
I would use the word 'draft' when presenting the principles to the TH and
extropian lists, and wait for feedback before sharing them further.
-----------------------------------------------------------
| Alexander Chislenko | sasha1@netcom.com | Cambridge, MA |
| Home page: http://www.lucifer.com/~sasha/home.html |
-----------------------------------------------------------
From ???@??? Sat Jan 06 17:27:02 1996
Return-Path:
Received: from us.itd.umich.edu by mail (8.6.12/Netcom)
id OAA27659; Sat, 6 Jan 1996 14:08:49 -0800
Received: by us.itd.umich.edu (8.7.1/2.2)
id RAA18136; Sat, 6 Jan 1996 17:10:52 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 1996 17:10:52 -0500 (EST)
From: Alex Bokov
X-Sender: alexboko@stimpy.us.itd.umich.edu
To: cAlexander Chislenko ,
Anders Sandberg ,
"Mark A. Plus" <103216.1163@compuserve.com>,
Romana Machado ,
Christopher T Brown , rich@galacta.demon.co.uk
Subject: Re: Transhumanist Principles
In-Reply-To: <199601040942.JAA21743@galacta.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Summary: i'm going to put my agenda out in the open, point out some
mistakes that i/we have been making, apologize for them, and announce my
decision to be only silently involved in this discussion for a while.
I. My agenda, up front.
Here is what i came into this wanting to see. I should have stated
my position clearly from the start, but better late than never. Listed in
order of priority.
a. To strongly emphasize a pro-human (as per our expanded definition) and
pro-technology stance.
b. To integrate a call to action in some way, so that we won't become just
another ivory-tower debating club. That's why i put in all that stuff
about spreading memes and vaccination.
c. To stay firmly grounded in practicality. Not to take things to absurd
extremes. This especially goes for the danger of getting 'tolerant' to the
point of complacency and even submissiveness.
d. Not to offend the individualist majority. *NOR* however, to alientate
>Hs that are voluntary non-individualists: liberals, 'Borgs', elitists (i
know for a fact at least a couple are quietly in support of us on our
list). To do so would be redundant with Extropianism, which is one type of
transhumanism, but not the only one.
e. To keep everything brief and easy to remember.
II. Mistakes.
First of all, i overstepped my bounds by writing up a draft. I
should have instead asked people to state their individual agendae, like
i've done in Section I. Then we could have all built the principles from
the ground up. Better still, various sub-currents of transhumanism could
write up separate statements the common points of which would be
summarized as the Transhumanist Principles.
Secondly, there are dangers to doing this sort of thing in a
private discussion. Maybe i should have at least called for volunteers
instead of just mailing a bunch of people on my own initiative.
Furthermore, this doesn't have to be as deep a debate as it's
becoming. We here have many common goals and values whether or not anyone
agree on a rigorous, exhaustive definition. Otherwise we wouldn't be
talking. Maybe the focus ought to be on the more attainable goal of what
to say, in 200 words or less, when someone asks "What's transhumanism?".
Finally, i confess to excessive zeal in trying to push through my
goals from Section I. I still believe that everything i outlined there is
vitally important, but i was wrong in trying to get my way at the expense
of earnest consensus building.
I apologize for these mistakes. Now we are all aware of them, and
hopefully this will keep them from recurring. It's not too late to correct
these problems, or start from scratch, or just do things differently in
the next version.
III. Vacation.
I have this tendency to obsess over every detail to the detriment
of the bigger picture. The above mistakes tell me this is where i'm headed
now. Therefore i'm going to shut up for a while, keep reading the
messages, let the debate take its course, and do my best to support the
final product, at least until the next revision.
I hope you seriously consider the agenda in section I. and the
problems in section II. Exelsior.
--Sincerely, Alex F. Bokov
http://www.us.itd.umich.edu/~alexboko/mlist.html
Also, try 'finger uid=alexboko@umich.edu'
My opinions do not reflect those of my employer.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 07 21:29:00 1996
Return-Path:
Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net by mail6 (8.6.12/Netcom)
id SAA15869; Sun, 7 Jan 1996 18:11:06 -0800
Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net
id ad03505; 8 Jan 96 2:11 GMT
Received: from galacta.demon.co.uk ([158.152.156.137]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net
id aa27915; 8 Jan 96 2:10 GMT
Received: (from rartym@localhost) by galacta.demon.co.uk (8.6.9/v3.0) id BAA20321; Mon, 8 Jan 1996 01:47:41 GMT
From: "Dr. Rich Artym"
Message-Id: <199601080147.BAA20321@galacta.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Transhumanist Principles
To: Alex Bokov , Alexander Chislenko ,
Anders Sandberg ,
"Mark A. Plus" <103216.1163@compuserve.com>,
Romana Machado ,
Christopher T Brown ,
Nancie Clark
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 1996 01:47:37 +0000 (GMT)
Reply-To: rich@galacta.demon.co.uk
In-Reply-To: from "Alex Bokov" at Jan 6, 96 05:10:52 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 8687
Hi folks! [And Hi to Nancie who's just joined us.]
In message
Alex writes:
> Summary: i'm going to put my agenda out in the open, point out some
> mistakes that i/we have been making, apologize for them, and announce my
> decision to be only silently involved in this discussion for a while.
Alex, I think you've done a terrific job of coordinating our efforts at
creating this initial draft of the Transhuman Principles, and IMO you've
succeeded in most of the goals that you presented in your latest post.
There may be one or two small areas where it doesn't quite tally with
what you originally intended (and that goes for all of us, I'm sure),
but on the whole, there's no reason to feel disheartened. For a mere
draft, it's a jolly good product, I reckon.
It's true that we all come to the job from slightly different angles,
not surprising in a group of individualists, but there is such a huge
degree of commonality between us that focussing on individual "agendas"
may not be quite right, as it suggests that substantial differences exist.
> I. My agenda, up front.
>
> Here is what i came into this wanting to see. I should have stated
> my position clearly from the start, but better late than never. Listed in
> order of priority.
>
> a. To strongly emphasize a pro-human (as per our expanded definition) and
> pro-technology stance.
Well, we started off with the "no limits" Principle, but I don't think
that there was any strong sense of priority among the 1..6 numbering.
Every one of our Principles was pro-human as far as I can see --- ie.
they each promote some human value, never values that could be conceived
as non-human or abstract (eg. growth, profit, extropy).
> b. To integrate a call to action in some way, so that we won't become just
> another ivory-tower debating club. That's why i put in all that stuff
> about spreading memes and vaccination.
