You asked if we agree or see flaws. Clearly we see flaws. If I started from scratch I might make a different argument against transhumanism but could not at all be a motivated devils advocate in defense of his position here. It's fallacious logic built on a weak premise.
Though he did point out that a lot of transhumanist literature is unrealistic, amateurish and scary. In that he is correct.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 05:29, Anna <[address removed]>
looks like none of you bright minds want to challenge my irritation
with Fukuyama's position.
As to Pete's suggestion, I think Fukuyama needs to start with
classics, like Dawkins's "Extended Phenotype".
On the arguments from emotions, the one he is the most concerned is
that if biotechnological manipulations removed our ability
to feel emotions like anger, hate, or violence, we would in some
sense not be human beings any more. He seems to be arguing that to
be a human being
one must possess all of the emotional capacities characteristic of
our species. I wish him good luck to never needing any Prozac then,
otherwise he would become inhuman.
Bob, keep the fun coming:)
On 2/15/2012 7:46 PM, Galen Matson wrote:
It boils down to this: "But it is
very possible that we will nibble at biotechnology's
tempting offerings without realizing that they come at a
frightful moral cost."
Meaning, we are not moral enough to be trusted. Best not
He then makes a slippery slope argument: "If we
start transforming ourselves into something superior, what
rights will these enhanced creatures claim, and what
rights will they possess when compared to those left
And then an emotional appeal: "We need a
similar humility concerning our human nature. If we do not
develop it soon, we may unwittingly invite the
transhumanists to deface humanity with their genetic
bulldozers and psychotropic shopping malls."
I hope this is not considered a convincing argument
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 04:30, Anna
limited group of Thinkers on Facebook are not replying,
so I figured I'll ask here: so, the most vocal opponent
of transhumanism is Francis Fukuyama. Though I myself
disagree with him on this, I would like to hear other
opinions on his position. Please, take a look at his
article on this topic and let me know if you agree or
see any flaws:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2004/09/01/transhumanism
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be
sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
Set my mailing list to email me
As they are sent
Don't send me mailing list messageshttp://www.meetup.com/tampa-bay-thinkers/list_prefs/?pref=0
Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked]
| [address removed]
This message was sent by Anna ([address removed]) from Tampa Bay Thinkers.
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
To learn more about Anna, visit his/her member profile