While the entire presentation was given from a transhumanist viewpoint there we're lots of the information that is very applicable to the current state of the debate. The truth of the matter is that none of us truly know how it will play itself out in society and thus everyone is anticipating what most tend to claim will not occur. I'm talking about a generalized movement that opposes radical enhancing/modification technology, so when it comes dealing with this eventual "uprising" Robert suggest the movement should embrace they're fears based on survival and convert them... (slide 52)
Why would anyone need converting if true tolerance and equality existed...
Wow seriously I don't get it, with statements like "Transhumanism has already won" and "convert them" how can such a movement gain "equal" rights if they don't see themselves as equals..
I spend a great deal of my time studying people on both sides and I think I understand where the fear is coming from, it's not coming from any such "anti-transhumanist" groups but rather it comes from prominent futures themselvs calling for the end of the current human existence. Not to mention at the extremes even calling humans a sub-species..
Are Transhumanist purposefully engaging in an unhealthy debate over the future of human race, a future they choose to no longer be a part of as an attempt to stir general public sympathy?
With that said, how do you go through so many movements in your presentation and derive that the core philosophy fueling any such movement would be acting out the sole behalf of survival. Many slaves survived being property, and as far as I know we don't purposefully kill gay people, therefore they must be content correct? Of course not I was being sarcastic and yes survival may be the cranial drive but the movements themselves described in this talked formed as a direct need for equality, an equality that is solely eroding with the aid of technology.
Yes change is coming but in the wake of this coming change not everything has to or will change...