It's got to be balanced, since within a >H community only a small minority
of >H folks will be educators; the majority will be doing all the other
things that >H life will involve, like exploring the galaxy, building
habitats, protecting against Guy Fawkes and other such. (:-) Perhaps
there is room for two different types of document: first, Principles
that underpin transhuman existence in all its forms, and second, Action
Plans for educators/promotors of TH, continually evolving to meet the
needs of the day, strongly focussed on defeating the anti-TH forces.
That would be very effective, I think. You can't really put that in
the Transhuman Principles though, as far as I can see: after all,
they're PRINCIPLES, ie. fundamental beliefs and concepts of TH. It's
hard to see (for me) how a call to action is a fundamental concept of TH.
Having said that, Alex provided the list with an excellent action plan
in the ">H Action" thread on the 2nd January, not ivory-tower stuff at
all. It was of course concerned with the spreading of the various memes
defined in our Principles, so I think we've got it right.
> c. To stay firmly grounded in practicality. Not to take things to absurd
> extremes. This especially goes for the danger of getting 'tolerant' to the
> point of complacency and even submissiveness.
Plans for action have to be practical, always, or no action will occur,
but are you suggesting that we prescribe practicality in the Principles?
I would like that very much since I come from the Scientific Empiricism
camp and I always like to give the scientific method pride of place.
However, this could well alienate the less practical >H groups, and the
issue of prescription doesn't really sit well with individual freedom.
Regarding tolerance, I think the Principles as they stand at present
match up to your agenda well; after all, by stressing non-coercive
coexistence and individual freedom, the Principles really say "I only
tolerate you as long as you don't affect me". That doesn't sound
complacent and submissive to me; if anything, it's hard and cold!
> d. Not to offend the individualist majority. *NOR* however, to alientate
> >Hs that are voluntary non-individualists: liberals, 'Borgs', elitists (i
> know for a fact at least a couple are quietly in support of us on our
> list). To do so would be redundant with Extropianism, which is one type of
> transhumanism, but not the only one.
Yup, the Principles handle this agenda point excellently. Individual
freedom means that strict individualists have what they want, and
collectivists have the freedom to do what they want, and the two can
coexist side by side in perfect harmony. (:-) Couldn't be better!
> e. To keep everything brief and easy to remember.
Heh! Between Alex and Anders, my complex statements got whittled
down to a fraction of their former glory. (:-) It was sorely needed!
> II. Mistakes.
>
> First of all, i overstepped my bounds by writing up a draft. I
> should have instead asked people to state their individual agendae, like
> i've done in Section I. Then we could have all built the principles from
> the ground up. Better still, various sub-currents of transhumanism could
> write up separate statements the common points of which would be
> summarized as the Transhumanist Principles.
If you had done it this way, I think you would have found it very much
more difficult to find common ground, because there is a difference
between agendas in transhuman life and principles of transhumanism.
The principles of transhumanism provide the goals for individual agendas.
Consequently, it would have been an indirect approach at discovering the
principles, whereas in our little group we went straight for the jugular
in a very focussed way. I think your approach was correct, Alex.
> Secondly, there are dangers to doing this sort of thing in a
> private discussion. Maybe i should have at least called for volunteers
> instead of just mailing a bunch of people on my own initiative.
Seconded. This has always worried me. Just to recap though, we were
producing merely the initial draft version; it's not as if we're going
to push it through. After all, we will have no more say in the list
debate than anyone else. Still, it does worry me a bit, as I prefer
to do everything as openly as possible. I agree that there should have
been a call for volunteers for a working party. Hindsight is a wonderful
thing ...
> Furthermore, this doesn't have to be as deep a debate as it's
> becoming. We here have many common goals and values whether or not anyone
> agree on a rigorous, exhaustive definition. Otherwise we wouldn't be
> talking. Maybe the focus ought to be on the more attainable goal of what
> to say, in 200 words or less, when someone asks "What's transhumanism?".
The last question is important, but separate, and I think it should go
in a Transhuman FAQ. In my opinion we've struck a good balance between
readability and precision, not so sloppy that the words lose meaning and
create confusion, and not machine-rigorous which would have made them
unreadable; we even paid some attention to flow and rhythm! (:-)
> Finally, i confess to excessive zeal in trying to push through my
> goals from Section I. I still believe that everything i outlined there is
> vitally important, but i was wrong in trying to get my way at the expense
> of earnest consensus building.
>
> I apologize for these mistakes. Now we are all aware of them, and
> hopefully this will keep them from recurring. It's not too late to correct
> these problems, or start from scratch, or just do things differently in
> the next version.
I would like to state categorically that I support Alex in what he has
been doing, and I think that the product we have created is a good one,
in fact better than a draft deserves to be --- it'll get torn apart
on the list anyway. If there is anything negative arising from it,
or any reason to apologize, then I take my share of the blame as well,
but I really don't see that forthcoming. [Surely it's better that we
have created a draft within a broad working party rather than that a
single person should have created it.]
Cheer up, Alex! (:-)
Rich.
--
########### Dr. Rich Artym ================ PGP public key available
# galacta # Internet: rich@galacta.demon.co.uk DNS 158.152.156.137
# ->demon # rich@mail.g7exm[.uk].ampr.org DNS 44.131.164.1
# ->ampr # NTS/BBS : g7exm@gb7msw.#33.gbr.eu
# ->nexus # Fun : Unix, X, TCP/IP, OSI, kernel, O-O, C++, Soft/Eng
# ->NTS # More fun: Regional IP Coordinator Hertfordshire + N.London
########### Q'Quote : "Object type is a detail of its implementation."
From ???@??? Mon Jan 08 17:42:40 1996
Return-Path:
Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net by mail5 (8.6.12/Netcom)
id HAA18351; Mon, 8 Jan 1996 07:04:28 -0800
Received: by relay-4.mail.demon.net id aa14647; 8 Jan 96 12:58 GMT
Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net
id aa25021; 8 Jan 96 11:17 GMT
Received: from galacta.demon.co.uk ([158.152.156.137]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net
id aa15322; 8 Jan 96 11:15 GMT
Received: (from rartym@localhost) by galacta.demon.co.uk (8.6.9/v3.0) id LAA24519; Mon, 8 Jan 1996 11:11:34 GMT
From: "Dr. Rich Artym"
Message-Id: <199601081111.LAA24519@galacta.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Transhumanist Principles
To: Alex Bokov , Alexander Chislenko ,
Anders Sandberg ,
"Mark A. Plus" <103216.1163@compuserve.com>,
Romana Machado ,
Christopher T Brown ,
Nancie Clark
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 1996 11:11:29 +0000 (GMT)
Reply-To: rich@galacta.demon.co.uk
In-Reply-To: from "Alex Bokov" at Jan 6, 96 05:10:52 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 3578
Status: O
I'm not sure if Alex was intending to produce another summary draft of
the Principles so far, but we certainly need one as there were many
suggestions for ammendment made in the last cycle, and Nancie's arrival
in the working party requires that one be made. I've collated everyone's
latest contributions (I hope!) into something readable, enclosed below.
