No, of course not Prometheus. I was just trying to do my best impersonation of him.
)
Ah well, enough funny business. The spring semester is starting and I will not be able to dedicate the necessary time to all of the questions being thrown at me on this thread. The participants of this thread did a great job in shooting down this bogie. [thumb] There are
far too many questions to be answered by one human being with unaugmented intelligence.
I hope none of you will be too disappointed in learning that bioconservative is a virtual personality. After all, we had such great fun together. Lots of great ideas have come from this mock dialog and I know that, for me personally at least, my level of understanding in a number of areas has been advanced. This thread has truly been a gem.
I tried to remain faithful to a Krauthammeresque bioconservative approach. How well I succeeded... to tell you the truth I'm not sure yet, but any comments or criticisms are appreciated as I'm sure it will add to what I've learned from this experience. In fact, I think a post game analysis of this thread is in order.
Let's see, what else.
Kudos to Aubrey, Lazarus, Elrond, Kurt, John Doe, Reason, Malchiah, Nate, Lucio, Sonia, Jeff, DDhewit, Randolfe...and a lot of other people I have probably failed to mention.
Aubrey, one of the reasons that I did not comment on you proposal is that I did not want you too read to heavily into this mock dialog. Speaking as a Transhumanist, I have a hard time finding any ethical problems with your proposal. (How do you rationally argue the "yuck factor"?) And yeah, you sort of caught me at the onset with my support of "intrinsic worth", but in actuality, this is more or less Krauthammer's position -- ie, a partial acceptance of "potentiality"??? (And as I've told Ken in PM, I felt like a slimy used car sales man trying to push potentiality on you guys. [lol] )
Kurt, way to take it to me. Sorry, I could not give you a real fighting response, but I just got hit with my first Chem homework of the semester. I agree with almost all of the points you've made. You were one of the few I saw on this thread who really questioned my "delicate equilibrium" hypothesis that I put forth on page 5. I also think (and I'm not sure if anyone mentioned this) that there is a drastic difference between life span augmentation and other types of augmentation proposed by Transhumanism. Now mind you, I support virtually every Transhumanist objective, but I think that within contemporary society life span augmentation will be easier to defend against the "delicate equilibrium" charge than other types of augmentation. I also think that remaining focused on indefinite life extension (which is one, very specific type, of Transhuman augmentation) will prove to be one of Immortalism's greatest strengths.
John Doe, you're post was in basic harmony with my own assessment of the bioconservative position. The only area that I would debate somewhat is your assumption that bioconservatism rests entirely on a Kantian ethical system. Although, for the more extreme reactionary members of the bioethics council this may be the case, member such as Krauthammer and Fukuyama can be seen as arguing for an integrated ethical system which combines Kantian ideals (yes, they still places a preeminence on them) with a consequentialist approach. However, my own understanding of Kantian ethics is still rather limited and some thing I'm looking to improve upon. I was utilizing a bare bones understanding of the Kantian system during this mock debate.
DDhewitt, I was waiting for some one to put me in my place with my equilibrium mumbojumbo.
Nate, as a Transhumanist I agree with you that appeals to "the dignity of human life" lack substance and are a distraction from the real issues. Regardless though, it will continue to be our duty as Transhumanists to remain vigilant and continue fighting through this smoke screen the bio-cons throw at us. I also agree with you that, arguing from a legitimate secular position, it is virtually impossible to avoid a consequentialist approach. The second contradiction you pointed out was actually quite clever and I'm still thinking it over in my head. Your application of consequentialist ideals on the bio-con Kantian ethical system makes their base line assumptions look ludicrious. Could you PLEASE
elaborate further on how you have identified this apparent contradiction?
Okay, I think I have said enough. One more time, great job to everyone involved! [thumb]
DonSpanton (Navigator) AKA bioconservative
P.S. -- Yes, I am still 100% Transhumanist. [lol]
Edited by bioconservative, 19 January 2005 - 08:57 PM.