Note that I've made a few tentative changes in light of Alex's latest
remarks in his "agenda" article, in particular focussing on spreading
the >H ideology (using Sasha's preferred word "proliferation"), but
without making it prescriptive. I've also changed the title of that
Principle to "Memetic Expansion" in order to remove the connotations
of infection and disease, but I'm not convinced that it's the correct
choice of words. Also, I've made the grammar a little more uniform
throughout the principles, as we had a real hotch potch of imperatives
and suggestions and mixed tenses. The title of Principle 1 continues
to be a problem, although Sasha's "transcend" is getting closer, IMO.
Needless to say, all blame for it not being representative of the group's
position is mine.
==========================================================================
Transhuman Principles 1.0a - DRAFT (group focus document).
1. Transcend!
Strive to remove the evolved limits of our biological and
intellectual inheritance, the physical limits of our environment, and
the cultural and historical limits of society that constrain individual
and collective progress.
2. Pragmatism.
Use whatever tools prove effective toward this goal. Technology,
and the intellectual disciplines used to develop it, are currently among
the most effective such tools.
3. Memetic expansion.
Support the proliferation of transhumanist principles and goals,
consciously setting an example that others may follow or promoting the
principles of transhumanism directly. Spread awareness of the dangers of
technophobia, coercion, anti-humanism and other destructive ideologies.
4. Achievement.
Whether seeking health, fitness, intellectual goals, or financial
or social success or political accomplishment, strive to achieve your
individual ambitions. Cooperate with other innovators and optimists to
reach goals both personal and global.
5. Diversity.
Promote human diversity and adaptability in an ever-changing
universe. Accept all schools of thought that do not seek to limit the
diversity or extent of your achievements. Accept people of all beliefs
and backgrounds, except those seeking to impose their will or ideology
through coercion.
6. Evolution.
These Transhuman Principles cannot hope to address the needs
of Transhumanity beyond the horizons sighted by their authors. It is
therefore in the spirit of Transhumanism that these Principles should
evolve with time and need. The authors advise only one caution:
that any modification of the Principles that results in greater
constraints on transhuman activity be viewed with extreme suspicion.
==========================================================================
Cheers!
Rich.
--
########### Dr. Rich Artym ================ PGP public key available
# galacta # Internet: rich@galacta.demon.co.uk DNS 158.152.156.137
# ->demon # rich@mail.g7exm[.uk].ampr.org DNS 44.131.164.1
# ->ampr # NTS/BBS : g7exm@gb7msw.#33.gbr.eu
# ->nexus # Fun : Unix, X, TCP/IP, OSI, kernel, O-O, C++, Soft/Eng
# ->NTS # More fun: Regional IP Coordinator Hertfordshire + N.London
########### Q'Quote : "Object type is a detail of its implementation."
From ???@??? Mon Jan 08 17:42:43 1996
Return-Path:
Received: from nair.nada.kth.se by mail5 (8.6.12/Netcom)
id HAA19603; Mon, 8 Jan 1996 07:07:00 -0800
Received: (from nv91-asa@localhost)
by nair.nada.kth.se (8.6.10/8.6.9)
id NAA12086;
Mon, 8 Jan 1996 13:29:06 +0100
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 1996 13:29:06 +0100 (MET)
From: Anders Sandberg
To: rich@galacta.demon.co.uk
cc: Alex Bokov , Alexander Chislenko ,
"Mark A. Plus" <103216.1163@compuserve.com>,
Romana Machado ,
Christopher T Brown ,
Nancie Clark
Subject: Re: Transhumanist Principles
In-Reply-To: <199601080147.BAA20321@galacta.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
On Mon, 8 Jan 1996, Dr. Rich Artym wrote:
> Hi folks! [And Hi to Nancie who's just joined us.]
Welcome!
> In message
> Alex writes:
>
> > Summary: i'm going to put my agenda out in the open, point out some
> > mistakes that i/we have been making, apologize for them, and announce my
> > decision to be only silently involved in this discussion for a while.
>
> Alex, I think you've done a terrific job of coordinating our efforts at
> creating this initial draft of the Transhuman Principles, and IMO you've
> succeeded in most of the goals that you presented in your latest post.
I agree completely! The results may not have been entirely what you
intended, but I think they are useful.
> Perhaps
> there is room for two different types of document: first, Principles
> that underpin transhuman existence in all its forms, and second, Action
> Plans for educators/promotors of TH, continually evolving to meet the
> needs of the day, strongly focussed on defeating the anti-TH forces.
> That would be very effective, I think. You can't really put that in
> the Transhuman Principles though, as far as I can see: after all,
> they're PRINCIPLES, ie. fundamental beliefs and concepts of TH. It's
> hard to see (for me) how a call to action is a fundamental concept of TH.
I think it is a good idea dividing the principles and a call for action -
the principles support the action plan and leads naturally to it, the
action plan is directed by the principles.
> > II. Mistakes.
> >
> > First of all, i overstepped my bounds by writing up a draft. I
> > should have instead asked people to state their individual agendae, like
> > i've done in Section I. Then we could have all built the principles from
> > the ground up. Better still, various sub-currents of transhumanism could
> > write up separate statements the common points of which would be
> > summarized as the Transhumanist Principles.
>
> If you had done it this way, I think you would have found it very much
> more difficult to find common ground, because there is a difference
> between agendas in transhuman life and principles of transhumanism.
> The principles of transhumanism provide the goals for individual agendas.
> Consequently, it would have been an indirect approach at discovering the
> principles, whereas in our little group we went straight for the jugular
> in a very focussed way. I think your approach was correct, Alex.
Sometimes one has to overstep one's bounds to get anything done. Democracy
limits the risks of abuse, but isn't terribly efficient. If Alex had not
written such a good initial draft, it would never have survived our
semantic claws anyway... :-)
> > Secondly, there are dangers to doing this sort of thing in a
> > private discussion. Maybe i should have at least called for volunteers
> > instead of just mailing a bunch of people on my own initiative.
>
> Seconded. This has always worried me. Just to recap though, we were
> producing merely the initial draft version; it's not as if we're going
> to push it through. After all, we will have no more say in the list
> debate than anyone else. Still, it does worry me a bit, as I prefer
> to do everything as openly as possible. I agree that there should have
> been a call for volunteers for a working party. Hindsight is a wonderful
> thing ...
Yes, that is why we should publish the draft on the list ASAP, we have
done more than enough of discussion here (remember: no ivory towers!).
> > Furthermore, this doesn't have to be as deep a debate as it's
> > becoming. We here have many common goals and values whether or not anyone
> > agree on a rigorous, exhaustive definition. Otherwise we wouldn't be
> > talking. Maybe the focus ought to be on the more attainable goal of what
> > to say, in 200 words or less, when someone asks "What's transhumanism?".
>
> The last question is important, but separate, and I think it should go
> in a Transhuman FAQ.
Good idea! For that document we could use what we have learned from this
work.
> I would like to state categorically that I support Alex in what he has
> been doing, and I think that the product we have created is a good one,
> in fact better than a draft deserves to be --- it'll get torn apart
> on the list anyway. If there is anything negative arising from it,
> or any reason to apologize, then I take my share of the blame as well,
> but I really don't see that forthcoming.
I stand behind the draft too, Alex.
> [Surely it's better that we
> have created a draft within a broad working party rather than that a
> single person should have created it.]
A kind of pyramidal development process? Person A creates a draft that is
modified/discussed by a small group B, that sends it for discussion in the
larger group C before making it public so that everybody can discuss it.
Might be interesting to explore as a working paradigm.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension!
nv91-asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~nv91-asa/main.html
GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
From ???@??? Mon Jan 08 17:58:48 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by netcom.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom)
id IAA28971; Mon, 8 Jan 1996 08:09:23 -0800
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 1996 08:09:23 -0800
From: sasha1 (Alexander Chislenko)
Message-Id: <199601081609.IAA28971@netcom.netcom.com>
To: 103216.1163@compuserve.com, alexboko@umich.edu, flexeon@primenet.com,
madgnome@umich.edu, nv91-asa@nada.kth.se, rich@galacta.demon.co.uk,
romana@fqa.com, sasha1@netcom.com
Subject: Re: Transhumanist Principles
Status: O
I think the draft is quite ready to be posted on the list, with a little
foreword explaining how it came to life and inviting further discussion.
Any of us can do it, but think it should come from Alex who initiated
and coordinated this work.
It does not surprise me that a general version of the Principles may
not exactly reflect somebody's opinion. It will reflect the opinions off
all active >H folks to a certain extent, and represent them to the outside
world. After that, each of us may publish his or her own principles, and
criticism of the general document from a personal point of view.
-----------------------------------------------------------
| Alexander Chislenko | sasha1@netcom.com | Cambridge, MA |
| Home page: http://www.lucifer.com/~sasha/home.html |
-----------------------------------------------------------
From ???@??? Mon Jan 08 18:10:21 1996
Return-Path:
Received: from po.nada.kth.se by mail6 (8.6.12/Netcom)
id JAA13351; Mon, 8 Jan 1996 09:20:45 -0800
Received: (from nv91-asa@localhost)
by po.nada.kth.se (8.6.10/8.6.9)
id SAA10333;
Mon, 8 Jan 1996 18:23:45 +0100
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 1996 18:23:45 +0100 (MET)
From: Anders Sandberg
To: Alexander Chislenko
cc: 103216.1163@compuserve.com, alexboko@umich.edu, flexeon@primenet.com,
madgnome@umich.edu, rich@galacta.demon.co.uk, romana@fqa.com,
sasha1@netcom.com
Subject: Re: Transhumanist Principles
In-Reply-To: <199601081609.IAA28971@netcom.netcom.com>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Mon, 8 Jan 1996, Alexander Chislenko wrote:
> I think the draft is quite ready to be posted on the list, with a little
> foreword explaining how it came to life and inviting further discussion.
> Any of us can do it, but think it should come from Alex who initiated
> and coordinated this work.
Go Alex, go! :-)
> It does not surprise me that a general version of the Principles may
> not exactly reflect somebody's opinion. It will reflect the opinions off
> all active >H folks to a certain extent, and represent them to the outside
> world. After that, each of us may publish his or her own principles, and
> criticism of the general document from a personal point of view.
I'm itching to publish a web version, with hyperlinks to notes and
everything. When/if I do that, I would only be happy to add comments from
various people to linked pages.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension!
nv91-asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~nv91-asa/main.html
GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
From ???@??? Mon Jan 08 18:13:58 1996
Return-Path:
Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net by mail6 (8.6.12/Netcom)
id MAA01876; Mon, 8 Jan 1996 13:00:00 -0800
Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net
id ad16979; 8 Jan 96 20:57 GMT
Received: from galacta.demon.co.uk ([158.152.156.137]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net
id aa01718; 8 Jan 96 20:55 GMT
Received: (from rartym@localhost) by galacta.demon.co.uk (8.6.9/v3.0) id TAA27533; Mon, 8 Jan 1996 19:58:04 GMT
From: "Dr. Rich Artym"
Message-Id: <199601081958.TAA27533@galacta.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Transhumanist Principles
To: Alex Bokov , Alexander Chislenko ,
Anders Sandberg ,
"Mark A. Plus" <103216.1163@compuserve.com>,
Romana Machado ,
Christopher T Brown ,
Nancie Clark
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 1996 19:58:00 +0000 (GMT)
Reply-To: rich@galacta.demon.co.uk
In-Reply-To: from "Romana Machado" at Jan 8, 96 08:06:29 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 3627
I'm happy with the latest draft after Romana's modifications are added.
Re Sasha's comments about presentation to the list, it might be seen as
promoting openess if we make all of our discussion mail available to
anyone that may want to see the reasoning behind the concepts and wording
of the draft. I can put together an archive package of the entire set if
this is felt to be useful, available on demand. (I don't think it's of
much use, but it might show openess.)
I suspect that Nancie is probably in the process of providing us with some
feedback, which might be a useful indicator of what's to come on the list
since she's coming to it cold, without the background of our discussions.
In message , Romana writes:
> 1. "Individual and collective" may be dropped before progress - after all,
> what *other* kinds of progress exist? If we wish to emphasize the
> individual, we should do it elsewhere.
Good point. I think we should take conscious note that we have not
created a Principle explicitly devoted to individual freedom, but instead
have spread the idea around. That may have been a mistake.
> 3. May I suggest "memetic propagation" instead of "memetic expansion"? This
> phrase preserves the biological metaphor without the connotations of
> infection and disease that Rich mentioned.
Yes, that describes it more accurately.
> 4. Achievement. The prescription for cooperation may be too indiscriminate.
> I prefer the direct alternative to the indirect alternative. When I work
> through or with others, I'm careful to see that my effort is amplified,
> because it can just as easily be diluted. I pay careful attention to the
> choice of who I choose to work with, and how I choose to work with them.
> This is a form of pragmatism.
Would it be sufficient to specify cooperation with other transhumans,
or should we narrow it even further in some way? "Amplify" is a good
word, IMO --- I like the notion that cooperation amplifies the efforts of
individuals that share common goals, ie. a non-collective interpretation
of cooperation. Any suggestions for a replacement sentence?
> 5. How about "variety" instead of "diversity"? "Diversity" is overused
> everywhere nowadays.
Variety sounds good in the body of the Principle, but perhaps Diversity
can be left in the title; "Variety" isn't quite as good a banner line,
I feel, but I'm nit-picking.
> 6."Sighted" should be "seen". Strike "It is therefore in the spirit of
> Transhumanism that". Strike "The authors advise only one caution: that"
> This bit is beginning to sound pompous. How about "Resist any change in the
> principles that limits transhuman activity."
Yeah, it sounds awful, who wrote that lousy stuff? Oh yeah, it was me. (:-)
> #6 chops down to this:
> 6. Evolution.
> These principles should evolve, in order to address the needs of
> future Transhumanity; but resist any change in the principles that limits
> transhuman activity.
This shorter version works fine for me, althought the "; but" is causing
syntax errors in my English parser ... (:-) I'll survive though.
Cheers!
Rich.
--
########### Dr. Rich Artym ================ PGP public key available
# galacta # Internet: rich@galacta.demon.co.uk DNS 158.152.156.137
# ->demon # rich@mail.g7exm[.uk].ampr.org DNS 44.131.164.1
# ->ampr # NTS/BBS : g7exm@gb7msw.#33.gbr.eu
# ->nexus # Fun : Unix, X, TCP/IP, OSI, kernel, O-O, C++, Soft/Eng
# ->NTS # More fun: Regional IP Coordinator Hertfordshire + N.London
########### Q'Quote : "Object type is a detail of its implementation."
From ???@??? Mon Jan 08 21:01:40 1996
Return-Path:
Received: from us.itd.umich.edu by mail5 (8.6.12/Netcom)
id QAA02805; Mon, 8 Jan 1996 16:33:41 -0800
Received: by us.itd.umich.edu (8.7.3/2.2)
id TAA02559; Mon, 8 Jan 1996 19:36:56 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 1996 19:36:55 -0500 (EST)
From: Alex Future Bokov
X-Sender: alexboko@stimpy.us.itd.umich.edu
To: Alexander Chislenko
Subject: Re: Transhumanist Principles
In-Reply-To: <199601081609.IAA28971@netcom.netcom.com>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Mon, 8 Jan 1996, Alexander Chislenko wrote:
> I think the draft is quite ready to be posted on the list, with a little
> foreword explaining how it came to life and inviting further discussion.
> Any of us can do it, but think it should come from Alex who initiated
> and coordinated this work.
Nope. I mean what i said before. It's someone else's turn in the sun.
--Sincerely, Alex F. Bokov
http://www.us.itd.umich.edu/~alexboko/mlist.html
Also, try 'finger uid=alexboko@umich.edu'
My opinions do not reflect those of my employer.
From ???@??? Mon Jan 08 22:37:45 1996
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhost1.primenet.com by mail6 (8.6.12/Netcom)
id TAA01626; Mon, 8 Jan 1996 19:26:00 -0800
Received: from usr5.primenet.com (root@usr5.primenet.com [198.68.32.15]) by mailhost1.primenet.com (8.7.3/8.7.1) with ESMTP id UAA00626; Mon, 8 Jan 1996 20:27:10 -0700 (MST)
Received: from ip089.lax.primenet.com (ip034.lax.primenet.com [204.212.59.34]) by usr5.primenet.com (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA20828; Mon, 8 Jan 1996 20:27:01 -0700 (MST)
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 1996 20:27:01 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <199601090327.UAA20828@usr5.primenet.com>
X-Sender: flexeon@mailhost.primenet.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: sasha1@netcom.com (Alexander Chislenko), 103216.1163@compuserve.com,
alexboko@umich.edu, madgnome@umich.edu, nv91-asa@nada.kth.se,
rich@galacta.demon.co.uk, romana@fqa.com, sasha1@netcom.com
From: flexeon@primenet.com (Nancie Clark)
Subject: Re: Transhumanist Principles
At 08:09 AM 1/8/96 -0800, Alexander Chislenko wrote:
> I think the draft is quite ready to be posted on the list, with a little
>foreword explaining how it came to life and inviting further discussion.
>Any of us can do it, but think it should come from Alex who initiated
>and coordinated this work.
Yes, I agree. I'm a bit late in my response to the mock-up and my comments
went only to Alex and Rich, as the cc's were erratic.
>
> It does not surprise me that a general version of the Principles may
>not exactly reflect somebody's opinion. It will reflect the opinions off
>all active >H folks to a certain extent, and represent them to the outside
>world. After that, each of us may publish his or her own principles, and
>criticism of the general document from a personal point of view.
This is perceptive, Sasha. It will be interesting to see how each person
defines himself as a >H from individual expertise. I find that I am most
intrigued when a post comes in referencing a topic from an view unbeknownst
to me.
Nanc
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>| Alexander Chislenko | sasha1@netcom.com | Cambridge, MA |
>| Home page: http://www.lucifer.com/~sasha/home.html |
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
From ???@??? Mon Jan 08 23:09:29 1996
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhost1.primenet.com by mail (8.6.12/Netcom)
id TAA23128; Mon, 8 Jan 1996 19:39:03 -0800
Received: from usr3.primenet.com (root@usr3.primenet.com [198.68.32.13]) by mailhost1.primenet.com (8.7.3/8.7.1) with ESMTP id UAA01180; Mon, 8 Jan 1996 20:36:59 -0700 (MST)
Received: from ip089.lax.primenet.com (ip034.lax.primenet.com [204.212.59.34]) by usr3.primenet.com (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA29470; Mon, 8 Jan 1996 20:36:56 -0700 (MST)
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 1996 20:36:56 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <199601090336.UAA29470@usr3.primenet.com>
X-Sender: flexeon@mailhost.primenet.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: rich@galacta.demon.co.uk, Alex Bokov ,
Alexander Chislenko ,
Anders Sandberg ,
"Mark A. Plus" <103216.1163@compuserve.com>,
Romana Machado ,
Christopher T Brown
From: flexeon@primenet.com (Nancie Clark)
Subject: Re: Transhumanist Principles
At 07:58 PM 1/8/96 +0000, rich@galacta.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
>I suspect that Nancie is probably in the process of providing us with some
>feedback, which might be a useful indicator of what's to come on the list
>since she's coming to it cold, without the background of our discussions.
Yup, you are right. I sent a quick-fix on a couple of words and to Alex and
Rich. In summary, I think that the sketch looks good. I would stear clear
of the word *collective*. I used it once and got slammed for it. Since
then, I've grown to steer clear of it. (Especially while reading
*Bionomics*.) Diversity sounds a tad newage and its synonym variety is a
bit weak.
I did not notice optimism. Did I miss it?
Nanc
From ???@??? Mon Jan 08 23:09:39 1996
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhost1.primenet.com by mail (8.6.12/Netcom)
id TAA23490; Mon, 8 Jan 1996 19:42:09 -0800
Received: from usr4.primenet.com (root@usr4.primenet.com [198.68.32.14]) by mailhost1.primenet.com (8.7.3/8.7.1) with ESMTP id UAA01669; Mon, 8 Jan 1996 20:45:08 -0700 (MST)
Received: from ip089.lax.primenet.com (ip034.lax.primenet.com [204.212.59.34]) by usr4.primenet.com (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA04763; Mon, 8 Jan 1996 20:45:06 -0700 (MST)
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 1996 20:45:06 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <199601090345.UAA04763@usr4.primenet.com>
X-Sender: flexeon@mailhost.primenet.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: rich@galacta.demon.co.uk, Alex Bokov ,
Alexander Chislenko ,
Anders Sandberg
From: flexeon@primenet.com (Nancie Clark)
Subject: Re: Transhumanist Principles
At 11:11 AM 1/8/96 +0000, rich@galacta.demon.co.uk wrote:
(I'm getting the cc's mess together. Sorry.)
>5. Diversity.
> Promote human diversity and adaptability in an ever-changing
>universe. Accept all schools of thought that do not seek to limit the
>diversity or extent of your achievements. Accept people of all beliefs
>and backgrounds, except those seeking to impose their will or ideology
>through coercion.
Ok, here is where I think *varity*, the most obvious synonyn, would be
mundane. Since this point refers to being active in the propogation of
ideas, is there a word that is more active in concept?
Nanc
From ???@??? Mon Jan 08 23:11:00 1996
Return-Path:
Received: from netcom17.netcom.com by netcom17.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom)
id UAA19294; Mon, 8 Jan 1996 20:06:29 -0800
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960109040902.00e78924@netcom.com>
X-Sender: sasha1@netcom.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 1996 23:09:02 -0500
To: rich@galacta.demon.co.uk
From: "Alexander 'Sasha' Chislenko"
Subject: Re: Transhumanist Principles
Cc: Alex Bokov , Alexander Chislenko ,
Anders Sandberg ,
"Mark A. Plus" <103216.1163@compuserve.com>,
Romana Machado ,
Christopher T Brown ,
Nancie Clark
At 07:58 PM 1/8/96 +0000, Rich wrote:
>I'm happy with the latest draft after Romana's modifications are added.
>Re Sasha's comments about presentation to the list, it might be seen as
>promoting openess if we make all of our discussion mail available to
>anyone that may want to see the reasoning behind the concepts and wording
>of the draft. I can put together an archive package of the entire set if
>this is felt to be useful, available on demand. (I don't think it's of
>much use, but it might show openess.)
>
I think it can be quite useful - people who want to suggest changes to some
items
will have a chance to see what brought those items up, and we will not have to
repost the same arguments.
So you can put those messages together, we'll put them on the Web (I'll gladly
put them up on my site if necessary) and promise to mail to the webless folks on
demand.
Then we can post the text to the >H list.
Anybody wants to write a little foreword on the purpose of this venture?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
"The following is a draft set of >H principles put forward by [list of
people?] with the
purpose of [....]. We hope that after an open discussion on this list we
may have a first
version of the Principles. If you are interested in the history of
discussions of this draft,
you may find it at or you can ask [Rich?] to mail them to you.
T.P. Draft 0.N
1.
2........"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Do we want to put the Principles on the Web so that people may check their
progress out?
This, and mediation of the draft updates, will probably require at least one
person
responsible for it. Any takers? [ I am extremely busy these days - not
that you aren't...]
----------------------------------------------------------
Alexander 'Sasha' Chislenko
Home page: http://www.lucifer.com/~sasha/home.html
Great Thinkers page: http://www.lucifer.com/~sasha/thinkers.html
From ???@??? Mon Jan 08 23:32:15 1996
Return-Path:
Received: from netcom17.netcom.com by netcom17.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom)
id UAA22354; Mon, 8 Jan 1996 20:26:12 -0800
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960109042845.00b58968@netcom.com>
X-Sender: sasha1@netcom.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 1996 23:28:45 -0500
To: flexeon@primenet.com (Nancie Clark)
From: "Alexander 'Sasha' Chislenko"
Subject: Re: Transhumanist Principles
Cc: Alex Bokov , Alexander Chislenko ,
Anders Sandberg ,
"Mark A. Plus" <103216.1163@compuserve.com>,
Romana Machado ,
Christopher T Brown ,
rich@galacta.demon.co.uk (Rich Artym)
At 08:45 PM 1/8/96 -0700, Nancy wrote:
>
>>5. Diversity.
>> Promote human diversity and adaptability in an ever-changing
>>universe. Accept all schools of thought that do not seek to limit the
>>diversity or extent of your achievements. Accept people of all beliefs
>>and backgrounds, except those seeking to impose their will or ideology
>>through coercion.
>
>Ok, here is where I think *variety*, the most obvious synonym, would be
>mundane. Since this point refers to being active in the propagation of
>ideas, is there a word that is more active in concept?
[spelling mine]
The only relevant word that I could find in my Russian head is "versatility".
You decide if it fits.
There are two mentions of "diversity" above, BTW.
I also woudn't _accept_, e.g., a religious school of thought.
Tolerate its representatives, OK.
----------------------------------------------------------
Alexander 'Sasha' Chislenko
Home page: http://www.lucifer.com/~sasha/home.html
Great Thinkers page: http://www.lucifer.com/~sasha/thinkers.html
From ???@??? Tue Jan 09 06:34:50 1996
Return-Path:
Received: from us.itd.umich.edu by mail (8.6.12/Netcom)
id DAA07867; Tue, 9 Jan 1996 03:17:17 -0800
Received: by us.itd.umich.edu (8.7.3/2.2)
id GAA16554; Tue, 9 Jan 1996 06:17:31 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 1996 06:17:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Alex Future Bokov
X-Sender: alexboko@stimpy.us.itd.umich.edu
To: "Alexander 'Sasha' Chislenko"
Subject: Minutes for the >H principles.
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Did you say you have a complete record of our deliberations? I
have a gut feeling that it would be useful to make those available in some
manner, not only to insure openness (that's non-trivial in itself), but
also to remember exactly what we were thinking and why we came up with
what we did.
Btw, the next time we have to draft a collaborative document,
what say we all meet at lucifer.com 9999?
--Sincerely, Alex F. Bokov
http://www.us.itd.umich.edu/~alexboko/mlist.html
Also, try 'finger uid=alexboko@umich.edu'
My opinions do not reflect those of my employer.
From ???@??? Tue Jan 09 18:08:17 1996
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhost1.primenet.com by mail6 (8.6.12/Netcom)
id LAA06618; Tue, 9 Jan 1996 11:04:33 -0800
Received: from usr5.primenet.com (root@usr5.primenet.com [198.68.32.15]) by mailhost1.primenet.com (8.7.3/8.7.1) with ESMTP id LAA03705; Tue, 9 Jan 1996 11:49:54 -0700 (MST)
Received: from ip149.lax.primenet.com (ip110.lax.primenet.com [204.212.59.110]) by usr5.primenet.com (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA28863; Tue, 9 Jan 1996 11:49:34 -0700 (MST)
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 1996 11:49:34 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <199601091849.LAA28863@usr5.primenet.com>
X-Sender: flexeon@mailhost.primenet.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: "Alexander 'Sasha' Chislenko"
From: flexeon@primenet.com (Nancie Clark)
Subject: Re: Transhumanist Principles
Cc: Alex Bokov , Alexander Chislenko ,
Anders Sandberg ,
"Mark A. Plus" <103216.1163@compuserve.com>,
Romana Machado ,
Christopher T Brown ,
rich@galacta.demon.co.uk (Rich Artym)
Status: O
At 11:28 PM 1/8/96 -0500, Alexander 'Sasha' Chislenko wrote:
>At 08:45 PM 1/8/96 -0700, Nancy wrote:
>>
>>Ok, here is where I think *variety*, the most obvious synonym, would be
>>mundane. Since this point refers to being active in the propagation of
>>ideas, is there a word that is more active in concept?
>[spelling mine] ??
>
> The only relevant word that I could find in my Russian head is "versatility".
>You decide if it fits.
I like it.
>
> There are two mentions of "diversity" above, BTW.
It was a quick read - thanks.
>
> I also woudn't _accept_, e.g., a religious school of thought.
> Tolerate its representatives, OK.
You might have more tolerance than me.
Thanks,
Nancie
From ???@??? Tue Jan 09 18:08:57 1996
Return-Path:
Received: from mailx.best.com by mail6 (8.6.12/Netcom)
id MAA28241; Tue, 9 Jan 1996 12:27:09 -0800
Received: from shellx.best.com (shellx.best.com [206.86.0.11]) by mailx.best.com (950911.SGI.8.6.12.PATCH825/8.6.5) with ESMTP id UAA15279; Tue, 9 Jan 1996 20:11:14 GMT
Received: from [204.156.158.18] (fqa.vip.best.com [204.156.158.18]) by shellx.best.com (950911.SGI.8.6.12.PATCH825/8.6.5) with SMTP id MAA29630; Tue, 9 Jan 1996 12:08:51 -0800
X-Sender: fqa@best.com
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 1996 12:15:07 -0800
To: rich@galacta.demon.co.uk, Alexander Chislenko ,
"Mark A. Plus" <103216.1163@compuserve.com>,
Christopher T Brown ,
Alex Bokov , Nancie Clark ,
Anders Sandberg
From: romana@fqa.com (Romana Machado)
Subject: Re: Transhumanist Principles
Status: O
>5. Diversity.
> Promote human diversity and adaptability in an ever-changing
>universe. Accept all schools of thought that do not seek to limit the
>diversity or extent of your achievements. Accept people of all beliefs
>and backgrounds, except those seeking to impose their will or ideology
>through coercion.
>
> Promote human diversity and adaptability in an ever-changing
>universe.
How about:
"Promote human efforts to grow, change, and adapt to an ever-changing universe."
Sasha writes, regarding #5:
> I also woudn't _accept_, e.g., a religious school of thought.
> Tolerate its representatives, OK.
How about, "Tolerate people of all schools of thought that do not seek to
limit the extent or variety of your achievement. Discourage those seeking
to impose their will or ideas through coercion."
-
Romana Machado romana@fqa.com http://www.fqa.com/romana/
"Peek of the Week" at http://www.glamazon.com/
Give a "10" vote to Memorie Paige in the Ms. Metaverse Pageant:
http://www.virtualvegas.com/mm/memorie/memorie.html
From ???@??? Tue Jan 09 18:09:26 1996
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhost1.primenet.com by mail5 (8.6.12/Netcom)
id NAA16302; Tue, 9 Jan 1996 13:28:20 -0800
Received: from usr5.primenet.com (root@usr5.primenet.com [198.68.32.15]) by mailhost1.primenet.com (8.7.3/8.7.1) with ESMTP id OAA11681; Tue, 9 Jan 1996 14:26:54 -0700 (MST)
Received: from ip074.lax.primenet.com (ip047.lax.primenet.com [204.212.59.47]) by usr5.primenet.com (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA27070; Tue, 9 Jan 1996 14:26:50 -0700 (MST)
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 1996 14:26:50 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <199601092126.OAA27070@usr5.primenet.com>
X-Sender: flexeon@mailhost.primenet.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: romana@fqa.com (Romana Machado), rich@galacta.demon.co.uk,
Alexander Chislenko ,
"Mark A. Plus" <103216.1163@compuserve.com>,
Christopher T Brown ,
Alex Bokov ,
Anders Sandberg
From: flexeon@primenet.com (Nancie Clark)
Subject: Re: Transhumanist Principles
Status: O
At 12:15 PM 1/9/96 -0800, Romana Machado wrote:
>>5. Diversity.
>> Promote human diversity and adaptability in an ever-changing
>>universe. Accept all schools of thought that do not seek to limit the
>>diversity or extent of your achievements. Accept people of all beliefs
>>and backgrounds, except those seeking to impose their will or ideology
>>through coercion.
>>
>
>> Promote human diversity and adaptability in an ever-changing
>>universe.
>
>How about:
>"Promote human efforts to grow, change, and adapt to an ever-changing
universe."
This is better, yet *grow, change, and adapt* mean the just about the same
thing. I like *efforts* very much.
>
>
>Sasha writes, regarding #5:
>> I also woudn't _accept_, e.g., a religious school of thought.
>> Tolerate its representatives, OK.
>
>
>How about, "Tolerate people of all schools of thought that do not seek to
>limit the extent or variety of your achievement. Discourage those seeking
to >impose their will or ideas through coercion."
Discourage the need to impose will or ideas through coercion.
Nanc
From ???@??? Wed Jan 10 03:35:53 1996
Return-Path:
Received: from mailx.best.com by mail6 (8.6.12/Netcom)
id AAA05367; Wed, 10 Jan 1996 00:20:15 -0800
Received: from shellx.best.com (shellx.best.com [206.86.0.11]) by mailx.best.com (950911.SGI.8.6.12.PATCH825/8.6.5) with ESMTP id IAA07979; Wed, 10 Jan 1996 08:22:34 GMT
Received: from [204.156.158.18] (fqa.vip.best.com [204.156.158.18]) by shellx.best.com (950911.SGI.8.6.12.PATCH825/8.6.5) with SMTP id AAA26921; Wed, 10 Jan 1996 00:20:21 -0800
X-Sender: fqa@best.com
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 00:26:27 -0800
To: rich@galacta.demon.co.uk, Alexander Chislenko ,
"Mark A. Plus" <103216.1163@compuserve.com>,
Christopher T Brown ,
Alex Bokov ,
Anders Sandberg ,
flexeon@primenet.com (Nancie Clark)
From: romana@fqa.com (Romana Machado)
Subject: Subject: Re: Transhumanist Principles
This is better, yet *grow, change, and adapt* mean the just about the same
thing. I like *efforts* very much.
Great. Just pick one. What do the rest of you think?
>How about, "Tolerate people of all schools of thought that do not seek to
>limit the extent or variety of your achievement. Discourage those seeking
to >impose their will or ideas through coercion."
Discourage the need to impose will or ideas through coercion.
That's shorter, which is good, but I don't believe that anyone can
"discourage the needs" of other people. Needs are inner feelings. You can,
however, discourage others from *acting* on the needs that they perceive.
For example, a man gets angry, and wants to hit somebody - let's say he
kicks his dog, Spot. If someone asks the man why he kicked his dog, he'll
say, "I kicked Spot because I felt I needed to - I was angry." But the same
man with the same needs wouldn't kick his boss. Why not? because the
consequences are so bad. The man would probably lose his job! The boss,
because of his position, "discourages those seeking to impose their will"
on him.
Also, the "those" "Discourage those seeking" refers back to "people" in the
sentence immediately before it. It points to specific behavior in
relationships between people.
Let's make these principles concrete, specific, action-oriented, and short.
-
Romana Machado romana@fqa.com http://www.fqa.com/romana/
"Peek of the Week" at http://www.glamazon.com/
Give a "10" vote to Memorie Paige in the Ms. Metaverse Pageant:
http://www.virtualvegas.com/mm/memorie/memorie.html
From ???@??? Thu Jan 11 19:56:59 1996
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhost1.primenet.com by mail5 (8.6.12/Netcom)
id QAA05760; Thu, 11 Jan 1996 16:11:28 -0800
Received: from usr4.primenet.com (root@usr4.primenet.com [198.68.32.14]) by mailhost1.primenet.com (8.7.3/8.7.1) with ESMTP id RAA27258; Thu, 11 Jan 1996 17:10:49 -0700 (MST)
Received: from ip034.lax.primenet.com (ip034.lax.primenet.com [204.212.59.34]) by usr4.primenet.com (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA01639; Thu, 11 Jan 1996 17:10:42 -0700 (MST)
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 17:10:42 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <199601120010.RAA01639@usr4.primenet.com>
X-Sender: flexeon@mailhost.primenet.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: romana@fqa.com (Romana Machado), rich@galacta.demon.co.uk,
Alexander Chislenko ,
"Mark A. Plus" <103216.1163@compuserve.com>,
Christopher T Brown ,
Alex Bokov ,
Anders Sandberg
From: flexeon@primenet.com (Nancie Clark)
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Transhumanist Principles
At 07:07 AM 1/11/96 -0800, Romana Machado wrote:
>>At 12:26 AM 1/10/96 -0800, Romana Machado wrote:
>>Are *tolerate* and *coercion* really needed? It seems to be distracting
>>from our goal of cogent, terse upbeat thinking.
>
>I think they are. They are indicating the importance of consent. Consent is
>a key issue.
Yes, I agree as to consent being a key issue. I was thinking in terms of
individual freedom as being inclusive of this train of thought.
****************************************************************************
*********
Nancie Clark
FlexEon@primenet.com
http://www.primenet.com/~flexeon
Nanc-Transhumanism
"The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades."
(Timbuk3)
From ???@??? Mon Jan 15 00:17:31 1996
Return-Path:
Received: from us.itd.umich.edu by mail.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom)
id VAA26501; Sun, 14 Jan 1996 21:08:09 -0800
Received: from ren.us.itd.umich.edu by us.itd.umich.edu (8.7.3/2.2)
with ESMTP id AAA22254; Mon, 15 Jan 1996 00:08:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: by ren.us.itd.umich.edu (8.7.3/dumb-1.0)
id AAA04747; Mon, 15 Jan 1996 00:07:01 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 00:07:00 -0500 (EST)
From: Alex Future Bokov
X-Sender: alexboko@ren.us.itd.umich.edu
To: "Alexander 'Sasha' Chislenko"
Subject: transhumanist principles (oh yeah, those!)
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Um, just because i removed myself from an active role in the
debate doesn't meen it should die. After all, we had a document that was
pretty close to completion. Everyone is probably assuming that someone
else will mail out the next revision and/or take it to the transhuman
list. Now, if everyone assumed the oposite and took initiative, things
would sort themselves out much faster. One possiblity is for us all to
meet on lucifer.com 9999 once for final touches before presenting the
draft to the mailing list. We could possibly also take that opportunity
to invite a few additional people.
--Sincerely, Alex F. Bokov
http://www.us.itd.umich.edu/~alexboko/mlist.html
Also, try 'finger uid=alexboko@umich.edu'
My opinions do not reflect those of my employer.
